Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mikeCK

Army wants more lethality for Strykers

Recommended Posts

I will apologize ahead of time for any feel goods that are hurt. I have read some of the stryker bashing and as a plank holder who has actually fought out of them I thought I would comment.

 

The battlefield evolves first and fore most. With the increased COIN narrative against our current enemy the Stryker Platform works exceptionally well for delivering troops to AO and supporting them on the objective. The Decision to transition to a wheeled platform was based on that urban terrain tracks tear up asphalt, and roads in foreign countries are not exceptionally well built in the first place. same roads are needed for logistical convoys several miles long comprised of escort vehicles and semis. Plus we don't want to piss off the natives or create more hiding spots for IEDs.

 

The 50 cal and mk-19 on the IFVs provide excellent fire suppression and engagement of deadspace or inside windows of homes built like pil boxes which is extremely common in the middle east. Most Heavy Mech units have to receive bn or company level authorization in many cases to employ anything bigger than a coax. 

 

The Air Sentry hatches on he stryker increase visibility in urban ops much better than any other armored vehicle we have. 50 cal, mk 19s, 240s, and saws have been mounted to increase fire power. We called them hornets nests and the guys tasked to vehicle security had a hell of a time.

 

The c130 roll off concept was designed to support ranger airfield seizures and give airborne troops some sustainability to hold the airfield. The mgs variant is a major improvement over the old light tank designs and carried a gun that could knock out tanks. Supplement that with the atgm variant and dismounts you can can control a lot against aging soviet equipment and militaries that don't know how to use them. But Real world take afghanistan. We don't border them like Russia does. The Strykers were the heaviest thing we could get a lot of into the country other than MRAPS that were assembled onsite or flown in. A c5 can carry quite a few. I do agree though something with more firepower would be great assembled on site but we have air superiority so its a cost and logistics item. Where we need heavy stuff we have it like Europe. 

 

The actual battle is typically against an infantry concentric force in the urban environment. Something that can navigate the real world problem of traffic and deliver it's can of whoop ass to the battle space to do bad things to bad people was what the stryker was designed for. While Combat mission focuses on fighting a conventional force battle it was widely known during the stryker brigade combat team concepts inception that it was not built for head to head against Mechanized infantry or tanks. This was proven at NTC in 2003 when stryker whoopie lights were blinking everywhere. The dismounts survived and did real damage with javelins but we got our asses kicked and on purpose. At JRTC though fighting the fight we were designed for we decimated the records for securing Shugart Gordon. In 2003-2004 3/2 SBCT deployed to Iraq as the first Experimental Infantry Brigade ever deployed during war. It took over for the 101st Division with a Brigade, and proceeded to destroy Alquaeda's presence in northern Iraq with limited casualties.  In addition to securing the city of Mosul it had to pick up BN sized elements and hit Objectives in less than 10 hours in the Sunni Triangle and Southern Iraq from it's northern most city to test it's mobility Concept and did so successfully. 

 

  The Powerpack in a stryker (engine and transmission)  can be swapped out in 10 minutes. I have driven one home with the transaxle blown and only 3 tires. I have never seen a circle x on a 5988 or had a vehicle non operational while in combat. They are a hell of a vehicle for the fight we fight today.  The cold war is over and should we need to fight that type of force we still have the right tools to do so. Stryker units are for the fight we are actually fighting now and do a pretty good job. The dismounts training is primarily in urban but the beauty of a stryker unit is they can be light infantry just like they were in Afghanistan in 2012.  Afghanistan is a remote Land locked area that was real hard for the U.S to get heavy armor into .

 

Sorry for the lecture but reading these posts angered me a little bit on the Stryker bashing and I had the 4th ICV ever made. A bigger gun to fight tanks would be nice but we are Americans and, We fight tanks with tanks, air power, and infantry portable atgms and it has worked pretty good so far. The Bradley is a fine piece of machinery that does what it was designed for very well and we still have them. The stryker equally so. If you play a game with strykers use your infantry thats what is the real combat power anyways and use the stryker to run them where they need to be or shift based on enemy action.

 

a 30mm stryker would be bada** though.

 

Edited to add on last comment:  For Strykers think Dragoons. Horse Mounted Infantry not Cavalry. designed to move around the battlefield plug gaps, and exploit weaknesses.

Edited by Pat O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited for less hostile/brevity

In a nutshell, the issue is the Stryker BCT is expected these days to be the middle-weight flex option.  It's on paper better able to keep up with armored formations during Full Spectrum, but offers all the firepower you could possibly need in COIN.

 

As the case is, the COIN part it does all right at.  No dispute there, but I will counter that I feel when it comes to COIN, it is not much better than an IBCT that's been kitted out with MRAPs.  

 

On the conventional front, it sucks.  Really, really sucks.  And the NTC experiments were pretty unambiguous about that, and modern FTXes have pretty well confirmed it.  The recon is bad, the MGS doesn't handle tanks at all, the AT capability on the offensive is not up to the job, the maintenance and recovery is totally lacking for any sort of intensity.  This is old news.

 

The problem is the Army is still pretending something like 2 CR in Germany is going to be able to go into a fight with a near-peer like Russia and not just get a lot of Americans killed.  And the whole rational for the SBCT originally was something beefier than light infantry, but faster deploying than armor formations given the problems with 1991 (Airborne units effectively an angry speed bump to even a third world army, heavy units arriving over the course of months).  But the SBCT is not up to that task.  It deploys fairly fast, but in practicality, the weapons available are not much better than the IBCT's (especially at current allocation, and the Stryker ATGM isn't much better than a TOW HMMWV).  If we're going to have a force that can deploy fast enough to be relevant we have to sacrifice some of the speed of the SBCT, to regain some of the armor of the older heavy formations.

 

Also in a realistic term, the MGS did a great disservice by killing the AGS and other light tank programs.  The Army is just now starting to try to find a light tankish thing to plug into the hole the Sheridan (flawed as it was) left.  

Edited by panzersaurkrautwerfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue isn't firepower. Although, I -do- believe more is better. Upgunning a little would be nice. The biggest issue is this:

 

The 50 cal and mk-19 on the IFVs provide excellent fire suppression and engagement of deadspace or inside windows of homes built like pil boxes which is extremely common in the middle east. Most Heavy Mech units have to receive bn or company level authorization in many cases to employ anything bigger than a coax.

 

 

When main gun rounds are tied to higher hq approval, you're not fighting. No rant, just pointing out that equipment has to match doctrine. Doctrine should have some basis in reality and seek to be effective. My idea, bristling with firepower, would be worthless in the current US doctrine. That doctrine is one which puts ROE above every other consideration. "Optics" and social media, donchayaknow.

 

Tracked APC/IFV? Sure. But the wheeled concept is important and fills a void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MGS never made sense to me.  Against modern armor it wouldn't stand a chance, as a support weapon for COIN it was too vulnerable to go into any  kind of urban area, nor did it have enough ammo for sustained operations.  If they had any sense they could have used a 90mm recoilless rifle for close support and a pair of TOWs on 1-side and a 2.75" rocket pod on the other.  Would have been cheaper and more effective.  

 

A SCBT rolling around in Eastern Europe was great PR, but I'm glad that's all it was.  Stryker's look very puny if they had to go up against modern BMPs or BTRs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tracked APC/IFV? Sure. But the wheeled concept is important and fills a void.

 

Totally.  I just think the BCT lineup should look like:

 

ABCT: As is, although possibly with armor augmented Cav squadron. Also possibly the third Battalion (post BCT reduction) being custom-fit for BCT's mission (like a 1st CAV BCT might have a tank-pure Battalion if it's mission is to be the "in case of war" force, while an ABCT assigned to Korea would have a leg infantry battalion to better deal with complex terrain)

EBCT: Expeditionary Brigade Combat Team.  Tracked PCs, light tanks, designed to better go toe to toe with third world military forces in a stand up fight, or represent the extremely violent end of low intensity threat.  Also potentially replaces the old ACR concept as an all-arms formation to serve as a larger unit's security force (so an EBCT would conduct a cover type mission while ABCTs built combat power on the defense, or would serve as the recon element for a Division sized element)

MBCT: Motorized Brigade Combat Team.  Basically the leg infantry BCTs we have now, with most of the Stryker fleet available if the mission supports it (MGS and Cav versions ditched in favor of a true light tank, and the current IBCT recon squadron).

AABCT: Aerial Assault BCT.  Basically the IBCT as implemented.  Would be chiefly the current paratrooper/air assault BCTs.

 

In terms of force transformational stuff, the ABCT count would more or less remain same, with mirrored MTOE for Guard.  EBCTs would chiefly be 2 and 3 CR (for Europe and the Middle East.  You'd deploy 3 CR as required, and 2 CR flexes from Germany were required), plus maybe 1-2 more (thinking perhaps one each from 2nd ID and 25th ID to better augment the pacific trouble spots).  MBCTs would be remaining Stryker units, plus "leg" infantry BCTs in the active force, and an increased number of National Guard BCTs.  IBCTs would make up the remainder.

 

It's all pretty much pure crackpipe at this moment, but I like thinking about these things.

 

 

 

The MGS never made sense to me.  Against modern armor it wouldn't stand a chance, as a support weapon for COIN it was too vulnerable to go into any  kind of urban area, nor did it have enough ammo for sustained operations.  If they had any sense they could have used a 90mm recoilless rifle for close support and a pair of TOWs on 1-side and a 2.75" rocket pod on the other.  Would have been cheaper and more effective.  

 

The issue we had in a lot of COIN environments from my end of the stick was it was too much gun.  As the case is in Full Spectrum it's not at all enough gun.  Then add in again, it's too much gun for the chassis.

 

Recoiless wouldn't have been a bad choice.  Keep in mind the more weapons you add to a vehicle though, the heavier it becomes (or the less "effective" ammunition you carry) so rocket pod and TOW might be a bit too far.

 

Given that statement, maybe a recoiless mount like the old M113 used to have for the top hatch.  Strykers already have the hatch itself, would be risky to shoot, but really not much worse than when the ATGM Stryker got used to blow up buildings in Iraq (forward to shoot, back behind cover to reload).  For a dedicated FSV though a larger caliber autocannon seems about spot on, and the airburst 40 MM rounds Bofors cranks out are supposed to be pretty cool.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been completely overwhelmed trying to sell one house and by another one, but a quick two cents.  You need a 40 mm AGL kitted out with all the electronics for accurate indirect fire, or some way to pump out 60 mm mortar rounds at close to the same rate.  Tie every squad leader in the unit in with an almost completely brainless way to call it in.  Then all the Stryker has to do is hide.  A dedicated vehicle could carry a LOT of rounds for something that size.  Stick a mast on it so it can fire over convenient walls and small buildings by itself.  The idea is to never show it to the enemy if you can help it. If the bad guys were dug in like badgers somewhere you drop low rate harassing fire on them for hours while you brought up something else.  Go full rate and you could make an entire football field very unhealthy.  Single rounds don't have a large collateral radius.  Its COIN focused solution, but I pretty much agree with Herr Krautwerfer that the Stryker is a COIN focused platform anyway.  That, or a burning wreck.

 

My silly side would propose propelling said rounds with an electromagnetic system rather than gunpowder, but it would get lost in development He#%^^&# somewhere. 

Edited by dan/california

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have been away with children's birthdays and work and thought I would return to this good conversation and debate. I enjoy all comments and suggestions that are professionally based on experience and education rather than opinion or articles from soldier of fortune. In my continued defense of The Stryker platform being a exceptional vehicle for the fight we fight today as well as  filling the operational void for Light armored transport. I am glad to know that hostile brevity gave way to agreeing with my original opinion. Case in point. Multiple Quotes Follow:

 

 

Edited for less hostile/brevity

 

I am a combat wounded vet so hostile brevity is the medium I am used to, comfortable, and operate in. Sorry had to get a dig in Panzer afterall we are all soldiers here whether real peacetime or conceptually. :P

 

 

Edited for less hostile/brevity

In a nutshell, the issue is the Stryker BCT is expected these days to be the middle-weight flex option.  It's on paper better able to keep up with armored formations during Full Spectrum, but offers all the firepower you could possibly need in COIN.

 

As the case is, the COIN part it does all right at.  No dispute there, but I will counter that I feel when it comes to COIN, it is not much better than an IBCT that's been kitted out with MRAPs.  

 

You have obviously never operated out of MRAPS in a combat setting for any lengthy period of time as the case in Afghanistan and one many have voiced concern regarding. The MRAP is great stop gap measure for JSS and other training or joint teams operating within 5 klicks of a fob. The most common holds 5 with a gunner and is a real pain to employ at out of if it even has any that fit in the storage racks. SMAW Ds and laws unless strapped to pack are in accesible. I speak from first hand experience as well as merc-ing out of a toyata Hilux which  faired better in offroad than both the stryker or MRAP the kukri hanging on my wall was hand made out of the leaf springs of mine by my ghurkas.  Stryker's suspension and tire width was not optimally configured for slat armor (again a stop gap measure) as opposed to the ERA modules included in cmbs that are not yet approved for or installed on Stryker variants.The slat armor did well enough again experience (3 hits from rpg 1 caught in the gaps unexploded and two detonating 18 inches off the armor during an engagement) no casualties in our vic except permenant hearing loss.With Big Army decided to no focus as much R&D to finish in a timely manner or produce ERA. Strykers have yet to be deployed with the original concept of ERA due most likely to budget constraints etc.

 

The Styrker was designed exactly as you said to be the middle weight flex option and operate as a follow on force to sustain controlled territory in addition to move forces efficiently to the front to serve as light infantry, and around the battle space.. This is nothing new as we have done this since WWII and always looked for the best fit in sustainability and # of personnel. Forces that can transport ground troops efficiently and sustain themselves on the battlefield are paramount in overall strategic success. SBCT were not designed for frontline spearhead duty as identified in every manual regarding their employment since inception. Referenced SBCT rifle platoon and squad and above on up to Battalion level Fm's within the first ten pages or so.

 

The argument here that I gather is that they are not effective in a fight they weren't designed for or rather to operate in alone without the support of or in support of heavy mech forces. however in my own CMBS game play I have found that I can destroy BTR 82s armed with 30mm efficiently and at the same rate they seem to have to destroy strykers. BMPS is out of the question just based on physics. But the MGS variant does well against BMPs and marginally against modern soviet tanks without rear or flank shots. This is expected and again what it was designed for.

 

No Wheeled tank destroyer is as good as a tank. They are meant to support tanks and or hold the line until they arrive.

 

 

while an ABCT assigned to Korea would have a leg infantry battalion to better deal with complex terrain)

 

 

Again how do you get them and sustain them from their racks to the operational area. If NK came over the border the scout platoon at the bridge is dead in 30 minutes as is the other supplementary D.I.P  outfights to buy time to get forces in position to respond.

 

 

 

 

Totally.  I just think the BCT lineup should look like:

 

EBCT: Expeditionary Brigade Combat Team.  Tracked PCs, light tanks, designed to better go toe to toe with third world military forces in a stand up fight, or represent the extremely violent end of low intensity threat. 

Cav Tanks are you referencing Sheridans or M60 Starships? Aging soviet equipment vs aging Nato. 3rd world being the key identifier in this comment so Air Superiority is inferred and artillery does a lot to shake up, poorly trained and non fanatical armor crews just click green on your next quick battle. 105 mm was the original gun for Abrams dontchaknow. The sheer retro fit cost for mothballed items would stagger you. Plus they were phased out long before the Stryker was even a concept

 

The biggest issue isn't firepower. Although, I -do- believe more is better. Upgunning a little would be nice. The biggest issue is this:

 

 

 

When main gun rounds are tied to higher hq approval, you're not fighting. No rant, just pointing out that equipment has to match doctrine. Doctrine should have some basis in reality and seek to be effective. My idea, bristling with firepower, would be worthless in the current US doctrine. That doctrine is one which puts ROE above every other consideration. "Optics" and social media, donchayaknow.

 

Tracked APC/IFV? Sure. But the wheeled concept is important and fills a void.

 

C3k. I appreciate and agree with your comment. optics and social media is the battlefield in COIN. In fact it is the most important one considering we also have to fight the optics at home. But to say it is not fighting is inaccurate. I will raise you the 9 purple hearts accrued in my squad alone during one deployment in 2006-2007. So it can get you just as dead. Not having to call someone or ask permission to put a lot of hate and discontent in that window is key. I'll take what i can use right now over what i can go get any day. 

.

 

 

 

 

 

MBCT: Motorized Brigade Combat Team.  Basically the leg infantry BCTs we have now, with most of the Stryker fleet available if the mission supports it (MGS and Cav versions ditched in favor of a true light tank, and the 

 

SBCT is leg infantry with taxi cabs. The training and entire concept supports this statement. Styrkers take us close then we infill on foot and call them up as we need them if we even do.

 

Do you have any suggestions on modern effective light tanks soviet or NATO, because in my research nearly everyone except the nations with predominately jungle environments have ditched light tank concepts.I have not seen a light tank design floating around anywhere so what and how soon would you suggest implementing this and with what resources.Currently Bradleys and abbrams are maintained and rotated through at Graffenwhoer and Lithuania. While I most whole heartedly aggree that staged and maintained is not as good as active i imagine with recent events that may shift with 2cr demanding more firepower and a return to the more heavy mech mtow over pure SBCT makeup. .

 

I am picking on you a bit panzer and want to express that I do respect your opinion and overwhelming positive contribution to this community in my limited time combing over this entire forum. I hope you can understand no self respecting Stryker Infantryman can take a bashing without speaking up especially one from the inception development and execution phase. We suggested multiple improvements the best of which is getting some traction after almost ten years. 

 

Edited for less hostile/brevity
 

On the conventional front, it sucks.  Really, really sucks.  And the NTC experiments were pretty unambiguous about that, and modern FTXes have pretty well confirmed it.  The recon is bad, the MGS doesn't handle tanks at all, the AT capability on the offensive is not up to the job, the maintenance and recovery is totally lacking for any sort of intensity.  This is old news.

 

The problem is the Army is still pretending something like 2 CR in Germany is going to be able to go into a fight with a near-peer like Russia and not just get a lot of Americans killed.  And the whole rational for the SBCT originally was something beefier than light infantry, but faster deploying than armor formations given the problems with 1991 (Airborne units effectively an angry speed bump to even a third world army, heavy units arriving over the course of months).  But the SBCT is not up to that task.  It deploys fairly fast, but in practicality, the weapons available are not much better than the IBCT's (especially at current allocation, and the Stryker ATGM isn't much better than a TOW HMMWV).  If we're going to have a force that can deploy fast enough to be relevant we have to sacrifice some of the speed of the SBCT, to regain some of the armor of the older heavy formations.

 

Also in a realistic term, the MGS did a great disservice by killing the AGS and other light tank programs.  The Army is just now starting to try to find a light tankish thing to plug into the hole the Sheridan (flawed as it was) left.  

 So I will conclude with this which brings up great points as expressed in not so technical terms by my original post. THE SBCT is not designed to fight armor it is a taxi. It prvides light infantry the mobility it needs to infil and extract into key terrain with field sustainability. Plus if we knew we were going up against armor you can bet your bottom dollar that more than 4 javaelins would be on that stryker. In fact they would fill the hell hole and be strapped down to the top. cached at fall back positions etc. 

 

The Battlefield is an ever evolving environment and heavy armor and mech units are in no danger of being replaced since we are having to counter an equally-semi equally technological and industrial threat that has blossomed, during our current pre-occupation with goatherders. But I will point out the fact those goat herders sent the soviets home packing when they moved in all their awesome light armor and apc's bristling with weaponry that now sits mangled in the field of dreams outside kandahar and kabul. Infantry can do a lot against Russian equipment even using russian equipment who combat every threat by engineering "the lets get by with 1960s era weaponry and fill every role mentality." 

 

 

Thank you for the great conversation and I look forward to many more and hearing everyone's POV and comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SBCT is leg infantry with taxi cabs. The training and entire concept supports this statement. Styrkers take us close then we infill on foot and call them up as we need them if we even do.

I recall hearing this as well, that Stryker was never supposed to be an APC but was designed as a replacement for the HMMVW in the IBCTs. With that in mind the vehicle makes quite a bit of sense. It's better protected, better armed, and carries more troops than the M1114. Yes the argument can be made that it's more expensive, has a bigger profile, etc etc since it's a very heavy battlefield truck that's all true. That was all planned for in the nature of the design though. I've heard lots of mixed arguments about Stryker overall but the gist i'm picking up on is that it's a recently introduced weapon system and is naturally prone to being misunderstood. This is pretty typical for every new weapon.

I really don't buy that MGS was intended as some kind of anti-tank. How many AP rounds do they even carry on average? Two or three? That's not dedicated anti-tank. That's emergency/last-ditch anti tank. It's an assault gun in the tradition of vehicles like the Sturmgeshutz. It's designed for pummeling holed up infantry from the safe distance that a caliber like 105mm can provide. Less so for an auto-cannon. Everybody stopped using light tanks a long time ago because as it turns out IFVs do that job better anyway, and if infantry support firepower is really all that necessary than dedicated gun carriers like Centauro or Stryker MGS are more practical.

Edited by CaptHawkeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am a combat wounded vet so hostile brevity is the medium I am used to, comfortable, and operate in. Sorry had to get a dig in Panzer afterall we are all soldiers here whether real peacetime or conceptually.  :P

 

I could have been one of those, but they didn't bite for some reason. 

 

 

 

You have obviously never operated out of MRAPS in a combat setting for any lengthy period of time as the case in Afghanistan and one many have voiced concern regarding. 

 

I operated out of a MAXPRO for a while as a new LT, and then as a troop XO had to keep a fleet of RG-31s and MAXPROs from falling apart.  They're not great vehicles.  However if you read my later proposals on BCT adjustments...basically I feel having two "light" BCTs is the wrong way to go about it.  If the Stryker is just a taxi for light infantry, great.  Then why do we have two distinct flavors of light infantry that are incapable of unaugmented operations outside of COIN?  

 

 

 

The Styrker was designed exactly as you said to be the middle weight flex option and operate as a follow on force to sustain controlled territory in addition to move forces efficiently to the front to serve as light infantry, and around the battle space.. This is nothing new as we have done this since WWII and always looked for the best fit in sustainability and # of personnel. Forces that can transport ground troops efficiently and sustain themselves on the battlefield are paramount in overall strategic success. SBCT were not designed for frontline spearhead duty as identified in every manual regarding their employment since inception. Referenced SBCT rifle platoon and squad and above on up to Battalion level Fm's within the first ten pages or so.

 

Which is sort of missing the point.  The rapidly flexing around the battlespace is cool and all, but as you pointed out, it's not a spearhead force.  So we have a rapidly deployable and mobile force that must wait for something that takes months to deploy before it can do anything.

 

Which gets us full circle back to the 101st and 82nd relying on Saddam's good graces to let us get armor in theater, which is what the Stryker was supposed to help with. What good is faster if it cannot do the job when it gets there?

 

 

 

Again how do you get them and sustain them from their racks to the operational area. If NK came over the border the scout platoon at the bridge is dead in 30 minutes as is the other supplementary D.I.P  outfights to buy time to get forces in position to respond.

 

If you want to get super-specific, it's actually an old idea back when 2 ID in Korea was really 2 ID vs Div troops+1 BCT.  The most practical way would just be to co-locate the leg dudes with the aviation brigade and have them be air assault troops.  The simplest way to climb a hill being getting dropped off at the top and all.

 

We still had to give up our mech infantry dudes for missions like that fairly often for training.  Just makes sense to have the pool of light infantry to accomplish that task without having the uncomfortable question of where the Bradleys live when the company is on helicopters.

 

 

 

Cav Tanks are you referencing Sheridans or M60 Starships? Aging soviet equipment vs aging Nato. 3rd world being the key identifier in this comment so Air Superiority is inferred and artillery does a lot to shake up, poorly trained and non fanatical armor crews just click green on your next quick battle. 105 mm was the original gun for Abrams dontchaknow. The sheer retro fit cost for mothballed items would stagger you. Plus they were phased out long before the Stryker was even a concept

 

The XM8 was a light tank that nearly made it to service in the mid-90's before being scrapped in favor of the MGS (to the degree it actually made it into the tank platoon FM and doctrine was written for it).  Which is odd/funny as the end users of the M8 are not folks who received the MGS (except for 2 CR after it was Stryker-fied).  It's a good start point as it's about Bradley to Bradley+level armored depending on the modular armor fitted.  Also it was highly air transportable.  

 

 

 

SBCT is leg infantry with taxi cabs. The training and entire concept supports this statement. Styrkers take us close then we infill on foot and call them up as we need them if we even do.

 

Which is exactly why there should either be SBCTs, or leg IBCTs, but not both.  It's wasted capabilities to have two things that do the same job with slight differences.  Either should bring something more meaningful to the table, or there's just no point.  So in that regard having purely "light" air mobile and then motorized makes sense, but not leg and motorized.

 

 

Do you have any suggestions on modern effective light tanks soviet or NATO, because in my research nearly everyone except the nations with predominately jungle environments have ditched light tank concepts.I have not seen a light tank design floating around anywhere so what and how soon would you suggest implementing this and with what resources.Currently Bradleys and abbrams are maintained and rotated through at Graffenwhoer and Lithuania. While I most whole heartedly aggree that staged and maintained is not as good as active i imagine with recent events that may shift with 2cr demanding more firepower and a return to the more heavy mech mtow over pure SBCT makeup. .

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Armored_Gun_System

There you go.  I think a bolt-on expanded range Javelin might be a neat option too, especially if it still lofted from the launcher, as that'd let you fire off a missile from the defilade.

 

In regards to 2 CR, if we meant business it'd be an ACR.  It's doing the ACR mission already, might as well give it the firepower to do it.

 

 

 

Plus if we knew we were going up against armor you can bet your bottom dollar that more than 4 javaelins would be on that stryker. In fact they would fill the hell hole and be strapped down to the top. cached at fall back positions etc. 

 

It doesn't work as well as you'd think.  I had a friend who was an SBCT guy.  Their Battalion was held up to the point of simply endexing by a platoon of either National Guard or Marine Reserve M1A1s at Yakima*.  On the defense you have a point, but a Stryker unit cannot advance in the face of armor, especially halfway decently positioned armor.  

 

 

*MGSes simply died without getting a change to engage, ATGM variant couldn't get into position and fire without at the least being firepower killed during TOW flight time.  Infantry infiltration with Javelins...between troop fatigue from infiltration type movement with ATGM and body armor in tow, and just getting spotted and wacked, just did not pan out well.  The battalion never got past the tanks and it was never really addressed beyond claims by Battalion leadership that the MGS platoon leaders were to blame somehow.

 

 

 

The Battlefield is an ever evolving environment and heavy armor and mech units are in no danger of being replaced since we are having to counter an equally-semi equally technological and industrial threat that has blossomed, during our current pre-occupation with goatherders. But I will point out the fact those goat herders sent the soviets home packing when they moved in all their awesome light armor and apc's bristling with weaponry that now sits mangled in the field of dreams outside kandahar and kabul. Infantry can do a lot against Russian equipment even using russian equipment who combat every threat by engineering "the lets get by with 1960s era weaponry and fill every role mentality." 

 

Which is exactly why I'm not anti-infantry, I'm just against this light infantry mafia thing that the last ten years has empowered.  There's a time and place for light infantry.  It's a valuable tool.  But it's a lot less valuable if the enemy is halfway decently armed.  Right now we have a capabilities gap in that we have Strykers, which cannot do full spectrum unaugmented, or ABCTs which are either ultra expensive to deploy fast (1-2 tanks at a time stratair!) or take a few weeks to get in theater.  

 

The ACR concept in the regards of it being something mean enough to hold its own for sometime, while having the all arms organization to leverage supporting assets is a great starting point.  Finding a better AFV than a Stryker to fill it out is the next logical step. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

C3k. I appreciate and agree with your comment. optics and social media is the battlefield in COIN. In fact it is the most important one considering we also have to fight the optics at home. But to say it is not fighting is inaccurate. I will raise you the 9 purple hearts accrued in my squad alone during one deployment in 2006-2007. So it can get you just as dead. Not having to call someone or ask permission to put a lot of hate and discontent in that window is key. I'll take what i can use right now over what i can go get any day. 

.

 

 

 

My bold. Nothing I said, implicitly or explicitly came remotely close to implying that combat in Iraq/Afghanistan was not fighting. You may be mistaking someone else's comments for mine.

 

My comments were meant to underline the disconnect between sending units into combat, but making them use ridiculous ROE. Easy for a politician to say and it causes many needless casualties. I don't see how you thought I meant that it "is not fighting".

 

My "doctrine" would be that NO ROE exists except that which the ranking officer on-scene states. By "on-scene", I do NOT mean the Theater HQ. Nor the TacCP. I mean the guy who is in the dirt and can see and yell at nearby soldiers. That is the on-scene commander. If he says "shoot the big gun", then shooting the big gun is okay. If the President tells the General to tell the Colonel to tell the Lieutenant to tell the Sergeant to enter the building without a loaded weapon to "win the heart and minds", then everyone up that chain needs to get a boot up their ass. 

 

Compare the last victory the US won and its ROE vs the ROE we've been saddled with by "optics" minded charlatans. 

 

Just sayin'...

 

But, yeah, I want big caliber HE and massive ROF weapons on every AFV we have. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the thread up to this point. Very interesting stuff.

However, I would like to submit an alternate solution to the issue raised in the O.P.

 

I don't know exactly what 30mm gun is being proposed to be fitted to this new MGS Stryker analog. Hopefully it won't be some shiny newfangled gun with circuitry and laser beams, because everyone knows fancy gadgets never get used properly.

 

My solution is simple, take the existing MGS Strykers, remove the 105mm gun, and replace it with one of these:

Vulcan1.jpg

 

That's a 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon, it is mounted in nearly every combat aircraft we have, has been in use for 50 years, we have plenty of them to pass around, and it will shred any infantry or light armor it hits. Also note the complete lack of circuitry and laser beams! It's a purely mechanical killing machine, designed from the very beginning to be functional, reliable, and to blast apart anything it touches.

 

Just look at it.

 

It's beautiful.

 

Aside from the fact the M113 is old and needs to be replaced, I always had a soft spot for the old M163 Vulcan ADS. So why not take the gun from the 163, and strap it to an MGS turret? If you replace the bulky 105mm ammo with smooth, streamlined, linkless, 20mm rounds, how many could be carried? Enough?

 

EDIT: I had to put a spoiler tag around that picture, because I'm pretty sure it's classified as pornography around here ;)

Edited by SLIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or how about double or quad vulcans?? oooo

 

I'm pretty sure the potential ammunition expenditure would render that impractical. Don't get me wrong, I'm always in favor of more guns, but I was trying to be realistic.

 

Vulcan gatling gun on an IFV? Hmm...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163_VADS

 

That's exactly what I was referring to. Just look at that thing, it's so wonderful it's no wonder it was scrapped! It just looks so angry you want to give it a big hug and shoot something with it.

 

"In US and Israeli service the VADS has rarely been needed in its intended purpose of providing defense against aerial threats—consequently the Vulcan gun system was in use throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s primarily as a ground support weapon."

 

See, the Army already had the right idea 30 years ago!

 

No, no, no.  They must mount GAU-8 from retired A-10s.  So many problems solved at once!

 

I hadn't thought of that until just now! Could you imagine the possibilities of such a weapon on a vehicle!? You could cut whole buildings in half!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  One of my ROTC instructors had started life as an ADA crewman on the M163 in Panama before going SOF. He said it was an amazing counter-sniper platform, you might not get the sniper, but NO ONE is hanging out for long after a vulcan burst.

 

2. There was a wide variety of DIVADs type vehicles that got kicked around.  I seem to remember there being a Sheridan hull mated with the GAU-8 and a radar for local air defense.  Could be wrong though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone say AVADS? As is typical for the History Channel, the VO is wrong. The original VADS had no radar. That came later, was for ranging only, not tracking, and was designated with the "A." That was much easier to deal with than calling it PIVADS.

 

 

akd,

 

What is that thing called? Looks kind of like an SF hybrid with an M41 Walker bulldog chassis.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...