Vern Humphrey
Member
Nope, I'm saying that Sunnell was right -- a tank gun on a non-tank vehicle is always a non-optimum solution.
Last Stryker variant unveiled - with BIG gun!
- Thread starter Preacherman
- Start date
- Status
Nope, I'm saying that Sunnell was right -- a tank gun on a non-tank vehicle is always a non-optimum solution.
Vern Humphrey wrote:
The thing is, the door kickers that I know that have been doing it for years are asking for a multiple fire weapon that can keep up with their patrols and not let every single hajji in the area know it's coming. As I said before, having rounds you can fire that aren't a million a pop when you need a second story room taken out is highly desirable from a supply standpoint and from an availability standpoint. You can fit a lot more ready rounds of 105mm in an ammo rack than you can javelin rocket tubes too!
The thing is, the door kickers that I know that have been doing it for years are asking for a multiple fire weapon that can keep up with their patrols and not let every single hajji in the area know it's coming. As I said before, having rounds you can fire that aren't a million a pop when you need a second story room taken out is highly desirable from a supply standpoint and from an availability standpoint. You can fit a lot more ready rounds of 105mm in an ammo rack than you can javelin rocket tubes too!
Jeff White wrote:
Sorry, slip of the finger. Infantry Team, Detachment, squad, section, what have you. It's a basic term for any team that debusses from the back of an armored vehicle. Be it a Canadian built LAV, a British APC or a Styker or USMC LAV. The main weapon is the infantry team that it carries. Everything else is support of that team.
Quote:
The extra vehicles are additional capabilities on the same platform for compatibility. All the other assets from the .50 caliber OHWS, to the engineer vehicle, to the 105mm equipped MGS is in support of that infantry force.
Well, which do you want? An exposed crewman in an M113 like everyone has been yelling is better or an overhead weapon station that is remote operated and keeps the TC out of the worst area of blast in an IED situation. Most casualties on AFVs when hit by IEDs are from the crew that are heads out of the hatches. In a stryker its usually the guy in the Air Guard hatch that has his head out in a patrol environment. Could be the same for a dismount in a M113 or the loader on an Abrams.
Trends are headed towards urban patrols being all buttoned up to prevent sniper bait. The Merkava IV is in this realm now, the same goes for the Israeli M60s that were uparmored. The Merkava IV just takes it an extra step with lots more cameras and LCD panels inside to give a pretty good view of the outside without a head exposed to snipers or IEDs.
So what's the expected road speed? Is it more than 40 mph? That's what A Bradley or an Abrams or just about any other tracked vehicle will do and those have track maintenance issues as well as fuel consumption issues. More fuel per mile used means more logistics tail you have to keep on hand for that patrol or it limits your convoy ops and bleeds that.
BFT is not the only thing that's getting civilian support. Wave of the future. From what I've heard, it's being used and received fairly well.
MPs aren't the only ones doing road bound patrols. MPs aren't the only ones doing Peacekeeping. MPs aren't the only ones escorting convoys. They're getting the new M1117 ASVs because they can stick to the road more and don't need to carry as many or any dismounts.
Care to explain why the Canadians and USMC seem to like their wheeled armor a lot?
It happens a lot. With the extra C4I hardware you can keep up with what's nearby and avoid the heavies or call in extra air support and you're not having to carry as much tail with you. Believe it or not, but that kind of deep penetration happened in WWII and it's consistent with a lot of other doctrine that is used with tracked armor. A lot of very together militaries use wheeled armor, have used it and still use it, for very good reasons. The Stryker is NOT going to replace the M1/M2 pair, it supplements it so you can get more assets in the field that have some realistic level of armor over and above up-armored HMMWVs or Level IV body armor being carried by grunts on their feet.
Oh and to answer your first question, I didn't serve because I was in my 20s under Clinton, every person I knew who was in the armed forces at the time couldn't get get their DD-214s fast enough.
Sorry, slip of the finger. Infantry Team, Detachment, squad, section, what have you. It's a basic term for any team that debusses from the back of an armored vehicle. Be it a Canadian built LAV, a British APC or a Styker or USMC LAV. The main weapon is the infantry team that it carries. Everything else is support of that team.
Quote:
The extra vehicles are additional capabilities on the same platform for compatibility. All the other assets from the .50 caliber OHWS, to the engineer vehicle, to the 105mm equipped MGS is in support of that infantry force.
Well, which do you want? An exposed crewman in an M113 like everyone has been yelling is better or an overhead weapon station that is remote operated and keeps the TC out of the worst area of blast in an IED situation. Most casualties on AFVs when hit by IEDs are from the crew that are heads out of the hatches. In a stryker its usually the guy in the Air Guard hatch that has his head out in a patrol environment. Could be the same for a dismount in a M113 or the loader on an Abrams.
Trends are headed towards urban patrols being all buttoned up to prevent sniper bait. The Merkava IV is in this realm now, the same goes for the Israeli M60s that were uparmored. The Merkava IV just takes it an extra step with lots more cameras and LCD panels inside to give a pretty good view of the outside without a head exposed to snipers or IEDs.
So what's the expected road speed? Is it more than 40 mph? That's what A Bradley or an Abrams or just about any other tracked vehicle will do and those have track maintenance issues as well as fuel consumption issues. More fuel per mile used means more logistics tail you have to keep on hand for that patrol or it limits your convoy ops and bleeds that.
BFT is not the only thing that's getting civilian support. Wave of the future. From what I've heard, it's being used and received fairly well.
MPs aren't the only ones doing road bound patrols. MPs aren't the only ones doing Peacekeeping. MPs aren't the only ones escorting convoys. They're getting the new M1117 ASVs because they can stick to the road more and don't need to carry as many or any dismounts.
Care to explain why the Canadians and USMC seem to like their wheeled armor a lot?
It happens a lot. With the extra C4I hardware you can keep up with what's nearby and avoid the heavies or call in extra air support and you're not having to carry as much tail with you. Believe it or not, but that kind of deep penetration happened in WWII and it's consistent with a lot of other doctrine that is used with tracked armor. A lot of very together militaries use wheeled armor, have used it and still use it, for very good reasons. The Stryker is NOT going to replace the M1/M2 pair, it supplements it so you can get more assets in the field that have some realistic level of armor over and above up-armored HMMWVs or Level IV body armor being carried by grunts on their feet.
Oh and to answer your first question, I didn't serve because I was in my 20s under Clinton, every person I knew who was in the armed forces at the time couldn't get get their DD-214s fast enough.
Beachmaster wrote:
The HMMWV was acquired to replace the Mule, the M151, the Gamma Goat and the M715. The armored package was added to it to make some sort of light cav scout vehicle for the airborne guys because the acquisition guys thought that would work well vice a purpose built light armored car for the purpose.
M113s and HMMWVs are as different as Bradleys and Abrams or an OHP and a Ticonderoga.
Except you're still limited to a non optimal shape for resisting mines (no V-shaped hull) and you're also limited to a lower road speed and the inherent limits of tracks on a road situation. A large wheeled vehicle at speed is a bear to handle. Oversteer on a tracked vehicle at speed is a nightmare.
You cite the M113 as better for some level of RPG resistance. That is just not there with an M113 unless you add the SAME armor package that the Styrker has, now it's heavier and SLOWER. Mine resistance is so bad that crews in Vietnam would ride on TOP of the APC rather than inside. Perhaps this is apocryphal, but supposedly the M113 floor would compress up towards the roof when an anti-tank mine was struck by the vehicle.
Well, that's because the HMMWV was shoved from being a light utility vehicle to an all day armored patrol vehicle for counter insurgency warfare and peacekeeping. Even the Canadian's are bitching about their G-Wagons and Auto-Union Munga's. They want something armored. You want to patrol roads all day and night, you want a wheeled vehicle otherwise, you'll spend the rest of your next night replacing road wheels, breaking track and replacing track blocks. Logistics Logicstics Logistics!
Balance is an issue. You can't put a dismount section in an Abrams unless we're going to start making Abrams Kangaroos ala the Canadian Rams in WWII. The wedding of tactical entry with C130s is a bit of a limit and the Stryker can get there, just limited on all up weight and the add on armor packages. It DOES beat going in on foot after the air landing though. The basic armor gets you 7.62mm protection all around (harder now days with new fancy AP rounds) and the ceramic applique gets you 14.5mm all around protection (the M113's don't have that level of protection).
Bradleys have a reactive package now to help protect them from the RPGs, yet they still suffer from well placed shots. And they weigh 30tons, strykers weight 19 tons. Which do you want? Light weight for easier portability or extra armor weight? Which do you want?
I only saw the Strkyer show partly, it showed some good details, but it was mass consumption media and the M1 Abrams show afterwards had some interesting diagrams of the Cannister shot with the steel balls shown in the cross section back in the propellant case.
Then, before that was the demonstration of the whole case, baseplate, sabot and all coming out of the barrel and the entire case splitting away like the sabot would (but in two pieces, not three)...sooo..
Yeah and your boat can't go 60 mph down a road with a convoy or patrol the streets of Mosul can it? Boats are boats, they stay in the water as I'm sure you know. What you're talking about here is the question of a better overhead weapon station or an upgraded turret (like those on the AAV7s with a Mk19 AND an MG). You don't can an entire navy boat because the weapon mount isn't as useable as you expected do you? You upgrade the weapon mount. Again, though, the Stryker is a transport vehicle that is meant to get its infantry into combat and provide supporting fires. It's not an MICV/IFV.
The HMMWV was acquired to replace the Mule, the M151, the Gamma Goat and the M715. The armored package was added to it to make some sort of light cav scout vehicle for the airborne guys because the acquisition guys thought that would work well vice a purpose built light armored car for the purpose.
M113s and HMMWVs are as different as Bradleys and Abrams or an OHP and a Ticonderoga.
Except you're still limited to a non optimal shape for resisting mines (no V-shaped hull) and you're also limited to a lower road speed and the inherent limits of tracks on a road situation. A large wheeled vehicle at speed is a bear to handle. Oversteer on a tracked vehicle at speed is a nightmare.
You cite the M113 as better for some level of RPG resistance. That is just not there with an M113 unless you add the SAME armor package that the Styrker has, now it's heavier and SLOWER. Mine resistance is so bad that crews in Vietnam would ride on TOP of the APC rather than inside. Perhaps this is apocryphal, but supposedly the M113 floor would compress up towards the roof when an anti-tank mine was struck by the vehicle.
Well, that's because the HMMWV was shoved from being a light utility vehicle to an all day armored patrol vehicle for counter insurgency warfare and peacekeeping. Even the Canadian's are bitching about their G-Wagons and Auto-Union Munga's. They want something armored. You want to patrol roads all day and night, you want a wheeled vehicle otherwise, you'll spend the rest of your next night replacing road wheels, breaking track and replacing track blocks. Logistics Logicstics Logistics!
Balance is an issue. You can't put a dismount section in an Abrams unless we're going to start making Abrams Kangaroos ala the Canadian Rams in WWII. The wedding of tactical entry with C130s is a bit of a limit and the Stryker can get there, just limited on all up weight and the add on armor packages. It DOES beat going in on foot after the air landing though. The basic armor gets you 7.62mm protection all around (harder now days with new fancy AP rounds) and the ceramic applique gets you 14.5mm all around protection (the M113's don't have that level of protection).
Bradleys have a reactive package now to help protect them from the RPGs, yet they still suffer from well placed shots. And they weigh 30tons, strykers weight 19 tons. Which do you want? Light weight for easier portability or extra armor weight? Which do you want?
I only saw the Strkyer show partly, it showed some good details, but it was mass consumption media and the M1 Abrams show afterwards had some interesting diagrams of the Cannister shot with the steel balls shown in the cross section back in the propellant case.
Then, before that was the demonstration of the whole case, baseplate, sabot and all coming out of the barrel and the entire case splitting away like the sabot would (but in two pieces, not three)...sooo..Yeah and your boat can't go 60 mph down a road with a convoy or patrol the streets of Mosul can it? Boats are boats, they stay in the water as I'm sure you know. What you're talking about here is the question of a better overhead weapon station or an upgraded turret (like those on the AAV7s with a Mk19 AND an MG). You don't can an entire navy boat because the weapon mount isn't as useable as you expected do you? You upgrade the weapon mount. Again, though, the Stryker is a transport vehicle that is meant to get its infantry into combat and provide supporting fires. It's not an MICV/IFV.
The other thing the TV show focused on was the electronics. Last I saw, electronics were not vehicle dependent. I can upgrade the old 8 Track stereo in my old truck to one with a CD player, no need to buy a new truck. My vol Fire Department just upgraded all of our radios without having to buy one new vehicle!I expect that we'll see this sort of stuff on other armored vehicles as time passes, however the Strykers got it first because (kinda like the Ticonderogas did with AEGIS and VLS cells) of the idea that they were bleeding edge and needed the extra SA that the Blue Force Tracker system would allow. Seeing as how units can get assistance and direct feeds from overhead assets (UAVs) and have VERY good situational awareness as to where the enemy is and where blue forces are. Our forces are so good that they tend to have more Blue on Blue (previously thought of as acceptible trades for the Red force casualties) than Blue on Red so we have to get especially careful now.
But then you'd still be tied to the limits of the tracks and the lower speed and maintenance issues of the M113.
Based on what?
The tracks limit your ability to patrol and escort. You're asking for mutually exclusive roles here, Tracks are slower than wheeled vehicles. Are you going go tie your Convoys to 40mph speeds through hot areas because that's what your Upgraded M113 can go? What you describe, except for the heavier firepower (which I expect will come in the form of the 25mm Delco turret or perhaps a Bradley turret dropped on it (but your problem is the C130 portablity limit! drop that and you can go with a larger turret)) AND your demand for tracks.
There aren't enough marines for most of the missions and as far as the Navy, what does the army need with a grey funnels, flags, bunting and marching bands?
Stryker Armor protection against Blasts:
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/480-436.asp
This is I believe copies of the images showing the VBED'd Stryker in question
http://community.webshots.com/slideshow?ID=252692112
Here's an article written by one of the users:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26535-2005Apr4.html
Lt Colonel Kurilla is the Colonel who's unit Deuce-Four was covered by Michael Yon. (http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/)
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/480-436.asp
This is I believe copies of the images showing the VBED'd Stryker in question
http://community.webshots.com/slideshow?ID=252692112
Here's an article written by one of the users:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26535-2005Apr4.html
Lt Colonel Kurilla is the Colonel who's unit Deuce-Four was covered by Michael Yon. (http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/)
Crosshair
Member
Has ANYONE read the PDF I posted?? It quite clearly lists the shortcomings of the Stryker. We do not need to develop the 105mm gun system. We already have a type classified system that WORKS, the M8 Armored Gun System. It is airdrop certified (Stryker is not airdrop certified) and has a modular armor system that (depending on configuration) can stop 30mm cannon fire. You can drop it with the standard light armor, then have extra armor airdroped if the situation requires it. If you use band tracks the whole "wheels are faster and better on roads" argument goes out the window. Fact is that a few well placed rounds of 7.62x54R (in the tires) will slow a Stryker to a crawl, making it an easy target if help is not nearby.
The M8 AGS
The M8 AGS
George Hill
Member
I'd rather have the Porsche 928 that Bill Cosby drove in "Leonard Part 6".
pcf
Member
Have you read the PDF you've posted? Who is Victor O'Reilly and the Cochrane Institute?
Your PDF was published in 2003, it's 2006 now, most of the points raised have turned out to be false.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, speaks to ones credibility better than publishing instructions on how to take out US military vehicles and kill their crews. I know, it was for the troops.........
I can teach a dog to whistle dixie faster than the military can get an "optimal solution" out of the planning phase. The Stryker program needs work, but given the choice between nothing today and waiting 10 years for an optimal solution, and an imperfect Stryker, I know what I would choose.
carebear
Member
If it's the same Victor O'Reilly I know of, he's an Irish action/thriller/mystery novelist who does quite a bit of research for his books.
I think the Cochrane thing is something he set up for his non-fiction military writing in conjunction with some retired Generals.
I liked his novels a lot, but I'm not sure why he's particularly more qualified to talk about current military topics than currently serving officers.
I do recall he had an Airborne unit use Sheridans to good effect in an aerial assault at the end of one of his books.
As far as a bullet hole "slowing the Stryker to a crawl" that also hasn't been born out by actual AAR's coming in from Iraq to my knowledge.
I DO know I drove a HMMV at 30-45 mph for a day and a half across the worst 29 Stumps had to offer with two tires with blown open sidewalls due to a lack of spares.
I think the Stryker could stand to have a flat or two out of 8, I know LAV's can.
I think the Cochrane thing is something he set up for his non-fiction military writing in conjunction with some retired Generals.
I liked his novels a lot, but I'm not sure why he's particularly more qualified to talk about current military topics than currently serving officers.
I do recall he had an Airborne unit use Sheridans to good effect in an aerial assault at the end of one of his books.
As far as a bullet hole "slowing the Stryker to a crawl" that also hasn't been born out by actual AAR's coming in from Iraq to my knowledge.
I DO know I drove a HMMV at 30-45 mph for a day and a half across the worst 29 Stumps had to offer with two tires with blown open sidewalls due to a lack of spares.
I think the Stryker could stand to have a flat or two out of 8, I know LAV's can.
rmgill said;
How about a turret with a real gun like the Bradley and the LAV-25 carry? We've put a rifle squad in what amounts to an armored truck. All that weight and cube and it gives them what? A .50 caliber MG. That doesn't work.
Yeah, that's a big increase in capability.
If you think that we're conducting operations at speeds above 40 mph even with Strykers, you're dreaming. There is no way you can see threats when you are moving that fast. The speed in used to dash across danger areas. Patrols are not conducted at maximum speed down the road. Oh yes roads..brings up another point. The Stryker is pretty much road bound throughout much of the world. All wheeled vehicles are. So we've given up mobility and firepower for this wheeled POS.
The day will come when when there will be a short notice deployment and then all of this high tech stuff that requires extensive contractor support to keep operational will let us down. The more dependent we become on this, the more it's failure will degrade our operations. Good men will die because of this wave of the future.
That kind of fight hasn't happened since the 1940s. So I hardly think it happens a lot. Show me one example from WWII where a truck mounted unit conducted a deep penetration through the enemies second echelon.
Where do you think this extra air support is going to come from? Sorry but the Air Force doesn't load up fighter bombers and orbit the battlefield waiting for a CAS mission. You're suggesting that we take a force armed with small arms and mount them on trucks and drive them through the enemies second echelon into ther rear areas. The Stryker Brigades are limited in how fast they can move by their artillery. Let's see, the M198 155mm towed howitzer, pulled by a 5 ton truck. Not a very mobile combination at all.
The Styker doesn't bring anything to the fight. It's a battlefield taxi for dismounted Infantry. It can't fight on its own. All it does is give us slightly increased mobility. We could do the same thing with trucks. For the same weight and cube we could have fighting vehicles like the LAV-25.
So you have zero first hand experience to base all these strong opinions on? You've never humped a ruck or tried to move wheeled vehicles cross country after a deluge of rain? You're basing everything on information published in the press on on places like James Dunnigan's Strategy Page? My friend, the real world seldom is like the brochures, especially when it comes to the military.
The Mule, the Gamma Goat and the M715 were out of service years before the first HMMWV was ever fielded. They were replaced by the M880 series commercial trucks (Dodges) in the late 1970s and the M880 series was replaced with Chevy commercial trucks (pickups and Blazers) in the 1980s. Only the M151 was in service in any quantity when the HMMWV was fielded.
The first armored HMMWVs were TOW carriers. They were designed to provide limited protection against fragmentation. When they had the kevlar liners installed the extra weight really degraded their performance.
At the time the XM8 AGS was still under development. Orginal plans for the light divisions called for a mech battalion (on LAV-25s) and a light armored battalion (XM8 AGS) in the division base. This was later scrapped as being too heavy.
Now we have the Stryker units which don't have the firepower of the LAV but have the same weight and cube. We have taken a giant step backwards into the 1950s with battlefield taxis instead of fighting vehicles.
Jeff
How about a turret with a real gun like the Bradley and the LAV-25 carry? We've put a rifle squad in what amounts to an armored truck. All that weight and cube and it gives them what? A .50 caliber MG. That doesn't work.
Yeah, that's a big increase in capability.
If you think that we're conducting operations at speeds above 40 mph even with Strykers, you're dreaming. There is no way you can see threats when you are moving that fast. The speed in used to dash across danger areas. Patrols are not conducted at maximum speed down the road. Oh yes roads..brings up another point. The Stryker is pretty much road bound throughout much of the world. All wheeled vehicles are. So we've given up mobility and firepower for this wheeled POS.
The day will come when when there will be a short notice deployment and then all of this high tech stuff that requires extensive contractor support to keep operational will let us down. The more dependent we become on this, the more it's failure will degrade our operations. Good men will die because of this wave of the future.
That kind of fight hasn't happened since the 1940s. So I hardly think it happens a lot. Show me one example from WWII where a truck mounted unit conducted a deep penetration through the enemies second echelon.
Where do you think this extra air support is going to come from? Sorry but the Air Force doesn't load up fighter bombers and orbit the battlefield waiting for a CAS mission. You're suggesting that we take a force armed with small arms and mount them on trucks and drive them through the enemies second echelon into ther rear areas. The Stryker Brigades are limited in how fast they can move by their artillery. Let's see, the M198 155mm towed howitzer, pulled by a 5 ton truck. Not a very mobile combination at all.
The Styker doesn't bring anything to the fight. It's a battlefield taxi for dismounted Infantry. It can't fight on its own. All it does is give us slightly increased mobility. We could do the same thing with trucks. For the same weight and cube we could have fighting vehicles like the LAV-25.
So you have zero first hand experience to base all these strong opinions on? You've never humped a ruck or tried to move wheeled vehicles cross country after a deluge of rain? You're basing everything on information published in the press on on places like James Dunnigan's Strategy Page? My friend, the real world seldom is like the brochures, especially when it comes to the military.
The Mule, the Gamma Goat and the M715 were out of service years before the first HMMWV was ever fielded. They were replaced by the M880 series commercial trucks (Dodges) in the late 1970s and the M880 series was replaced with Chevy commercial trucks (pickups and Blazers) in the 1980s. Only the M151 was in service in any quantity when the HMMWV was fielded.
The first armored HMMWVs were TOW carriers. They were designed to provide limited protection against fragmentation. When they had the kevlar liners installed the extra weight really degraded their performance.
At the time the XM8 AGS was still under development. Orginal plans for the light divisions called for a mech battalion (on LAV-25s) and a light armored battalion (XM8 AGS) in the division base. This was later scrapped as being too heavy.
Now we have the Stryker units which don't have the firepower of the LAV but have the same weight and cube. We have taken a giant step backwards into the 1950s with battlefield taxis instead of fighting vehicles.
Jeff
Jeff White wrote:
What are you arguing for Bradleys or M113s? Tracks over wheels? Bigger guns over smaller guns?
The Basic Stryker is an APC. Personel Carrier. It's Firepower is the dismounted infantry. The .50 cal is a support weapon for that dismount team.
The Bradley carries a 6 man infantry team. The Stryker carries a 9 man team, practice from what I've heard is for 3 more men squeezed in for a 12 man team plus the 2 crew. They have javelin for ATGM purposes against tanks. The larger turret cuts down on what you can carry for dismounts. I expect that if the C130 Portability require were dropped we'd have the 25mm armed turret like you say as either a support vehicle or as a scout vehicle just like the Canadians use.
Speeds will depend on missions. If they're escorting a convoy, then you bet that they'll be pushing 60 to keep the convoy speed up. You don't want escorts for a convoy that are slower than the convoy. Patrols are slow, but QRF teams are fast. Sprint speed is VERY useful in combat operations.
You underestimate the ability of wheeled armor to get around on soft ground off road. They're far more useful than you imply and the number of users that have good effect to show for wheeled armor (including some very effective militaries like the British, Canadians and South Africans as well as the Germans)
Additionally, I own 3 armored cars. I've had two of them off road and in pretty soft ground. Soft ground will stick ANYTHING if it's soft enough and the vehicle is heavy enough. I've seen photo's of M1 Abrams stuck. I've seen other tracked vehicle stuck. I've gotten my armored car through stuff that would have stuck other vehicles depending on the undercarriage arrangement. I've also driven it through the same spot about a hundred times and stuck it twice because of the ground and not gunning it at the right moment.
So ditch the technology because of the logistics tail? How far back do we go? Pointy STicks? Do you realize the level of Log tail you're talking about with plain old tracked armor like M1/M2s?
The Technology is here, it's getting used, it's got the vendors on hand in pocket to help serve the vehicles. Did you know that there were vendors in Kuwait working on Abrams during Gulf War I to help deal with teething issues at the depot level? Are you advocating a similar ditching of Abrams too?
Trucks are not Wheeled armor. They are different. Mind you, you realize the big left hook in ODS was followed/maintained by thousands of trucks following the tanks carrying the fuel ammo, parts, supplies and logistics tail.
The Marines do it. The Air Force does it with AC130s, and with A10s and other mud movers. Hell, I think they've put BUFFs up on CAS standby in Afghanistan loaded up with JDAMs. Combat ops as we increase temp and shorten decision making time needs better comms. There's even the big move to UAV's with onboard weapons for support. Communications between ground and air forces is nothing new. Better communications that filters out the extra crap and gets the data across between all parties involved is needed. FBCB2, BFT and MCS are all directions to make as much necessary information flow and not bother the crews with anything else. That takes time and work to really know what does and does not work. Ultimately that's all separate from Stryker because that could be applied to any system, be it a HET towing (Well, just BFT and perhaps MCS) a M1 with the same system or with more advanced vehicles.
M1129 Styrker Mortar Carrier. On board 120mm Mortar. 2 120mm mortars at the Company level.
You do realize your tracks that you're advocating as the ultimate deep strike weapon are also limited by a wheeled logistics tail that HAS to follow them with POL, ammo, parts and supplies right?
The LAV has lower armor protection and is I believe 7.62mm all around and .50 frontal. 14.5mm levels are slated for an upgrade that will increase weight. I think there are issues with the LAV-25 style turret on the larger stryker chassis that is able to handle the increased armor protection levels and an overall height issue with the C-130 portability requirement.
No, I'm basing it on the following things:
1. Owning and maintaining my own wheeled armor that I take to the field for fun on Military posts when I have the time. (1960 Daimler ferret, 1942 Daimler Dingo, the Humber is still being rebuilt) I'd like to think I know a little about driving wheeled armored vehicles on and off road as well as what it takes to dig one out (all by your self! :banghead
2. Turning up at Military vehicle events and chatting with other armor operators, users, owners, development contractors, etc about developments and what's working and what's not
3. Talking to people that use the hardware or have worked around it at military bases when I'm there pursuing my hobby.
4. Reading manuals when I can find them.
5. Reading AARs
6. Talking to users that use similar vehicles the world over like Canadians, British, South Africans, etc.
Wow, so I'm getting the "you're not a professional so your opinion is Bull ****" argument from a moderator thehighroad.org. Oleg will be thrilled.
Sorry, I confused the M715s with the M880s as a light cargo carrier role. The M715 is a 5/4 ton and the M880 is a 1/4 ton, bit of a cockup. But the provision was still there for the HMMWV to replace vehicles that had been taken out of service or were being taken out of service, Mules, Goats, Mutts, M880s. Still I think you're putting the Gamma Goat out to pasture too soon because if there wasn't the Goat, what would they've used to carry S250 Shelters in if not the HMMWV Shelter Carrier? I can't pin down the exact disposal of all the Goats, but based on the ones that I still see coming out of DRMO sites, I think it was in the 80s concurrent with the HMMWV entry into service.
Which gets to the root of the issue I've observed. The US Army after WWII decided that it didn't like frontline use Armored Cars (M8s and M20s), so they got out of the business. But the acquisition folks keep seeing the need and keep trying to come up with something to fit the bill with an add on kit as in the case of the HMMWV. That hasn't been as effective as a purpose built armored vehicle has been.
AGS got killed because it was a 1 use system. I'd have loved to have seen it. There just wasn't enough other uses on that platform for the rest of the needs of the light forces that the Light Infantry Battalions get out of the Strykers. In the case of the Stryker you have parts commonality across an engineer vehicle, an APC, a fire support vehicle, a mortar carrier, a medivac vehicle, a command vehicle, a scout vehicle, NBC Recce vehicle and a ATGM vehicle.
Honestly, we'd have been better off getting a contract for Scorpion light tanks with the 90mm gun for a next to zero development time, but since it wasn't invented here, we had to develop AGS to do the same thing.
I'd argue that the Stryker Company probably has as much firepower or more than a LAV-25 Company, with more dismounts to get the job done. I'd like to see the 25mm cannon armed versions like the Canadians have, but I think the artificial C130 limit makes that difficult with the Piranha III chassis that the Stryker is based off of.
What are you arguing for Bradleys or M113s? Tracks over wheels? Bigger guns over smaller guns?
The Basic Stryker is an APC. Personel Carrier. It's Firepower is the dismounted infantry. The .50 cal is a support weapon for that dismount team.
The Bradley carries a 6 man infantry team. The Stryker carries a 9 man team, practice from what I've heard is for 3 more men squeezed in for a 12 man team plus the 2 crew. They have javelin for ATGM purposes against tanks. The larger turret cuts down on what you can carry for dismounts. I expect that if the C130 Portability require were dropped we'd have the 25mm armed turret like you say as either a support vehicle or as a scout vehicle just like the Canadians use.
Speeds will depend on missions. If they're escorting a convoy, then you bet that they'll be pushing 60 to keep the convoy speed up. You don't want escorts for a convoy that are slower than the convoy. Patrols are slow, but QRF teams are fast. Sprint speed is VERY useful in combat operations.
You underestimate the ability of wheeled armor to get around on soft ground off road. They're far more useful than you imply and the number of users that have good effect to show for wheeled armor (including some very effective militaries like the British, Canadians and South Africans as well as the Germans)
Additionally, I own 3 armored cars. I've had two of them off road and in pretty soft ground. Soft ground will stick ANYTHING if it's soft enough and the vehicle is heavy enough. I've seen photo's of M1 Abrams stuck. I've seen other tracked vehicle stuck. I've gotten my armored car through stuff that would have stuck other vehicles depending on the undercarriage arrangement. I've also driven it through the same spot about a hundred times and stuck it twice because of the ground and not gunning it at the right moment.
So ditch the technology because of the logistics tail? How far back do we go? Pointy STicks? Do you realize the level of Log tail you're talking about with plain old tracked armor like M1/M2s?
The Technology is here, it's getting used, it's got the vendors on hand in pocket to help serve the vehicles. Did you know that there were vendors in Kuwait working on Abrams during Gulf War I to help deal with teething issues at the depot level? Are you advocating a similar ditching of Abrams too?
Trucks are not Wheeled armor. They are different. Mind you, you realize the big left hook in ODS was followed/maintained by thousands of trucks following the tanks carrying the fuel ammo, parts, supplies and logistics tail.
The Marines do it. The Air Force does it with AC130s, and with A10s and other mud movers. Hell, I think they've put BUFFs up on CAS standby in Afghanistan loaded up with JDAMs. Combat ops as we increase temp and shorten decision making time needs better comms. There's even the big move to UAV's with onboard weapons for support. Communications between ground and air forces is nothing new. Better communications that filters out the extra crap and gets the data across between all parties involved is needed. FBCB2, BFT and MCS are all directions to make as much necessary information flow and not bother the crews with anything else. That takes time and work to really know what does and does not work. Ultimately that's all separate from Stryker because that could be applied to any system, be it a HET towing (Well, just BFT and perhaps MCS) a M1 with the same system or with more advanced vehicles.
M1129 Styrker Mortar Carrier. On board 120mm Mortar. 2 120mm mortars at the Company level.
You do realize your tracks that you're advocating as the ultimate deep strike weapon are also limited by a wheeled logistics tail that HAS to follow them with POL, ammo, parts and supplies right?
The LAV has lower armor protection and is I believe 7.62mm all around and .50 frontal. 14.5mm levels are slated for an upgrade that will increase weight. I think there are issues with the LAV-25 style turret on the larger stryker chassis that is able to handle the increased armor protection levels and an overall height issue with the C-130 portability requirement.
No, I'm basing it on the following things:
1. Owning and maintaining my own wheeled armor that I take to the field for fun on Military posts when I have the time. (1960 Daimler ferret, 1942 Daimler Dingo, the Humber is still being rebuilt) I'd like to think I know a little about driving wheeled armored vehicles on and off road as well as what it takes to dig one out (all by your self! :banghead
2. Turning up at Military vehicle events and chatting with other armor operators, users, owners, development contractors, etc about developments and what's working and what's not
3. Talking to people that use the hardware or have worked around it at military bases when I'm there pursuing my hobby.
4. Reading manuals when I can find them.
5. Reading AARs
6. Talking to users that use similar vehicles the world over like Canadians, British, South Africans, etc.
Wow, so I'm getting the "you're not a professional so your opinion is Bull ****" argument from a moderator thehighroad.org. Oleg will be thrilled.
Sorry, I confused the M715s with the M880s as a light cargo carrier role. The M715 is a 5/4 ton and the M880 is a 1/4 ton, bit of a cockup. But the provision was still there for the HMMWV to replace vehicles that had been taken out of service or were being taken out of service, Mules, Goats, Mutts, M880s. Still I think you're putting the Gamma Goat out to pasture too soon because if there wasn't the Goat, what would they've used to carry S250 Shelters in if not the HMMWV Shelter Carrier? I can't pin down the exact disposal of all the Goats, but based on the ones that I still see coming out of DRMO sites, I think it was in the 80s concurrent with the HMMWV entry into service.
Ok, I just spoke with a friend that owns a Gamma Goat, delivered in 1971 and had a service tag from 1985. He has photos of them in ODS.
Which gets to the root of the issue I've observed. The US Army after WWII decided that it didn't like frontline use Armored Cars (M8s and M20s), so they got out of the business. But the acquisition folks keep seeing the need and keep trying to come up with something to fit the bill with an add on kit as in the case of the HMMWV. That hasn't been as effective as a purpose built armored vehicle has been.
AGS got killed because it was a 1 use system. I'd have loved to have seen it. There just wasn't enough other uses on that platform for the rest of the needs of the light forces that the Light Infantry Battalions get out of the Strykers. In the case of the Stryker you have parts commonality across an engineer vehicle, an APC, a fire support vehicle, a mortar carrier, a medivac vehicle, a command vehicle, a scout vehicle, NBC Recce vehicle and a ATGM vehicle.
Honestly, we'd have been better off getting a contract for Scorpion light tanks with the 90mm gun for a next to zero development time, but since it wasn't invented here, we had to develop AGS to do the same thing.
I'd argue that the Stryker Company probably has as much firepower or more than a LAV-25 Company, with more dismounts to get the job done. I'd like to see the 25mm cannon armed versions like the Canadians have, but I think the artificial C130 limit makes that difficult with the Piranha III chassis that the Stryker is based off of.
So, were we discussing a counter-insurgency environment or a major land war?
What works well in one environment might not work in the other.
Fuel efficient long range wheeled vehicles may be better for road patrols in the semi-permissive environment of a counter-insurgency campaign but get blown to pieces in a serious fight.
Tracked vehicles carry the armor and firepower necessary to survive and dominate the high intensity battlefield, yet they are not as good for patrolling areas of low intensity conflict.
It would appear the US Army is attempting to "get both" with the attendant financial difficulties of that course. We still have the M1 and M2 for the heavy stuff, and we have been trying to find out what works for the lighter stuff for the past several years.
I do not believe anyone in this thread has been discussing the replacement of the M1 and M2 with wheeled vehicles. Incidentally this was tried back in the 80's with the 9th Div. "light motorized" experiment, as part of the Rapid Deployment Force. I seem to recall they fared poorly at the NTC against conventional armor.
What works well in one environment might not work in the other.
Fuel efficient long range wheeled vehicles may be better for road patrols in the semi-permissive environment of a counter-insurgency campaign but get blown to pieces in a serious fight.
Tracked vehicles carry the armor and firepower necessary to survive and dominate the high intensity battlefield, yet they are not as good for patrolling areas of low intensity conflict.
It would appear the US Army is attempting to "get both" with the attendant financial difficulties of that course. We still have the M1 and M2 for the heavy stuff, and we have been trying to find out what works for the lighter stuff for the past several years.
I do not believe anyone in this thread has been discussing the replacement of the M1 and M2 with wheeled vehicles. Incidentally this was tried back in the 80's with the 9th Div. "light motorized" experiment, as part of the Rapid Deployment Force. I seem to recall they fared poorly at the NTC against conventional armor.
NMshooter wrote:
Armor weight is not directly coupled to motive form. There are lighter armored vehicles on tracks than the Stryker. There are heavier weight tank destroyers with heavier weapons like the Centauro (14.5mm side, 25mm frontal, 27.5 tons, 105mm cannon) or the Rooikat (simlar size/weight). Bradleys carry less armor and are heavier and have less firepower and speed.
Given how much patrolling we've tried to do with the Bradleys and M1s (KFOR, IFOR, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, etc) I would argue that FINALLLY having a useful armored vehicle that doesn't get as ragged after being run around as much as wheeled armor can be is fiscally prudent. One system does not fit all missions any more than one gun fits all situations.
Nope, they're not. Neither is Sparky the big advocate of the 'Gavin'. Generally, any light infantry fares poorly against conventional armor because they can't get out of the impact zones of artillery and can't go toe to toe with armor. As one old light infantry friend of mine said after I'd bested him in a table top war game, Light Infantry, too light to fight, too heavy to run.
For peacekeeping and counter insurgency warfare, what I've seen of the reports with details behind the, the Stryker is working well. I suspect they could be used in heavier warfare, a number of folks I know that have rotated through NTC or in one case helped run JRTC, think they could do some good work in heavier ops, but not by themselves. They certainly do better than the 82nd would have when they were dropped as speed bumps to the Iraqi Advance at the start of the First Gulf War. The Stryker brigades have a heavier distribution of Anti-Tank assets and heavy mortars down to the company level along with the the hopefully working MGS.
That seems to be set aside over "Tracks are better than wheels!" and "more armor is needed, use the lighter armed M113 because it has more armor!" (when the M113 has less armor).
Armor weight is not directly coupled to motive form. There are lighter armored vehicles on tracks than the Stryker. There are heavier weight tank destroyers with heavier weapons like the Centauro (14.5mm side, 25mm frontal, 27.5 tons, 105mm cannon) or the Rooikat (simlar size/weight). Bradleys carry less armor and are heavier and have less firepower and speed.
Given how much patrolling we've tried to do with the Bradleys and M1s (KFOR, IFOR, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, etc) I would argue that FINALLLY having a useful armored vehicle that doesn't get as ragged after being run around as much as wheeled armor can be is fiscally prudent. One system does not fit all missions any more than one gun fits all situations.
Nope, they're not. Neither is Sparky the big advocate of the 'Gavin'. Generally, any light infantry fares poorly against conventional armor because they can't get out of the impact zones of artillery and can't go toe to toe with armor. As one old light infantry friend of mine said after I'd bested him in a table top war game, Light Infantry, too light to fight, too heavy to run.
For peacekeeping and counter insurgency warfare, what I've seen of the reports with details behind the, the Stryker is working well. I suspect they could be used in heavier warfare, a number of folks I know that have rotated through NTC or in one case helped run JRTC, think they could do some good work in heavier ops, but not by themselves. They certainly do better than the 82nd would have when they were dropped as speed bumps to the Iraqi Advance at the start of the First Gulf War. The Stryker brigades have a heavier distribution of Anti-Tank assets and heavy mortars down to the company level along with the the hopefully working MGS.
rmgill said;
The 113 is worn out. It's the same 1950s technology as the Stryker, an armored personnel carrier not a fighting vehicle. Neither of them have a place on todays battlefield. They were doctrinally correct in the 40s and 50s they are dinosauers now.
There are many wheeled IFVs we could have bought if we had to have wheels. The standard LAV-25 comes with the same turret (minus the TOW launcher) that the Bradley has. We had that in the early 1980s. An M242 chain gun and an M240 COAX with a day/night integrated sight unit and a stabilized turret beats an M2 or MK19 any day of the week. The Stryker is a 50 year trip into the past. Bringing back those old worn out 113s would be as bad.
Yep, just like we had with the M3 halftrack in WWII and Korea and the M113 until the early 80s. Tell me where that's an improvement over an IFV?
Every rifle squad in the Army has the Javelin. It beats the Dragon (talk about a POS) but it's not the end all when it comes to ATGMs. It doesn't have the range of the TOW and like all ATGMs has a pretty big firing signature. So our lucky Stryker Javelin gunner has to fire the missile, then run for his vehicle and hope he gets there before every bit of lead the enemy is pouring at that firing signature gets to him. He has no more advantage then a lightfighter.
That depends on if the old M900 series 5 tons that are still in service in large numbers can actually still run 60 mph, or if the tactical tires on the trailers will sustain that speed in the heat for very long. Convoy speed is determined by your slowest vehicle. If you've got a 5 ton with clogged fuel and air filters and it won't do but 30 mph, then your convoy speed is 30 mph.
I served on active duty from 6 December 1974 until 1 November 2003, all but the last 7 years as an Infantryman. I spent the last 7 years as an artilleryman after a reclassification. I have moved both wheeled and tracked vehicles in every type of terrain you can find on this planet, from the arctic, to the jungle to the plains to the mountains to the desert. There are many places that no vehicles can go. But you are bring disingenuous by saying that wheeled vehicles can come close to the same mobility as tracks.
The Canadians had some problems with theirs during Brimfrost 83 in the interior of Alaska. I was there and saw it with my own eyes.
You can get anything stuck. But you can't take a wheeled armored vehcile everywhere you can go with tracks. It doesn't work that way no matter how many times you say you can.
Yes ditch the technology until it is ready for soldiers to use and maintain. Technical support contractors aren't soldiers. You have to expend more of your resources to protect them. You can't order them into a hot area to do BDAR. You have to plan your maintenance around their work schedules and contracts. They can get tired and quit and there is nothing the commander can do about it. I saw this first hand from McDonnel Douglas when we fielded the Dragon. I had the audacity to ask one of their tech reps (who came out to mount the tracker on the missile and run checks on it before we actually fired it) if there was a tech rep for each squad in case we had to deploy. This young SSG ended up taliing to the Bn Commander about that. I saw it again with Loral when we fielded MILES. Loral had the contract to provide training, including the observer/controller training. While much of the premise of the OC training was to train to standard, not to time, we trained to time because the contractors couldn't draw overtime. The routine deployment of contractor personnel to troubleshoot and maintain our equipment will eventually cost lives.
I'm very much aware of what kind of logistics it takes to support the M1/M2. Quick without looking somewhere, tell me how many vehicles are in a heavy Bn Support Platoon and what kind are they. How many mechanics and what MOSs? How much PLL does a unit carry?
Yes I'm well aware we had vendors in Kuwait. The prepositioned equipment we had in theater and the stuff we moved in after the 1st Gulf War was all maintained by contractors.
This high tech stuff like Blueforce Tracker and FBCB2 is still unproven. It doesn't work well enough and is not reliable enough to be used in combat. It's great when it's working and everything is right, but when it's down it's worse then nothing. And it makes our soldiers depend on it and forget how to do things the old way. PLGR has destroyed land navigation skill. The auto lay system in Paladin has been around a long time and is considered proven. yet a few years ago at Ft Hood one howitzer fired 3200 mils out and shelled a civilian ranch. If the section chief had done something as simple as dismounted and check his azimuth of fire with an old fashioned M2 compass that would not have happened. Fortunately no one was injured.
Yes, but we didn't ask those trucks to fight through the second echelon of the Republican Guard and race ahead. Wheeled armor armed with .50 caliber MGs and MK19s cannot fight that kind of battle.
The air commander has much better things to with his airplanes then fly CAS. There aren't enough airframes to attack the enemy infrastructure and fly CAS. A battalion attack might be allocated two to four sorties of CAS. Everything else is flying battlefield air interdiction, and other missions of strategic importance. Ask the SOF guys who fought on Roberts Ridge how responsive CAS is. AC130s can't operate where there is any airdefense threat. Attack helicopters require Corps FA assets to fire SEAD missions on their ingress and egress routes. The deep strikes that were tried in OIF 1 failed because we left the Corps FA at home and they had no SEAD on their ingress routes and took too much damage. When you call for fire, you want it then, not in maybe 30 minutes if you're lcky and there is a mission in the air they can divert if your target is a higher priority. You can only get that resonsiveness with artillery. Something they paid lip service to in the new Stryker brigades.
FBCB2, BFT, MCS, JSTARS and all those other systems are so overloading our commanders with information that it's not cutting the decision time but increasing it. You get Brigade commanders trying to play squad leader from the TOC and losing sight of the big picture. And since there is no Redforce tracker we have commanders at high levels jumping in and bother commanders who are fighting with inane questions. It all happened in OIF1.
We sitll have too many digital systems that can't talk to each other.
Copmbat is not the time and place to work the bugs out of systems like that.
What's the range and rate of fire? How many rounds does the M1129 Mortar carrier carry and what provision for resupply is there?
Of course, but they carry enough combat power to actually fight on open terrain. Strykers also have a logistics train you know. A much larger logistics train then a light Infantry unit, but both the light Infantry unit and the Stryker Brigade carry the same organic firepower. So in exchange for the increased logistics tail, we can now move our light Infantry at the same speed we can in 5 ton trucks, but we can give them a little better protection. Doesn't seem like much of a trade off to me.
I'll trade the armor for the M242 chain gun and M240 COAX any day of the week. The second we bolted the anti-RPG slats onto the Stryker we gave up the C130 transportability requirement.
I think it's important that people who comment on issues like this let everyone know what their frame of reference is. I never insinuated that your opinion was invalid. I just wanted to know where you were coming from. On the internet, everyone can be an expert in any field thay want to be. Let me tell you that no amount of research or playing with your own personal vehicles will replace operational experience. Vern is one of the most professional soldiers I've ever been in contact with. He was present and involved when Air/Land Battle was born. I read his articles in Infantry magazine years before THR ever existed.
The M880 was also classed as a 5/4 ton, but IIRC it was on a 3/4 ton Dodge. They never built enough Gamma Goats to give them to all the units that rated them. They were a nightmare to maintain.
There was a version of the Chevy trucks that replaced the M880s that carried that commo shelter before the HMMWV. I don't remember seeing a Gamma Goat much mast 83, but I'm sure some served until the HMMWV was fielded.
Did you ever think there might have been a reason we got ut of the armored car business? When TOW first came out it replaced the old 106mm recoiless rifle. The 106 was mounted on the jeep and there was a version for the M113. We mounted the TOW on jeeps, came up with a short lived version for the M113, then modified the turrets from the M114A1 scout vehicle to work on the M113 with the TOW and the M901 ITV was born. So we always had an armored system for our AT sytems, we just didn't use it in light units.
AGS was killed when they took the armor bn out of the division base of the J-series MTOE light units. That left the 82 Airborne as the only possible user of the system and the small number they required wasn't worth the money to continue development of it. Eventually the 82d did receive the prototype vehicles to replace their ancient M551 Sheridans.
The J-series light Infantry division was another example of making a unit ineffective for many missions so that they could meet some pie in the sky air force lift requirement.
And you also have about the same combat power as a J-series light unit.
14 M2 and MK 19s compared to 14 M242s and M240s? The M242 with its first generation ISU gives you the ability to kill enemy light aror out to almost 4K in any kind of weather. You can't do that in your wildest dreams with M2s and MK 19s.
The day we bolted the first RPG slats onto a Stryker we threw the C130 requirement out the window. It;s time we stopped limiting ourselves to what the Air Force says it will haul. If I were Secretary of Defense the Air Force would own a bunch less fighter planes and a lot more C17s. Enough to move the 82 Airborne in one lift. Or enough to move a heavy brigade in one lift. One day this idea of having airtransportable forces that have insufficient combat power to fight a mid intensity battle will cost us.
Jeff
The 113 is worn out. It's the same 1950s technology as the Stryker, an armored personnel carrier not a fighting vehicle. Neither of them have a place on todays battlefield. They were doctrinally correct in the 40s and 50s they are dinosauers now.
There are many wheeled IFVs we could have bought if we had to have wheels. The standard LAV-25 comes with the same turret (minus the TOW launcher) that the Bradley has. We had that in the early 1980s. An M242 chain gun and an M240 COAX with a day/night integrated sight unit and a stabilized turret beats an M2 or MK19 any day of the week. The Stryker is a 50 year trip into the past. Bringing back those old worn out 113s would be as bad.
Yep, just like we had with the M3 halftrack in WWII and Korea and the M113 until the early 80s. Tell me where that's an improvement over an IFV?
Every rifle squad in the Army has the Javelin. It beats the Dragon (talk about a POS) but it's not the end all when it comes to ATGMs. It doesn't have the range of the TOW and like all ATGMs has a pretty big firing signature. So our lucky Stryker Javelin gunner has to fire the missile, then run for his vehicle and hope he gets there before every bit of lead the enemy is pouring at that firing signature gets to him. He has no more advantage then a lightfighter.
That depends on if the old M900 series 5 tons that are still in service in large numbers can actually still run 60 mph, or if the tactical tires on the trailers will sustain that speed in the heat for very long. Convoy speed is determined by your slowest vehicle. If you've got a 5 ton with clogged fuel and air filters and it won't do but 30 mph, then your convoy speed is 30 mph.
I served on active duty from 6 December 1974 until 1 November 2003, all but the last 7 years as an Infantryman. I spent the last 7 years as an artilleryman after a reclassification. I have moved both wheeled and tracked vehicles in every type of terrain you can find on this planet, from the arctic, to the jungle to the plains to the mountains to the desert. There are many places that no vehicles can go. But you are bring disingenuous by saying that wheeled vehicles can come close to the same mobility as tracks.
The Canadians had some problems with theirs during Brimfrost 83 in the interior of Alaska. I was there and saw it with my own eyes.
You can get anything stuck. But you can't take a wheeled armored vehcile everywhere you can go with tracks. It doesn't work that way no matter how many times you say you can.
Yes ditch the technology until it is ready for soldiers to use and maintain. Technical support contractors aren't soldiers. You have to expend more of your resources to protect them. You can't order them into a hot area to do BDAR. You have to plan your maintenance around their work schedules and contracts. They can get tired and quit and there is nothing the commander can do about it. I saw this first hand from McDonnel Douglas when we fielded the Dragon. I had the audacity to ask one of their tech reps (who came out to mount the tracker on the missile and run checks on it before we actually fired it) if there was a tech rep for each squad in case we had to deploy. This young SSG ended up taliing to the Bn Commander about that. I saw it again with Loral when we fielded MILES. Loral had the contract to provide training, including the observer/controller training. While much of the premise of the OC training was to train to standard, not to time, we trained to time because the contractors couldn't draw overtime. The routine deployment of contractor personnel to troubleshoot and maintain our equipment will eventually cost lives.
I'm very much aware of what kind of logistics it takes to support the M1/M2. Quick without looking somewhere, tell me how many vehicles are in a heavy Bn Support Platoon and what kind are they. How many mechanics and what MOSs? How much PLL does a unit carry?
Yes I'm well aware we had vendors in Kuwait. The prepositioned equipment we had in theater and the stuff we moved in after the 1st Gulf War was all maintained by contractors.
This high tech stuff like Blueforce Tracker and FBCB2 is still unproven. It doesn't work well enough and is not reliable enough to be used in combat. It's great when it's working and everything is right, but when it's down it's worse then nothing. And it makes our soldiers depend on it and forget how to do things the old way. PLGR has destroyed land navigation skill. The auto lay system in Paladin has been around a long time and is considered proven. yet a few years ago at Ft Hood one howitzer fired 3200 mils out and shelled a civilian ranch. If the section chief had done something as simple as dismounted and check his azimuth of fire with an old fashioned M2 compass that would not have happened. Fortunately no one was injured.
Yes, but we didn't ask those trucks to fight through the second echelon of the Republican Guard and race ahead. Wheeled armor armed with .50 caliber MGs and MK19s cannot fight that kind of battle.
The air commander has much better things to with his airplanes then fly CAS. There aren't enough airframes to attack the enemy infrastructure and fly CAS. A battalion attack might be allocated two to four sorties of CAS. Everything else is flying battlefield air interdiction, and other missions of strategic importance. Ask the SOF guys who fought on Roberts Ridge how responsive CAS is. AC130s can't operate where there is any airdefense threat. Attack helicopters require Corps FA assets to fire SEAD missions on their ingress and egress routes. The deep strikes that were tried in OIF 1 failed because we left the Corps FA at home and they had no SEAD on their ingress routes and took too much damage. When you call for fire, you want it then, not in maybe 30 minutes if you're lcky and there is a mission in the air they can divert if your target is a higher priority. You can only get that resonsiveness with artillery. Something they paid lip service to in the new Stryker brigades.
FBCB2, BFT, MCS, JSTARS and all those other systems are so overloading our commanders with information that it's not cutting the decision time but increasing it. You get Brigade commanders trying to play squad leader from the TOC and losing sight of the big picture. And since there is no Redforce tracker we have commanders at high levels jumping in and bother commanders who are fighting with inane questions. It all happened in OIF1.
We sitll have too many digital systems that can't talk to each other.
Copmbat is not the time and place to work the bugs out of systems like that.
What's the range and rate of fire? How many rounds does the M1129 Mortar carrier carry and what provision for resupply is there?
Of course, but they carry enough combat power to actually fight on open terrain. Strykers also have a logistics train you know. A much larger logistics train then a light Infantry unit, but both the light Infantry unit and the Stryker Brigade carry the same organic firepower. So in exchange for the increased logistics tail, we can now move our light Infantry at the same speed we can in 5 ton trucks, but we can give them a little better protection. Doesn't seem like much of a trade off to me.
I'll trade the armor for the M242 chain gun and M240 COAX any day of the week. The second we bolted the anti-RPG slats onto the Stryker we gave up the C130 transportability requirement.
I think it's important that people who comment on issues like this let everyone know what their frame of reference is. I never insinuated that your opinion was invalid. I just wanted to know where you were coming from. On the internet, everyone can be an expert in any field thay want to be. Let me tell you that no amount of research or playing with your own personal vehicles will replace operational experience. Vern is one of the most professional soldiers I've ever been in contact with. He was present and involved when Air/Land Battle was born. I read his articles in Infantry magazine years before THR ever existed.
The M880 was also classed as a 5/4 ton, but IIRC it was on a 3/4 ton Dodge. They never built enough Gamma Goats to give them to all the units that rated them. They were a nightmare to maintain.
There was a version of the Chevy trucks that replaced the M880s that carried that commo shelter before the HMMWV. I don't remember seeing a Gamma Goat much mast 83, but I'm sure some served until the HMMWV was fielded.
Did you ever think there might have been a reason we got ut of the armored car business? When TOW first came out it replaced the old 106mm recoiless rifle. The 106 was mounted on the jeep and there was a version for the M113. We mounted the TOW on jeeps, came up with a short lived version for the M113, then modified the turrets from the M114A1 scout vehicle to work on the M113 with the TOW and the M901 ITV was born. So we always had an armored system for our AT sytems, we just didn't use it in light units.
AGS was killed when they took the armor bn out of the division base of the J-series MTOE light units. That left the 82 Airborne as the only possible user of the system and the small number they required wasn't worth the money to continue development of it. Eventually the 82d did receive the prototype vehicles to replace their ancient M551 Sheridans.
The J-series light Infantry division was another example of making a unit ineffective for many missions so that they could meet some pie in the sky air force lift requirement.
And you also have about the same combat power as a J-series light unit.
14 M2 and MK 19s compared to 14 M242s and M240s? The M242 with its first generation ISU gives you the ability to kill enemy light aror out to almost 4K in any kind of weather. You can't do that in your wildest dreams with M2s and MK 19s.
The day we bolted the first RPG slats onto a Stryker we threw the C130 requirement out the window. It;s time we stopped limiting ourselves to what the Air Force says it will haul. If I were Secretary of Defense the Air Force would own a bunch less fighter planes and a lot more C17s. Enough to move the 82 Airborne in one lift. Or enough to move a heavy brigade in one lift. One day this idea of having airtransportable forces that have insufficient combat power to fight a mid intensity battle will cost us.
Jeff
Detritus
Member
oh just come out and say it.... you wish that the ARMY owned the heavy airlift assets still. A fight lost when LeMay, and his hand picked protoges(sp?) were still the big muscle for the Airforce. Unfortunately for the army it'll be a cold day in hades before "Cargo types" have any sway over the AF. and maybe it would serve our military better if the army did take over air transport of it's own combat forces and left the Air Force the actual fighting portion of the aerial assets (Army'd have to do better than they did with the C-7 maintainence though).
who knows, what i know is that none of us are likely to see that ever happen.
What's funny is seeing the Air Force get its pants in a wad because someone wants to hang a Hellfire off of a UAV that the USAF doesn't mind them operating. Never mind the fact that the USAF wants to disown the whole CAS operation to begin with. As nifty as JSF is, I sincerely hope they don't discontinue the A-10 for that with out something to replace it's very dedicated mission.
Detritus
Member
A-10 will soldier on until there are not enough spares to keep a lone squadron running for a reasonable amount of time there is nothing on the drawing boards that would adequately replace it, and no plans to ever have a replacement designed (btw the CSAR guys would LOVE to have a dedicated "Sandy" squadron of warthogs, since it's the only thing since the A-1 with both the loiter time AND firepower to do RESCAP the RIGHT way).
the A-10 is as good as it is b/c it was a lower tech answer to a brute force prolem, that translated into adaptability in ground attack use. teh AF NEEDED a dedicated tank killer in europe, b/c the then current fighter designs couldn't do it adequately. now the tech exists to let an F-16 kill ANYTHING, so a new A-10 class A/C is seen as superfluous.
Also "Mudmovers don't wow congress to give millions(billions)" (Attack class A/C are not sexy and cool, only Fighters and whizbang strategic bombers make congressmen weak in their grip on the purse) is a known and followed concept.
me i think that whoever took over LTV's contractsshould be asked to tool back up and build at least another wing's worth of warthogs, if not do an upgrade/redesign of teh plane and repopulate the attack squadrons with it.
the A-10 is as good as it is b/c it was a lower tech answer to a brute force prolem, that translated into adaptability in ground attack use. teh AF NEEDED a dedicated tank killer in europe, b/c the then current fighter designs couldn't do it adequately. now the tech exists to let an F-16 kill ANYTHING, so a new A-10 class A/C is seen as superfluous.
Also "Mudmovers don't wow congress to give millions(billions)" (Attack class A/C are not sexy and cool, only Fighters and whizbang strategic bombers make congressmen weak in their grip on the purse) is a known and followed concept.
me i think that whoever took over LTV's contractsshould be asked to tool back up and build at least another wing's worth of warthogs, if not do an upgrade/redesign of teh plane and repopulate the attack squadrons with it.
Makes you wonder what could be done with a New A-10 Airframe with newer wings, a bit more armor, Newer engines, the same gun (tweaks if needed) and a better cockpit and sensors. Perhaps a few bits of RAM on it to help the RCS, not that those big turbofans are at all easy to stealth on the frontal arc. At least to help the side profile. *shug*
The performance numbers I saw for a re-designed C-5D when I worked at Lockmart for a 6 month contract was interesting. Redesigned wings, options for wider cargo bay doors in back for a double row of full sized pallets (two rows of 155 howitzers and prime movers!), glass cockpit and 4 of the engines from the Boeing 777. Faster, more fuel efficient, higher flying, more cargo, all good things.
The performance numbers I saw for a re-designed C-5D when I worked at Lockmart for a 6 month contract was interesting. Redesigned wings, options for wider cargo bay doors in back for a double row of full sized pallets (two rows of 155 howitzers and prime movers!), glass cockpit and 4 of the engines from the Boeing 777. Faster, more fuel efficient, higher flying, more cargo, all good things.
Preacherman
Member
Based on personal experience with the South African armed forces, I'd like to second what Jeff White has to say about wheeled combat vehicles. The SADF used wheeled APC's and armored cars almost exclusively in the operational area of South West Africa and Angola. The only use of tanks was in 1987/88 during operations against armored brigades in southern Angola (during which SA's Olifant tanks - upgraded Centurions - coped quite nicely with Soviet-sourced T55's and T62's).
Wheeled vehicles made a lot of sense in the Southern African bush warfare environment, in that mud, snow, etc. were not factors to worry about (except for some mud in the rainy season). The South African solution was to build heavy, tough wheeled vehicles that could clear their own path through bush, rather than the lighter wheeled vehicles that the West typically developed. For example, the Rooikat armored car (with a high-velocity 76mm. gun, based on the Oto Melara naval cannon, that could - and did - take out T62 tanks!), weighs almost 30 tons, and is large and powerful enough to bull through a forest. The weight of SA armored vehicles is also due to mine protection, which was a world first when developed, and is now copied by almost everyone. The US Army is using a couple of hundred SA mine-protected vehicles already, and a partnership with General Dynamics is trying to sell them a bunch more. Knowing these vehicles intimately, I can assure you they're a hell of a lot tougher against IED's and the like than the Stryker and its ilk - I hope the US Army buys a bunch of them. They work.
See http://www.baesystemsomc.co.za/ for the manufacturer's Web page of SA armored vehicles, and scroll down and click on the pictures for more details. Very interesting reading.
The thing is, these vehicles were never designed for air transportability, and incorporated heavy armor and components that are almost tank-like in their toughness. They would probably have limited mobility in snow, deep mud, etc., but are able to bull their way across country in a way that many Western wheeled vehicles (including the very tough Russian BTR series) are not. Their success only shows up the limitations of wheeled vehicles in general. I think that the South African vehicles would be a significant advance over the Stryker in US service - but I still agree with Jeff that they're not an answer to the striking-power problem.
Wheeled vehicles made a lot of sense in the Southern African bush warfare environment, in that mud, snow, etc. were not factors to worry about (except for some mud in the rainy season). The South African solution was to build heavy, tough wheeled vehicles that could clear their own path through bush, rather than the lighter wheeled vehicles that the West typically developed. For example, the Rooikat armored car (with a high-velocity 76mm. gun, based on the Oto Melara naval cannon, that could - and did - take out T62 tanks!), weighs almost 30 tons, and is large and powerful enough to bull through a forest. The weight of SA armored vehicles is also due to mine protection, which was a world first when developed, and is now copied by almost everyone. The US Army is using a couple of hundred SA mine-protected vehicles already, and a partnership with General Dynamics is trying to sell them a bunch more. Knowing these vehicles intimately, I can assure you they're a hell of a lot tougher against IED's and the like than the Stryker and its ilk - I hope the US Army buys a bunch of them. They work.
See http://www.baesystemsomc.co.za/ for the manufacturer's Web page of SA armored vehicles, and scroll down and click on the pictures for more details. Very interesting reading.
The thing is, these vehicles were never designed for air transportability, and incorporated heavy armor and components that are almost tank-like in their toughness. They would probably have limited mobility in snow, deep mud, etc., but are able to bull their way across country in a way that many Western wheeled vehicles (including the very tough Russian BTR series) are not. Their success only shows up the limitations of wheeled vehicles in general. I think that the South African vehicles would be a significant advance over the Stryker in US service - but I still agree with Jeff that they're not an answer to the striking-power problem.
Preacherman, Jeff is arguing that Wheeled vehicles are NOT real fighting vehicles because they can't survive the same kind of punishment that tracked vehicles can. He cites the bradly getting popped by an IED (x2 122mm shells?) where a Stryker would have been full of casualties.
Armor protection and robustness that has been cited as being a Tracked superiority is not the case until you get into 40 or more ton weights and start looking like a tank in terms of armor protection. And then at that point, you're utterly out the window for easy air transportation purposes and utterly dependent on heavy lift or seaborne transport.
I have a friend that's used the RG-31 and liked it. He's also trucked around in the US Made Buffalo which takes a huge page from the SADF playbook in setup and design. His comments were that the IED makers in Tel Afar were utterly scared of it because it was defeating all of their IEDs and hard work. Apparently the IED teams in the AIF in Tel Afar kept trying to deploy their IEDs when the Buffalo was not patrolling.
Success of wheeled armor in WWII for recce and deep recce by both British and German forces, plus success of the use of the same by Britain in the cold war and success of their use by South Africa when she was more or less on her own is part of what has lead me to believe that the Stryker concept is workable. Further success and comments from people like Lt Col Kurrilla lead me to support the expenditure of my tax dollars on the system. As much as I liked the Paladin system, it's not money well spent since so many artillery units are deploying their Battalions not as artillerymen, but as door kickers for patrols and urban combat.
[edit]
You're comparing apples and oranges. The Stryker MGS is based off of the same parts/platform that the rest of the family of vehicles is. The Ratel and the Rooikat are utterly different. The Stryker family is more appropriately compared to your Ratel and not the Rooikat. The Ratel is a ~20 ton wheeled ICV with a couple of different weapons in a forward placed turret. That is very close to the stryker, but I suspect that the size of the turret would limit the Stryker's size limits that both Jeff and I are an artificial limit, but it's one that's been placed by the DoD planners. The Basic Ratel splits the difference with the stryker's crew of 2+9 where as the ratel has 4+7. I'm curious, does the ratel have 14.5mm all around protection and 152mm overhead burst protection? Mine resistance is, from all accounts I've been able to find, similar with strykers having the same sort of modular wheel stations for fast turn around after hitting an AT mine.
I would argue that the excellent service that SA has seen from the Ratel Family of vehicles is support in favor of the Strykers, and only adds weight to the concept that there should be a variant of the Stryker with a 2 man turret for heavier medium weapns, but with the knowledge that that'll remove it's ability to be air portable in a C130.
Preacherman
Member
rmgill, you misunderstand me. I agree with Jeff because he's right - in terms of potential for armor, heavier weapons, mobility across all terrain, etc., the tracked vehicle will always beat the wheeled. The South African experience bore this out, and as a result, the SADF deliberately changed the design of their wheeled vehicles. They made them MUCH heavier than their Western counterparts, and did away with many of the niceties of design that make Western wheeled APC's "toys". They emphasized toughness in bushy African terrain, and optimized the vehicles for that specific combat environment. They also built in mine protection, as one of the biggest problems faced by the SADF was mine warfare. As a result, in that specific environment, under those operational conditions, the wheeled vehicles of the SADF were superior to almost everything else. However, in other environments, faced with different threats, they would not perform nearly as well, and the designers freely admit this.
Today in Iraq, with the thread from IED's, I believe there are no finer vehicles available for that specific urban patrol environment than the South African RG-31 and RG-32. The US Army has bought well over 100 of them, and larger orders may follow - I hope so, for the sake of the servicemen who'll be protected in them. However, no-one, least of all the manufacturers, would claim that these vehicles could replace the Bradley or a decent tracked APC as an all-terrain, all-combat-environment vehicle.
Today in Iraq, with the thread from IED's, I believe there are no finer vehicles available for that specific urban patrol environment than the South African RG-31 and RG-32. The US Army has bought well over 100 of them, and larger orders may follow - I hope so, for the sake of the servicemen who'll be protected in them. However, no-one, least of all the manufacturers, would claim that these vehicles could replace the Bradley or a decent tracked APC as an all-terrain, all-combat-environment vehicle.
Jeff White Wrote:
First the Mowag is newer than 1950s technology, but I think you're really arguing about the age of doctrine of IFVs over APCs. Which is not a technology argument but rather an argument of how forces are comprised and supposed to be used.
The LAV-25 and the Stryker are essentially the same vehicle plus or minus weapons and systems. 8 wheeled Mowag Piranha armored hull. The Stryker is a newer design so the drive-line is more modular and comes off and on with less work, or so the description goes. I've not torn one of those wheel stations down, but I have torn down older military spec independent suspension stations down and there is precedent for mine resistant vehicles with modular drive line for fast turn around after sustaining damage in the field. The South Africans have done this for quite some time.
It depends on what you're trying to do with that infantry force. The more weapons you tack onto the vehicle, the less troops it can support. Don't get me wrong, I love the Bradley system from a distance. The combo works well, but a Bradley infantry Coy has fewer dismounts per vehicle which forces you to either up the vehicle count making your log tail even higher or you use a smaller number of tracks and grin and bear it with the smaller head count of door kickers.
We're not fighting WARPAC forces now. We're probably never going to fight that fight, but having practiced for it for the past ~60 years, our forces are so good at it that if you even look like a warpac force we tend to cut them up badly when they're poorly handled. TrainTrainTrain That's good. But now the political leadership is asking the military to perform a great deal more than just conventional warfare, counter insurgency warfare and peacekeeping. The Stryker, from what I've seen, addresses that in several ways.
IT maintains the light infantry force by turing them into what amounts to armored dragoons, they maintain their head count on a company basis as I understand it. My basic answer for this is that purpose built wheeled armor is better than no-armor when it comes to an infantry force.
The information I have is that they have MORE Javelins in the stryker platoons. I'm trying to dig up the TOE, but that level of detail has become difficult post 9/11 for obvious reasons. Javelin has some advantages over TOW with the higher arc and urban combat is a hard place for any wire guided ATGM like TOW. TOW also has fewer shots per weight so it limits the number of targets you can hit.
900 Series are old? Wazzat? I own an M35A2, those are old. I owned an M813 a year ago too. The 900 series trucks are far newer. Convoys in Iraq are anything from tactical vehicles to civilian Ivecos or Mercedes Semi's towing civilian trailers. Limiting them to a 40 mph road speed and halts to tension tracks is not going to help your supply situation nor is it going to help limit your exposure to AIFs.
Former Redleg eh? Visit Castle Argghhh much?
Most of the time it seems that the terrain is either unfriendly to both or passable to both. There are soft ground areas where ground pressure is critical, but often, those places need such low ground pressure that you have to be using a SUSV, a Weasel or a CVR(T) to get around.
Given the security environment and the use of a high low mix, I'd say that having wheeled armor like the Stryker AND the M1/M2 pair is better than trying to get the M1/M2 pair fight a counter insurgency war when the M1 Tank companies are being converted to run around in uparmored HMMWVs, that has me scratching my head. Hell, I expect my 1960's Daimler Ferret would be better in some respects for mounted patrols than a HMMWV would be. Certainly better armored (especially for the gunner!) and more mine resistant. The angled profile would mean near misses from RPGs are more likely too. A modern Ferret would be interesting, but only Malaysia's doing that.
Fact is, routine patrols in something other than conventional warfare have become a common thing for the Army that M1/M2 pair is poorly suited for except as support or part of the heavies to call on if the lighter stuff finds itself unable to deal with an odd threat. We're still rotating troops through the balkans. I talked with a PANG troop commander and NCO at FIG that were just back from the Balkans. They were still using M113s for mounts. Supposedly they were to transition to Strykers and seemed hopeful that the new mounts would serve them well.
The Canadians I've spoken with like their Mowags but wish they had more tanks as well. The problem for them being lots of neglect by their government for decades.
Granted. Will you grant that in operations other than war, that a wheeled vehicle has greater benefits than tracked vehicles do? Ride quality, road speed, less cost per mile, less maintenance?
That's an issue over and above the stryker that involves all segments of the US Army. There's constant fiddling in the supply and depot level to keep the beltway warriors occupied.
I'm very much aware of what kind of logistics it takes to support the M1/M2. Quick without looking somewhere, tell me how many vehicles are in a heavy Bn Support Platoon and what kind are they. How many mechanics and what MOSs? How much PLL does a unit carry?
I'm not that much of a grognard. Besides, I have to remember how much of what type of POL goes in which part of my different vehicles when I pull PM checks on them prior to driving them somewhere.
Suffice to say that when I have looked at TOE's for heavy battalions, the log tail is huge. Part of that log tail is what makes our maritime preposition and strategic airlift forces so useful for humanitarian ops when they're not supporting warfighting. It all gets very expensive though and is harder to stuff that into a light infantry support format.
This is not a stryker problem alone. How many instances of new technology have been introduced to the US Army? How many instances of not enough new technology being introduced to the US Army? There is a balance that is often not met in terms of technology maturity. FBCB2 will have to be tested more, but that's meat for another thread.
What did the Marines do on their run up? They had ABrams along with them, but they had a lot of AAV7s along that road too.
I was giving better CAS coordination as one of the reasons for systems like BFT and such. It's certainly not the only thing. And CAS does happen, still does. Mosul, Tikrit, etc, Plenty of use of Mudmovers in support of those operations.
I wonder what the Brigade and Company Commanders that are using STrykers are saying? I'll be sure to ask the Troop leader of E 108th Cav, since they're slated to become a RSTA troop.
Seems like I've read accounts of too many analog systems that don't talk to each other either. Seems like the procurement geeks aren't getting roasted enough.
Dunno, that's probably closed info for OPSEC. I suspect that 120mm mortars are VERY useful for company level work and at a dedicated level for support faster than DIV Arty can provide.
Overhead 152mm protection is not something to shrug off. 14.5mm armor protection is not something to srhug off either. I've seen it strongly suggested that FTXs are often fixed so the Airborne are not killed on their LZ by OPFOR artillery because they cannot exit the LZ fast enough. That's a problem.
Its modular, just like the reactive armor package that's added to the M2/M3 vehicles. It gets added on the later lifts. In a lower RPG threat area, it can probably be omitted or in higher level threat areas, it can be added.
Even so, the problem with the slat armor is not the vehicle, it's the C130 requirement. A tracked vehicle in the same role would still need the same expedient slat armor.
There's a bunch of very well educated and trained folks over on Tank.Net that are hard core tankers as well as other folks that seem to have come to the conclusion that the Stryker is just what the doctor ordered for Iraq. My friend John Donovan (US Army Major, Ret) has also expressed the same opinions. I've read numerous reports from the users and from neutral third parties (Mike Yon) that laud the system overall and still point out the teething problems.
Read Mike Yon's Blog covering Deuce Four. Read Lt Col Kurilla's accolades. Read Colby Buzzel's comments about the vehicle. There's lots of open source info out there that has facts and credentials about the system that's outside the normal channels of "this is good for the troops".
And Tricky to drive. Don't let that rear axle get low on air in with a shelter loaded! Air Dropping them could also really do a number on the coupling. Pretty interesting vehicle though. Brake jobs are easy though, the drums come off with out removing a wheel!
Probably a CUCV variant with the smaller shelter, S144 perhaps. The S250 shelter is larger, but unless you measure or set them side by side, it's hard to tell.
Goats were apparently used up through the first gulf war. Probably by NG units, but the statement stands, the HMMWV replaced the Mutt, the Goat, the Mule and the M880.
1. The armored car that was chosen was limited on turning radius and ground pressure issues with the design. It was also tasked initially as a Tank Destroyer (Remember that issue of not enough technology?!)
2. The US didn't have a lot of internal policing to do in an empire so it eschewed the Internal Security Role in favor of concentrated attention on line combat units.
The British experience differrs. So does the German Experience. Both established and developed wheeled armor during WWII and post war. Britain expand their wheeled armor roles, but distilled from 6+ manufacturers and 25 something types/models to 4 different types and two makers. The Germans continued the idea of a larger 8x8 recce vehicle for VERY deep Recce into the enemy rear (Spahpanzerluchs) as well as 2 other wheeled armor types. They had no empire to administer and yet found wheeled armor useful in their own environment.
So is your ultimate beef with the Stryker or Light Infantry as a role/doctrine in the force XXI structure (or what ever it's called now).
For a company if my math and assumptions are right (4 cars per platoon right?, 3 platoons, plus one ATGM section and 1 105 platoon), I count 16 M2/Mk19/M240s, 4 m240s, 4 105mms, 2 TOW IIIs ETS mounts, plus 108 dismounts and their personal and crew served weapons (M240s, M249s, Javelins).
I think we're in agreement, at least in part. The C130 Portability requirements leave something to be desired. Though, the bolt on armor does allow some flexibility and as materials science gets better, the bolt on kits can be updated more easily than an integral armor package can.
First the Mowag is newer than 1950s technology, but I think you're really arguing about the age of doctrine of IFVs over APCs. Which is not a technology argument but rather an argument of how forces are comprised and supposed to be used.
The LAV-25 and the Stryker are essentially the same vehicle plus or minus weapons and systems. 8 wheeled Mowag Piranha armored hull. The Stryker is a newer design so the drive-line is more modular and comes off and on with less work, or so the description goes. I've not torn one of those wheel stations down, but I have torn down older military spec independent suspension stations down and there is precedent for mine resistant vehicles with modular drive line for fast turn around after sustaining damage in the field. The South Africans have done this for quite some time.
It depends on what you're trying to do with that infantry force. The more weapons you tack onto the vehicle, the less troops it can support. Don't get me wrong, I love the Bradley system from a distance. The combo works well, but a Bradley infantry Coy has fewer dismounts per vehicle which forces you to either up the vehicle count making your log tail even higher or you use a smaller number of tracks and grin and bear it with the smaller head count of door kickers.
We're not fighting WARPAC forces now. We're probably never going to fight that fight, but having practiced for it for the past ~60 years, our forces are so good at it that if you even look like a warpac force we tend to cut them up badly when they're poorly handled. TrainTrainTrain That's good. But now the political leadership is asking the military to perform a great deal more than just conventional warfare, counter insurgency warfare and peacekeeping. The Stryker, from what I've seen, addresses that in several ways.
IT maintains the light infantry force by turing them into what amounts to armored dragoons, they maintain their head count on a company basis as I understand it. My basic answer for this is that purpose built wheeled armor is better than no-armor when it comes to an infantry force.
The information I have is that they have MORE Javelins in the stryker platoons. I'm trying to dig up the TOE, but that level of detail has become difficult post 9/11 for obvious reasons. Javelin has some advantages over TOW with the higher arc and urban combat is a hard place for any wire guided ATGM like TOW. TOW also has fewer shots per weight so it limits the number of targets you can hit.
900 Series are old? Wazzat? I own an M35A2, those are old. I owned an M813 a year ago too. The 900 series trucks are far newer. Convoys in Iraq are anything from tactical vehicles to civilian Ivecos or Mercedes Semi's towing civilian trailers. Limiting them to a 40 mph road speed and halts to tension tracks is not going to help your supply situation nor is it going to help limit your exposure to AIFs.
Former Redleg eh? Visit Castle Argghhh much?
Most of the time it seems that the terrain is either unfriendly to both or passable to both. There are soft ground areas where ground pressure is critical, but often, those places need such low ground pressure that you have to be using a SUSV, a Weasel or a CVR(T) to get around.
Given the security environment and the use of a high low mix, I'd say that having wheeled armor like the Stryker AND the M1/M2 pair is better than trying to get the M1/M2 pair fight a counter insurgency war when the M1 Tank companies are being converted to run around in uparmored HMMWVs, that has me scratching my head. Hell, I expect my 1960's Daimler Ferret would be better in some respects for mounted patrols than a HMMWV would be. Certainly better armored (especially for the gunner!) and more mine resistant. The angled profile would mean near misses from RPGs are more likely too. A modern Ferret would be interesting, but only Malaysia's doing that.
Fact is, routine patrols in something other than conventional warfare have become a common thing for the Army that M1/M2 pair is poorly suited for except as support or part of the heavies to call on if the lighter stuff finds itself unable to deal with an odd threat. We're still rotating troops through the balkans. I talked with a PANG troop commander and NCO at FIG that were just back from the Balkans. They were still using M113s for mounts. Supposedly they were to transition to Strykers and seemed hopeful that the new mounts would serve them well.
The Canadians I've spoken with like their Mowags but wish they had more tanks as well. The problem for them being lots of neglect by their government for decades.
Granted. Will you grant that in operations other than war, that a wheeled vehicle has greater benefits than tracked vehicles do? Ride quality, road speed, less cost per mile, less maintenance?
That's an issue over and above the stryker that involves all segments of the US Army. There's constant fiddling in the supply and depot level to keep the beltway warriors occupied.
I'm very much aware of what kind of logistics it takes to support the M1/M2. Quick without looking somewhere, tell me how many vehicles are in a heavy Bn Support Platoon and what kind are they. How many mechanics and what MOSs? How much PLL does a unit carry?
I'm not that much of a grognard. Besides, I have to remember how much of what type of POL goes in which part of my different vehicles when I pull PM checks on them prior to driving them somewhere.
Suffice to say that when I have looked at TOE's for heavy battalions, the log tail is huge. Part of that log tail is what makes our maritime preposition and strategic airlift forces so useful for humanitarian ops when they're not supporting warfighting. It all gets very expensive though and is harder to stuff that into a light infantry support format.
This is not a stryker problem alone. How many instances of new technology have been introduced to the US Army? How many instances of not enough new technology being introduced to the US Army? There is a balance that is often not met in terms of technology maturity. FBCB2 will have to be tested more, but that's meat for another thread.
What did the Marines do on their run up? They had ABrams along with them, but they had a lot of AAV7s along that road too.
I was giving better CAS coordination as one of the reasons for systems like BFT and such. It's certainly not the only thing. And CAS does happen, still does. Mosul, Tikrit, etc, Plenty of use of Mudmovers in support of those operations.
I wonder what the Brigade and Company Commanders that are using STrykers are saying? I'll be sure to ask the Troop leader of E 108th Cav, since they're slated to become a RSTA troop.
Seems like I've read accounts of too many analog systems that don't talk to each other either. Seems like the procurement geeks aren't getting roasted enough.
Dunno, that's probably closed info for OPSEC. I suspect that 120mm mortars are VERY useful for company level work and at a dedicated level for support faster than DIV Arty can provide.
Overhead 152mm protection is not something to shrug off. 14.5mm armor protection is not something to srhug off either. I've seen it strongly suggested that FTXs are often fixed so the Airborne are not killed on their LZ by OPFOR artillery because they cannot exit the LZ fast enough. That's a problem.
Its modular, just like the reactive armor package that's added to the M2/M3 vehicles. It gets added on the later lifts. In a lower RPG threat area, it can probably be omitted or in higher level threat areas, it can be added.
Even so, the problem with the slat armor is not the vehicle, it's the C130 requirement. A tracked vehicle in the same role would still need the same expedient slat armor.
There's a bunch of very well educated and trained folks over on Tank.Net that are hard core tankers as well as other folks that seem to have come to the conclusion that the Stryker is just what the doctor ordered for Iraq. My friend John Donovan (US Army Major, Ret) has also expressed the same opinions. I've read numerous reports from the users and from neutral third parties (Mike Yon) that laud the system overall and still point out the teething problems.
Read Mike Yon's Blog covering Deuce Four. Read Lt Col Kurilla's accolades. Read Colby Buzzel's comments about the vehicle. There's lots of open source info out there that has facts and credentials about the system that's outside the normal channels of "this is good for the troops".
And Tricky to drive. Don't let that rear axle get low on air in with a shelter loaded! Air Dropping them could also really do a number on the coupling. Pretty interesting vehicle though. Brake jobs are easy though, the drums come off with out removing a wheel!
Probably a CUCV variant with the smaller shelter, S144 perhaps. The S250 shelter is larger, but unless you measure or set them side by side, it's hard to tell.
Goats were apparently used up through the first gulf war. Probably by NG units, but the statement stands, the HMMWV replaced the Mutt, the Goat, the Mule and the M880.
1. The armored car that was chosen was limited on turning radius and ground pressure issues with the design. It was also tasked initially as a Tank Destroyer (Remember that issue of not enough technology?!)
2. The US didn't have a lot of internal policing to do in an empire so it eschewed the Internal Security Role in favor of concentrated attention on line combat units.
The British experience differrs. So does the German Experience. Both established and developed wheeled armor during WWII and post war. Britain expand their wheeled armor roles, but distilled from 6+ manufacturers and 25 something types/models to 4 different types and two makers. The Germans continued the idea of a larger 8x8 recce vehicle for VERY deep Recce into the enemy rear (Spahpanzerluchs) as well as 2 other wheeled armor types. They had no empire to administer and yet found wheeled armor useful in their own environment.
So is your ultimate beef with the Stryker or Light Infantry as a role/doctrine in the force XXI structure (or what ever it's called now).
For a company if my math and assumptions are right (4 cars per platoon right?, 3 platoons, plus one ATGM section and 1 105 platoon), I count 16 M2/Mk19/M240s, 4 m240s, 4 105mms, 2 TOW IIIs ETS mounts, plus 108 dismounts and their personal and crew served weapons (M240s, M249s, Javelins).
[edit] Ok, I was misreading the symbols. What I thought was an ATGM symbol is for the Mortar Carriers. Make that x2 120mm mortar carriers also with 2 60mm mortars.
I think we're in agreement, at least in part. The C130 Portability requirements leave something to be desired. Though, the bolt on armor does allow some flexibility and as materials science gets better, the bolt on kits can be updated more easily than an integral armor package can.
Last edited:
So what we really need is a replacement for the C-130.
Well, and several hundred more C-17s.
Seem to recall mentioning that once or twice before myself...
There is a definite bias towards fighters in the Air Force, however.
And as for the M-880 series vehicles, I have some direct experience with those. They were commercial 70's Dodge 4x4 trucks with an OD paint job. And real worn out by the time I got to use them. The Chevy replacements M-1008, M-1009 (Blazer and pickup) were also worn out, and the Diesel versions had that bad excuse of a Diesel engine Chevy used to make.
All other questions and answers aside, how useful are unarmored cargo and utility vehicles in a situation like Iraq, and are commercial vehicles as good as purpose built vehicles?
Well, and several hundred more C-17s.
Seem to recall mentioning that once or twice before myself...
There is a definite bias towards fighters in the Air Force, however.
And as for the M-880 series vehicles, I have some direct experience with those. They were commercial 70's Dodge 4x4 trucks with an OD paint job. And real worn out by the time I got to use them. The Chevy replacements M-1008, M-1009 (Blazer and pickup) were also worn out, and the Diesel versions had that bad excuse of a Diesel engine Chevy used to make.
All other questions and answers aside, how useful are unarmored cargo and utility vehicles in a situation like Iraq, and are commercial vehicles as good as purpose built vehicles?
Vern Humphrey
Member
Why not spend the money on ships instead of airplanes? Given the vastly greater carrying capacity of ships, you can actually deliver a greater force in a shorter time with ships.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
