Blackhorse

I think you nailed it. Thanks for summing it up so nicely.

thewood, Flying tanks? Interesting! http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings

Whaco, At least you've got differing opinions (with regards to the STRYKER) upon which to draw for your own opinion. I'm glad you're gaining new insights, whatever they may be. BH

Steve, Yup. Correct me if I'm wrong, but back in those inter-war days, I believe, the old horse cavalry crowd was averse to changing to over armored vehicles. And that is why the study of history is so fascinating. There are plenty of parallels and similarities to study and to compare to events/ policies and positions that exist today.

sgtgoody, Nice series of posts. The challenge with transformation/change is that noone has a crystal ball. You can estimate what future conflicts will look like, but you cannot guarnatee that they will in fact end up that way. The interwar years between WWI and WWII, as you mentioned, saw a few nations get it right, but the majority, ourselves included, get it mostly wrong. The key is to be able to adapt and adjust on the fly, while in contact and to work towards ultimately getting it right.

LOL Thanks 11b, That was truly priceless.

11b, shhhh, he's on a roll. If we were to begin discussing the FCS I'd be concerned about JasonC blowing an artery.

JasonC, Wow. You are Brilliant. You are a genius. If you are so inclined to send me your resume, I will get it in front of the Chief of Staff of the US Army this week. He needs your help. Every officer and soldier, from lowly private first class to Lieutenant General, from the past twenty plus years screwed the pooch and you had the answers all along, if only they had asked. And you know better now even as we continue to blunder our way blindly and aimlessly through Iraq. That's some amazing ****. So should we be upset with you for holding back and only posting these pearls on obscure game company forums, or should we expect to see you step up to the plate and contribute in some more tangible way to the success of our Nation during this war. Sitting on the sidelines spewing crap and bigoted ideas only goes so far. How about walking the walk. Write a book, write an article for one of our many professional journals, or get a job where you can make a difference. Do something, anything to help. Your talents are most definitely being wasted up there in MA.

James, Long time! Glad to see you around. Technically, I can be recalled anytime up to 65. I retired out of the Regular Army, so both the Ready Reserve and the Guard are out. I was pretty much the same as you (except I was that 11th ACR Blackhorse and a heavy armor all the way, the answer is Abrams and Bradleys type as opposed to the light fighter type). Then I too started talking to those that command STRYKER units and the soldiers and NCOs that fight the STRYKERS. I then went and saw them in action and talked more with soldiers and, Bob's your uncle, I too did a 180. [ August 05, 2007, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

Advantages and disadvantages may change due to conditions. In certain conditions, the STRYKER may have greater tactical mobility. Or it may have better RPG protection due to its slat armor. Or it may have better speed giving STRYKER units the ability to reposition faster. Or it may be quieter than the BFV. Or, the STRYKER may be able to continue depite losing a tire, whereas the BFV might not be able to continue due to losing a track. Or it may be the availability of supporting MGS fires or mortars at the STRYKER company level

If by other specific vehicle you mean the BFV, then my answer is no. I do not believe the STRYKER is necessarily better or tougher. Both vehicles represent different capabilities. each has advantages and disadvantages compared to the other. Could we have built a tougher vehicle more cheaply? I don't believe so. That would have entailed a full life cycle acquisition program and those typically last 10 or so years. If the current FCS is any indication, then the cost over-runs may have been substantial. Would the end result have been better? I have no idea. We could very well have ended up with a successor to the BFV. Honestly though, that is speculation and I just don't know. Could we have bought something else off the shelf at the time? Yes. We could even have used our numerous mothballed M113s (upgraded to M113A3s or better of course) and realized substantial $$ savings. $$ savings aside, after the tests conducted at Ft. Knox in '99 the Army chose the LAV-III as the vehicle for the new Bde concept. The Army tested a wide variety (35 different types) of vehicles back then before settling on the LAV-III.

And from pages 64-65

The following excerpt is taken from the Analysis chapter of From Transformation To Combat The First STRYKER Brigade at War by Mark J. Reardon Jeffery A. Charlston Center of Military History United States Army Washington, D.C., 2007 It provides background and unique insights and analyis into the first combat deployment of a STRYKER Brigade.

Splinty, Thanks for your service to our country. You stay safe. Also, to set the record straight, I recently retired.

Bigduke, I agree with you with regards to the article. Alone it won't. I'll quote doctrine (FM 3-21.31 The SBCT) again here. The Stryker brigade combat team (SBCT) is designed to be a full spectrum, early entry combat force. It has utility in all operational environments against all projected future threats. It possesses significant utility for divisions and corps engaged in a major-theater war; however, the SBCT is optimized to meet the challenges of smaller-scale contingencies. [ August 05, 2007, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

Your opinion of the military, in particular, those you view as the lighter faster, more deployable crowd is low. I get it. (I never considered myself one, being an armor and ACR guy. And I love the ACR…) If I understand you correctly, The US Army has hosed up its doctrine over the last 20 years. We should have anticipated the situation we currently have in Iraq and as an Army should have prepared for it. Oookay. My point there was that you singled out the Army, I was saying that whatever happens is a collective and shared responsibility. Here you have more low opinion of the military and its current doctrine. I get it. We were discussing the SBCT originally. We’ll never agree then, because that cut and paste is directly from Army doctrine (FM 3-21.31 The SBCT); doctrine that you the research analyst find amusing. The doctrine is what it is, and your opinion is what it is. Oh well. We were discussing the SBCT originally, and there may be some folks here who are not aware (unlike you who are intimately aware of) US Doctrine with regards to the SBCT. Again, you find it laughable and absurd. Others might not. Who is to say? The SBCT being the original topic of discussion, the words of the doctrine are applicable. I never said the BCT was better than an ACR. I’ve stated all along the SBCT has capabilities the HBCTs, BCTs, and ACR do not have and vice versa. Yeah ok whatever. We were originally talking about the SBCT. This last quoted bit is pure hubris. Debate is indeed good and necessary. I’m not a weapon system apologist, and you, sir, are arrogant for assuming to know my professional interests. We went from the SBCT to Iraq and the current strategy there…good one. The original topic was about the SBCT. Why are you only a research analyst and not someone making decisions somewhere a’la DoD or as a general in the Army? You seem to have it all figured out. [ August 05, 2007, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

For starters, nice, real nice. So your actual issue is with the Iraq War , not necessarily the STRYKER. Sorry, don't have my nice Latin fallacy sheet handy to impress. 1. I have about as much influence over this war as you do. Read Cobra II and Bush at War for more information on how our Nation goes about planning for wars and campaigns and the roles of current and past people whose names you'll recognize. 2. If the war is being lost in Iraq, it's not the Army that's losing it, it's the nation. There is so much more involved than Army units patrolling neighborhoods in Baghdad and Ramadi. State Department, USAID, NGOs etc, companies back here, all have a hand in this. 3. Maneuver Warfare Grand Strategy? What are you on about? That is not our doctrine. I'm not sure where you got that. 4. I don't believe you know what current Army doctrine is. If you do, then so be it, you do. Some of the things you say lead me to believe otherwise. I'm not even sure how Von Manstein comes into play. As an FYI, these days we're studying past insurgencies.

Sure Jason, ignore the fact that I called you out on your saying, and I quote If you don't expect that to get a rise out of anyone, then what do you expect. Biased nonsense? Where and when. I've presented the doctrinal position and I've worked with STRYKER soldiers. How is that biased? It isn't and you know it. Our doctrine, with regards to STRYKERs and the SBCTs states, The SBCT’s operational capabilities are • Combined arms assault in the close fight. • Mobility. • Reach. • Enhanced common operational picture (COP). • Lethality. • Force protection and survivability. • Joint, multinational, or interagency operability. • Full-spectrum flexibility and augmentation. • Simultaneous operations. Doctrine states for the Combined Arms Assault in the Close Fight that: I can provide additional doctrine if necessary, but you get the point. Somewhere between the Light Infantry Divisions (82nd, 101st, 10th Mtn, 25th ID) and the heavy Divisions. Actually we should be talking BCT and HBCTs nowadays, lie the SBCTs. The STRYKER is deployable on the C-130. It is not deployable with its add-on armor package installed. That requires time once landed. You can say the decision was stupid all you want, but upon what do you base that? Your gut instincts? A personal preference you have to maybe the M113 or the ACR or whatever? That is bias. I urge you to get out and talk to the soldiers and commanders that use these things.

LOL.. good one Jason. Jason, I'm not entirely familiar with your intimate knowledge of the Armed forces, To say that I'm a buffoon for lecturing "men who know far more about the matter than you do" is comical. Look Jason. I've spent over 20 years in the Army, as an Armor Officer. I've commanded in the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment. Don't lecture me on the merits of the ACR over the SBCT. Been there done that...Apples and Oranges. When were you in the Blackhorse Regiment? Maybe I'll remember you? You are the one acting the idiot. You know not what you speak. Next time you want to come across as knowing what the heck you're talking about, do some real, un-biased research. and be damn sure you talk to the soldiers. [ August 06, 2007, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

That's what I had in mind actually. I'm glad that finaly someone honored my screen capture and image posting skills. Jens </font>

That's because you don't have to walk </font>

The SRYKER was never intended to replace the Medium Force. It provides commanders additional capabilities, capabilities that HBCTs do not have and capabilities that BCTs do not have.

Spoken like one who has never been on one...have you ever been on one? have you ever talked to soldiers from the SBCT? Do you discount the concept of strategic mobiblity? The assertion that the STRYKER replaces Light "stuff" is not nonsense. It is fact. How can you honestly claim that it is nonsense? Upon what do you base such a claim? pricetag alone? Bollox.

The Russian viewpoint is skewed because they are comparing it to their own BTR/wheeled concepts. They should be comparing the SBCT to their light ionfantry Brigades. Then, and only then does one understand what the capabilities STRYKERs bring to the light infantry. The key point that is being missed is that the STRYKER concept is applied to light infantry; Infantry that formerly had only boots for mobility and body armor for protection. Taken in that context, the entire Russian analysis is flawed and worthless.

I haven't thrown a single insult. You on the other hand I'll refrain from blunt, candid postings. Being serious though, do you understand the STRYKER concept to which you keep refering?