Stryker vs Bradley

[slysniper]

So this topic has not gone far. 

So there are a few comments that point out how in Truth, American military design for its equipment has a tendency to get lost as to its purpose. 

And if anything can be said, that is the only thing that almost always seems to happen with our stuff and is the biggest truth spoken.

From the moment armies started making armor. America has had a tendency to miss the boat as to the best designs. (And don't give me that bull about the Sherman being the best tank. crap.)

But the other truth is, American Soldiers have always managed to find a way to use what they have been given and learn how to make it fit their needs.

 

The stryker isn't amphibious (well who said it needs to be that machine that floats on water) but I do agree that America is not prepared in the least degree for certain conflicts because of our lack to cross small water bodies with any type of military formed units with that ability. Its one area I think the Russian army shines, and if as a leader of their units and I was to be fighting Americans, I would find a way to take and make that mobility advantage pay off if I could.

America needs amphibious mobile fighting unis, we lack them presently. As a Old Marine, I will say, we have designs and prototypes that fill that need with amazing capabilities but without approval, equipment built and units formed. We sit in a position that we should not, but what's new with how things are going anymore.

 

I will say, we did almost get it right when the M1's came out.

but we stole much of that from the Brits and in truth,  they did have the 105's, which was the incorrect choice, so no surprise that needed fixed and it did not take long for that to happen. And second, I still am not sure that the M1 gas turbine engine was or is the best choice either. I understand better than most as to why they needed it. but as for feeding them things on the battlefield. talk about a nightmare in logistics. If anything was to ever go south, m1's stranded because of lack of fuel is a very easy scenario to create.

 

 

 

 

 

[IMHO]

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

Reductio ad absurdum

But nonetheless... Why, in your opinion, does not US Army mechanized infantry squad consist of an infantry squad, Bradley/Stryker, M109 howitzer, Abrams tank, dedicated Apache helicopter? It still falls within the guidelines of increasing firepower as much as possible...

[slysniper]

3 minutes ago, IMHO said:

But nonetheless... Why, in your opinion, does not US Army mechanized infantry squad consist of an infantry squad, Bradley/Stryker, M109 howitzer, Abrams tank, dedicated Apache helicopter? It still falls within the guidelines of increasing firepower as much as possible...

Logistics man, Logistics. 

To make a large organization run, it does require giving out different responsibilities to different groups and then when needed having a method to get them to work together on the same operation.

If you can get around that, power to you. (So far most of the world has not figured out another way to make it work)

[IICptMillerII]

Wew ok we've really gone off the rails on this one.

11 minutes ago, slysniper said:

So there are a few comments that point out how in Truth, American military design for its equipment has a tendency to get lost as to its purpose. 

True.

11 minutes ago, slysniper said:

America has had a tendency to miss the boat as to the best designs. (And don't give me that bull about the Sherman being the best tank. crap.)

False.

12 minutes ago, slysniper said:

But the other truth is, American Soldiers have always managed to find a way to use what they have been given and learn how to make it fit their needs.

True.

12 minutes ago, slysniper said:

America needs amphibious mobile fighting unis, we lack them presently.

LAV-25 (and variants). AAV-7 (and variants). LCAC. (For those that do not know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion) 

15 minutes ago, slysniper said:

but we stole much of that from the Brits and in truth,  they did have the 105's, which was the incorrect choice, so no surprise that needed fixed and it did not take long for that to happen.

False. (Did we "steal" the 120mm from the Germans then?)

16 minutes ago, slysniper said:

I still am not sure that the M1 gas turbine engine was or is the best choice either.

It is.

16 minutes ago, slysniper said:

but as for feeding them things on the battlefield. talk about a nightmare in logistics. If anything was to ever go south, m1's stranded because of lack of fuel is a very easy scenario to create.

False. The Abrams is no more "fuel/supply hungry" than any other MBT. And for the record, the Abrams exhaust cannot melt infantrymen crouched behind it, nor does it attract AA heat seeking missiles. All myths, long ago debunked. The History Channel lied to you. 

@c3k
I have the perfect vehicle for you:

For more designs, just search the term "Landship." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landship)

[slysniper]

Now, back to the point of the 30mm on a few attached strykers and that being added to the unit formations.

In no way does that prevent them from doing any of their present missions or does it make a huge change in logistics.

(they still have the same basic platform they are running on so support would not be taxed that much more).

 

Now, there was a comment that they might not be able to be lifted in on the same planes. well, that might be true, and if so and you could not get the needed air, then I would say, they would be left behind if the mission was still needed.

As for them carrying troops, simple answer, no. (just think of them as a added support unit , no troop support is mandatory to function as part of a stryker unit)

See most of these issues come down to design and how to make a unit work - and as mentioned before - most Americans are real good at getting that concept screwed up.

[slysniper]

LAV-25 (and variants). AAV-7 (and variants). LCAC. (For those that do not know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion) 

Are you kidding me, thus the reason I said we have no ability. This are so outdated as to filling the needs of today, and we can do so much better.

 

Lav-25 is ok, but that is almost a 40 year old platform.

AAv-7 were never designed for land, they are truly only good in a constant water environment. (they were a piece of crap when they were new and now 50 years later, should not exist at all on the battlefield

lcac is again outdated to what they have now if they would just build it. (plus we really need something that is good for land fighting and movement of troops, not just beaches.

There is the next generation stuff out there, fast, mobile, more capable of multi tasking land and water situations.

Your present list are knights of the round table in a world of guns

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by slysniper

[Rinaldi]

18 minutes ago, slysniper said:

 

Lav-25 is ok, but that is almost a 40 year old platform.

 

...and the BTR is not? 

Like yes, the LAV is showing its age, as are quite a few other things; that is the happy side effect of a world without a serious conventional conflict in the last 80 years - armed forces tend to stagnate a bit. I'd like to take the bait about all the other little nuggets you threw in from the peanut gallery re: Shermans, the M68 105mm, M256 120mm, etc. but its so off topic that I'd rather not fuel the fire.

If your overarching point is that NATO and in particular the US is playing catch-up; you're doing a poor job of showing it. 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Rinaldi

[slysniper]

As for your other items of disagreeance, you can hove your opinion and I will have mine.

except for the

M1 gas turbine engine 

When the tank first came out, it was really needed, it was the only power horse to get the job done.

 

But my proof of it not being the best design now with what has developed since then.

just name any newer tank designs going down the path.

Proof of great design is when someone copies you. That is the only evidence needed, its not the correct path.

 

And you are crazy to not understand how the brits helped with the armor design on the M1, and look how similar the M1 is to the centurion, early design decisions were made from what the brits learned during their development. Designers do not start most projects from scratch, they take the best knowns out there and develop or try at least to develop a new and better mouse trap. (tank in this case)

 

[Jotte]

2 hours ago, BTR said:

Well there is a vehicle just like the stryker that in fact can swim so the big question is why was this ability dropped and in favor of what was that decision taken?  

That is what I ask myself too. But I'm guessing a slightly higher degree of protection is prefered over the amphibious ability. Western armies tend to prioritize their personnel's survival.
 I saw something somewhere about the Polish Rosomak with a scaled down protection level, but with amphibious ability, being shelved after their Iraq experience.

[IICptMillerII]

21 minutes ago, slysniper said:

Are you kidding me, thus the reason I said we have no ability. This are so outdated as to filling the needs of today, and we can do so much better.

Wow. I'm impressed. I never would have expected to see someone honestly try to claim here that the US military is an outdated, antiquated force. Do I even bother asking the obvious; can you name a single Russian vehicle that is currently in service that is younger than 20 years old? 

11 minutes ago, slysniper said:

Proof of great design is when someone copies you. That is the only evidence needed, its not the correct path.

No.

11 minutes ago, slysniper said:

And you are crazy to not understand how the brits helped with the armor design on the M1, and look how similar the M1 is to the centurion, early design decisions were made from what the brits learned during their development.

The primary British contribution to the original M1 Abrams was Chobham armor. It was newly developed by the British, with the express purpose of being able to defeat HEAT warheads. The M68A1 105mm gun used on the Abrams and Patton tanks were the British designed L7 gun. This gun was in use with the US already. I don't get what you are trying to say here. Is it a bad thing that various NATO countries worked together and shared technology/parts/designs in order to develop new vehicles? Are you seriously claiming that just because certain countries do not immediately adopt US equipment, or vice versa, that said equipment is garbage?

I'm actually surprised by the levels of ridiculous this got to. 

15 minutes ago, TJT said:

But I'm guessing a slightly higher degree of protection is prefered over the amphibious ability.

Basically this. A vehicle that can cross a river and do nothing else isn't very useful. To make the stryker amphibious, you would have to strip it down a lot, and say goodbye to the newer mine resistant variants with the V hulls, as well as getting rid of all ERA. The vehicle would essentially require a complete redesign. In short, it is out of the scope of that the stryker is supposed to do. 
 

[Saint_Fuller]

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

how similar the M1 is to the centurion

Did you mean Chieftain or Challenger, perhaps? Not that those are very similar to M1 either, mind you.

Because the M1 has very few similarities to Centurion, beyond the very superficial (having tracks, a turret with a gun in it, four crewmen, etc). What the British contributed to M1 was mostly the special armor formula, and the L7 (otherwise known as M68) gun that was in US service long before M1 was a twinkle in some tank engineer's eye.

Speaking of L7, I vehemently disagree with your characterization of mounting the 105mm on early M1s as being a mistake. Not only was the M68 with M774 capable of killing almost every Soviet vehicle that would've laid tread on the battlefield circa 1980, but M833 and M900's introduction also ensured that it could defeat even the new Soviet tanks with K-5 appearing on the stage in the late 80s.
Additionally, the 105mm had the advantage of being able to use existing ammunition stocks, and it was also explicitly a temporary thing: the Abrams was designed from the start to accommodate a future mounting of the 120mm gun, because US tank engineers weren't dumb and could anticipate the need for a bigger gun once the 105mm started to reach the end of its development potential.

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

Proof of great design is when someone copies you. That is the only evidence needed, its not the correct path.

This is asinine.
If everyone doing it meant it was good, this would mean putting vulnerable ammo in the fighting compartment is a good idea. It isn't. It's a deliberate tradeoff to achieve some other purpose: in T-72 it's the autoloader that demands it, in Leopard 2 the hull ammo storage exists because half the bustle is occupied by all the hydraulic drives and the radios (in order to protect the crew from high-pressure hot oil if the hydraulics are hit), etc etc.
Just like the choice of using diesels over gas turbines is such a tradeoff, despite gas turbines being demonstrably superior for tank purposes: they have better acceleration, are far quieter, and perform better than diesels in extreme temperatures (Soviet experience with T-80s and T-72s in Siberia attests to this: the turbine-engined T-80s were easy to start in a matter of minutes even at -40C, while T-72 diesels would take up to and even over 45 minutes to get going in the cold).
Diesel engines are used primarily because they're less fuel thirsty, not because they're better engines in any particular way.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Saint_Fuller

[akd]

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

As for them carrying troops, simple answer, no. (just think of them as a added support unit , no troop support is mandatory to function as part of a stryker unit)

What are you talking about?

[HerrTom]

3 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Clearly, the US Army has not put any emphasis on amphibious capability since the late 60s, and it has not been a detriment. 

Clearly going back a number of posts here - but most of the US arsenal was designed in order to maximise defensive firepower - mobility in the local area to be able to fire-brigade breakthroughs the Soviets made - but crossing natural obstacles tends to be a primarily offensive task.

The Soviets put a large focus on it due to their experience in the GPW on the importance of water obstacles and associated engineering support on large offensive operations.

I'm not super familiar with Iraq 2: Baghdad-ier - but were the Iraqis able to cause significant infrastructure damage on their retreat?  I have a feeling the Army units were able to push so fast because the Iraqis weren't able to coordinate defense of bridges or destroy them before they were reached?

Not really a direct response to you, but more ambling musings.

[slysniper]

3 hours ago, Saint_Fuller said:

Did you mean Chieftain or Challenger, perhaps? Not that those are very similar to M1 either, mind you.

Additionally, the 105mm had the advantage of being able to use existing ammunition stocks, and it was also explicitly a temporary thing: the Abrams was designed from the start to accommodate a future mounting of the 120mm gun, because US tank engineers weren't dumb and could anticipate the need for a bigger gun once the 105mm started to reach the end of its development potential.

Diesel engines are used primarily because they're less fuel thirsty, not because they're better engines in any particular way.

Oops, my mistake, I was meaning the challenger  which was the tank that was referenced , then analyzed how do we make something better than this.

yes, you are totally correct as to 105 rounds being capable at the time to do the job. ( but the more likely real reason for not starting with the 120,  was how to make more money on the equipment being sold to the government. Knowing that the 120 upgrade was almost a locked in guarantee to get the new contracts for the upgrades that was sure to be coming )  but hey, military contractors doing such things in this country, no, never been heard of.

 

Diesel engines are used primarily because they're less fuel thirsty, not because they're better engines in any particular way. ( And this is about the only reason I question the gas turbine engines, not saying they are not the best possible thing to put in the tank.)

But when it comes to design decisions, one must ask, what is gained, what is lost. 

So as we do in our military so often any more in this country, we don't prepare for all situations , we prepare for the ones which we think we can dictate to happen. 

simple example, we plan for air superiority, we really do not have our forces designed for anything but this situation.

As for what I am discussing here, we again treat the logistics of running M1s with gas turbine engines as not a problem, again because we expect our logistics to be there , to work and that supplying them will not be a problem, its a mind set. I am just not sure that mind set is true, that is all I am saying ( And most other designers for other countries see it a little different, or those turbine engines would not just be in our tanks, that is all I am saying)

 

 

[slysniper]

4 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Wow. I'm impressed. I never would have expected to see someone honestly try to claim here that the US military is an outdated, antiquated force. Do I even bother asking the obvious; can you name a single Russian vehicle that is currently in service that is younger than 20 years old? 

 

Look, the point was, how outdated is the US forces in being able to make any inland waterway (rivers, lakes) amphibious crossing.

My answer is, totally not prepared. ( what little we have is as you mentioned in the hands of the marine corp.)

it is not enough, not designed well and not up to date to handle the task.

So in that area the words you typed for me are fine - I do claim here that the US military amphibious units is an outdated, antiquated force

 

so sure, I appreciate those 20 year old Russian platforms for that type of situations.

 

But hey, look we have not needed them for the last 60 years as you mentioned, so why should we worry about having it now - you come back with the perfect American answer, don't prepare for every situation, lets just plan for the ones we think we can dictate will happen.

Edited November 20, 2017 by slysniper

[slysniper]

3 hours ago, akd said:

What are you talking about?

that is back to the original discussion of stryker getting 30 mm cannons.

So the point being , if a stryker cannot carry infantry as a payload, it does not make sense for that to be added as a option.

My reply was , that if some stryker with 30 mm are part of a units , forces, they do not have to be infantry carriers also. They can just be attached support units, is that clear enough for you.

[IICptMillerII]

6 minutes ago, slysniper said:

But hey, look we have not needed them for the last 60 years as you mentioned, so why should we worry about having it now - you come back with the perfect American answer, don't prepare for every situation, lets just plan for the ones we think we can dictate will happen.

The WHOLE POINT of the stryker is to give the US Army a modern, quick, flexible vehicle that can respond to anticipated and unanticipated situations. Just because the stryker can't swim, or fly, does NOT mean it is a useless antiquated vehicle. You are the only one here trying to claim that the US refuses to prepare for anything. 

10 minutes ago, slysniper said:

it is not enough, not designed well and not up to date to handle the task.

What task, pray tell? We don't need amphibious vehicles in Europe. If we did, there are plenty of "old, antiquated" LAVs and AAVs lying around that could be rushed into theater to fill this glaring hole in strategic doctrine. Funny though, I haven't heard any Generals or otherwise losing their minds because their vehicles can't cross a river. Its a good thing you've managed to find the one massive glaring hole in US doctrine that all of those so called "experts" and "military leaders" overlooked. 

28 minutes ago, slysniper said:

simple example, we plan for air superiority, we really do not have our forces designed for anything but this situation.

Ok, I'm going to call you out on this one to prove a point. Post your source. Where, in any official doctrine, does it say that if air superiority is not gained then all hope is lost? Back up you claim with a source. 

30 minutes ago, slysniper said:

As for what I am discussing here, we again treat the logistics of running M1s with gas turbine engines as not a problem, again because we expect our logistics to be there , to work and that supplying them will not be a problem, its a mind set. I am just not sure that mind set is true, that is all I am saying ( And most other designers for other countries see it a little different, or those turbine engines would not just be in our tanks, that is all I am saying)

Again, not the case. But keep going with these absurd and false generalizations. 

2 hours ago, HerrTom said:

Clearly going back a number of posts here - but most of the US arsenal was designed in order to maximise defensive firepower - mobility in the local area to be able to fire-brigade breakthroughs the Soviets made - but crossing natural obstacles tends to be a primarily offensive task.

The Soviets put a large focus on it due to their experience in the GPW on the importance of water obstacles and associated engineering support on large offensive operations.

I'm not super familiar with Iraq 2: Baghdad-ier - but were the Iraqis able to cause significant infrastructure damage on their retreat?  I have a feeling the Army units were able to push so fast because the Iraqis weren't able to coordinate defense of bridges or destroy them before they were reached?

Not really a direct response to you, but more ambling musings.

I understand where you are coming from. At face value it would appear that US doctrine during the Cold War should be defensive in nature. After all, NATO wasn't planning on attacking the Eastern Bloc. 

However, US doctrine is actually the opposite of this. So much so that the doctrine doesn't even plan for defense. The entire goal is to always be attacking or counter attacking. This is for a lot of reasons, but primarily it has to do with initiative and the positive effects of keeping and maintaining the initiative in combat. This is an extremely simplified glossing over mind you. If you want to read more, I would recommend reading up on AirLand Battle. That is the doctrine the US Army developed during the 70s (as a result of what was seen during the 1973 Yom Kippur War in Israel) on how they planned to fight a mechanized war against the Soviets in Europe. 

[akd]

45 minutes ago, slysniper said:

that is back to the original discussion of stryker getting 30 mm cannons.

So the point being , if a stryker cannot carry infantry as a payload, it does not make sense for that to be added as a option.

My reply was , that if some stryker with 30 mm are part of a units , forces, they do not have to be infantry carriers also. They can just be attached support units, is that clear enough for you.

You are not paying attention.  30mm RWS does not change passenger capacity of the vehicle.

[HerrTom]

27 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

I understand where you are coming from. At face value it would appear that US doctrine during the Cold War should be defensive in nature. After all, NATO wasn't planning on attacking the Eastern Bloc. 

I admit, I'm faaaar more versed in Soviet doctrine than Western doctrines.  Just read five books on it haha!

30 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

However, US doctrine is actually the opposite of this. So much so that the doctrine doesn't even plan for defense. The entire goal is to always be attacking or counter attacking.

Is that a new development?  I understand the focus on counterattacking to maintain the initiative - but does this really make sense when your brigade is facing a division?  On the attack, you lose practically all the factors that enhance your relative firepower.

The Soviets focused on meeting engagements because they expected the war to be so mobile that units will be engaged before they reach their defensive positions, but that's conjecture on their part.  I understand not all of Nato subscribed to Forward Defense by the letter, but the focus was definitely on delaying and spoiling. 

33 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

If you want to read more, I would recommend reading up on AirLand Battle.

I'm vaguely familiar with AirLand battle - it focused on strikes throughout the enemy operational depth, right?  The new doctrine for the new high-tech battlefield - and the one which disturbed Soviet planners greatly as it got implemented in the 80s.

[c3k]

The 30mm ROOFTOP turret in no way impinges on the Stryker carrying capability.

When the Bradley was introduced with the 25mm cannon, remind me again what other vehicles in the US Army inventory used those shells? Logistics should mean the Bradley's cannon would be a failure.

Introducing a 30mm cannon for the Stryker in NO WAY is logistical show-stopper. Again, if you want to simplify munitions, then upgun the Brad with the same 30mm.

Javelin launchers connected to a CLU wired in to the RWS is simple. Get an adapter cable and run it over from RWS to missile tube. Stick a rotary switch on the ceiling. Let the TC rotate it as missiles are launched. (No doubt a slicker, much more expensive system could be offered by a contractor.)

Putting a turreted 120mm breech loading mortar on a Stryker would replace the 120mm mortar Strykers running around with a tube sticking through a hatch.

Logistically simple.

Firepower increase would be an order of magnitude...as would capability to defend the light infantry against armor.

No decrease in mounted troops.

Resistance to this idea is puzzling. Are current US Army officers so incompetent that they would misuse equipment which is better suited to the task at hand? (It has anti-armor capability so we fear they'll be used to attack tanks. WTF??? Seriously???)

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, c3k said:

Javelin launchers connected to a CLU wired in to the RWS is simple. Get an adapter cable and run it over from RWS to missile tube. Stick a rotary switch on the ceiling. Let the TC rotate it as missiles are launched. (No doubt a slicker, much more expensive system could be offered by a contractor.)

Summat like this:

I'm sure I've seen this thread before, but with a different OP.....Equally wrong of course. 

Comparing Stryker with Bradley is like comparing BTR-80 with BMP-3, T-15 or Kurganets (IFV), they're for completely different jobs/threat environments. 

Amphibious capability is substituted in most (not all) western armies by comprehensive engineering capabilitiy.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[LukeFF]

42 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Amphibious capability is substituted in most (not all) western armies by comprehensive engineering capabilitiy.

I was waiting for someone to (finally) say that.  

[Kinophile]

Bradley's go with M1s, which are not amphibious. In the above study, it's noted just how difficult/awkward/non linear it was to integrate Strykers and Abrams together. It's a pity they weretraining in the ME  terrain of the NYC, I'd be interested to see what it's like to put them together in the more riverine east coast. 

Yes, logistics. The issues discussed are directly battlefield related - maneuverability and tactical fire support. Every weapons system has a tail, and no military wants to freely add one more load point into a finely tuned system. But they will, if they feel the need. The MRAP is insanely awkward to move, yet the US  made its logistics  work. So if there is a need,, it can happen, and will. 

Adding a 30mm RWS to 1 out of however many  Strykers doesn't break the formation, mission, logistics or maneuverability of a Stryker unit. Tbh, I'd have thought the 105 MGS was way out of scale (logistically) for a Stryker unit. Doesn't it feel like such a huge gap between 50 cals/GLs and aaalllllllll the way to a light tank main gun? 

Amphibious capability is gone anyway,, it's moot - it would require such a fundamental redesign that its simply not gonna happen. There's always this, of course.

A top mounted RWS on the other hand.... 

I'd be interested in anyone's playing a custom battle/scenario version of that UKR v RUSSIAN map, what is it - Futile? Relentless? Hell? I forget, but it's UKR btr mech  inf defending a riverine town v RUS Armor-Mech assault. I also forget if Dragoons are modeled in CMBS? 

Ether way, map in Two flavours:

1. US Stryker, as is, no 30mm Dragons, , assaulting same town, defended by RUS BTR 82As. 

2. US Strykers with integrated Dragoons OR 1 UKR BTR 4 (a very poor substitute,) per RP. 

See how both fare (BTR 4Es,are not allowed fording, if Capable). Not ore judging, but curious. 

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by kinophile

[IICptMillerII]

53 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I admit, I'm faaaar more versed in Soviet doctrine than Western doctrines.  Just read five books on it haha!

I've only read the Field Manuals on Soviet Operations (FM 100-2-1) which gives a decent overview behind the philosophy and the practical applications in my opinion. Five books is impressive though. Any you would recommend?

55 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

Is that a new development?

I couldn't tell you when the word "defense" was purged from tactical schools/doctrine, but that is indeed the case. So much so to the point where the Army and Marines don't even teach defensive operations. They obviously still teach things such as security postures, that if attacked are essentially planned defenses, but they aren't meant to be permanent. The idea is basically to always be on the attack, but on the off chance the enemy catches you while you are "paused" (so to speak) you are properly prepared to repel said attack. I'm probably confusing more than I am helping at this point though. Just know that on the war fighting level (that is, the tactical and operational levels) the idea is to always have the initiative, which is an offensive posture by nature. 

Its important to remember that while the strategic objective of NATO in Europe was one of defense, that does not translate to always being on the defense on the tactical and operational level. 

1 hour ago, HerrTom said:

I'm vaguely familiar with AirLand battle - it focused on strikes throughout the enemy operational depth, right?  The new doctrine for the new high-tech battlefield - and the one which disturbed Soviet planners greatly as it got implemented in the 80s.

Essentially yes. To make things more confusing, the idea was not to wait for the Soviets to come at you through the Fulda Gap and defend in place, but to in fact attack the enemy who is trying to attack you. Not head on mind you. The entire idea is elasticity. Independent units (Brigade level) being able to act autonomously. This both helps during a conventional war, and in the event of the use of nuclear weapons. The entire army isnt wiped out in one strike because everyone is spread out, and all the smaller groups have enough firepower/logistics to operate by themselves. Again, this is an oversimplification, but I think you'll understand what I'm getting at. 

 

1 hour ago, c3k said:

The 30mm ROOFTOP turret in no way impinges on the Stryker carrying capability.

When the Bradley was introduced with the 25mm cannon, remind me again what other vehicles in the US Army inventory used those shells? Logistics should mean the Bradley's cannon would be a failure.

Introducing a 30mm cannon for the Stryker in NO WAY is logistical show-stopper. Again, if you want to simplify munitions, then upgun the Brad with the same 30mm.

Yes, new weapon systems are constantly being developed and added, and generally speaking it does not "break" the logistics of the army. The point is, adding the 30mm cannon to the stryker defeats the point of the stryker. Why do you need a stryker armed with a 30mm when you can have a bradley armed with a 25mm (literally just as good, with more ammo) and TOW missiles? It becomes redundant. Even this is irrelevant to the main point however. If you turn the stryker to a landship, you can no longer rapidly deploy it. If you can no longer rapidly deploy the stryker, then it has no purpose. 

1 hour ago, c3k said:

Firepower increase would be an order of magnitude...as would capability to defend the light infantry against armor.

Too bad it never gets to the battlefield. 

 

1 hour ago, c3k said:

Resistance to this idea is puzzling. Are current US Army officers so incompetent that they would misuse equipment which is better suited to the task at hand? (It has anti-armor capability so we fear they'll be used to attack tanks. WTF??? Seriously???)

Wewlad. 

[Kinophile]

8 hours ago, IMHO said:

But nonetheless... Why, in your opinion, does not US Army mechanized infantry squad consist of an infantry squad, Bradley/Stryker, M109 howitzer, Abrams tank, dedicated Apache helicopter? It still falls within the guidelines of increasing firepower as much as possible...

Max fiyapowa is not the objective - a tailored, appropriate W'S is,, and exists. And the USMil is already going ahead and integrating it as we dibble dabble here.