Joint Forces Quarterly Article "Everybody Wanted Tanks"

[RMC]

The current edition of Joint Forces Quarterly includes a nice article about the employment of the Abrams in OIF.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf

"Until recently, the Army envisioned equipping all its forces with medium-weight combat systems. That concept now appears premature."

"Armor compensated for poor situational awareness. The experience in Iraq should deflate expectations for high levels of situational awareness at the lower tactical levels."

[aka_tom_w]

Very interesting

I think these are important notes and quotes from the article

(especially important for how to model CM:SF realistically and maybe even play to win, if the game works like this:)

• Tanks led the advance. Almost always, Army, Marine Corps, and British tanks led force movements to contact. Tanks were essential because situational awareness regarding enemy forces was poor at the regimental/

brigade level and below. While operational-level commanders often had enough situational awareness to meet their needs, tactical commanders needed a degree of detail that was rarely available. As a result, there was constant danger of encountering the enemy without warning. Since the tanks could survive hits from a concealed enemy, they were the weapons of choice for the “tip of the spear.”8 Indeed, this operation demonstrated the inverse relationship between force protection and situational awareness. In circumstances where situational

awareness was poor, as it normally was at the brigade/

regimental level and below, there was a clear need for strong armor protection.

• Tanks immediately took the enemy under fire. Tanks were immediately responsive when contact was made with the enemy. Compared to artillery that could respond

in 2 to 4 minutes, or fighters or bombers that could arrive on scene in 5 to 20 minutes, tanks could open fire within seconds. The 3d Infantry Division and 1st Marine Division noted that their infantry fired few antiarmor weapons because tanks were almost always in front and engaged the enemy in timely fashion.

• Tanks were highly effective in urban operations. According to conventional wisdom, tanks should be extremely vulnerable in urban terrain, but in fact tanks led most advances into Iraqi cities, most famously during the Baghdad “thunder runs.” This was true in the case of the Army, Marine, and British forces. The Army’s 3d Infantry Division developed an urban operations

technique in which two Abrams would be closely followed by two Bradleys with mounted infantrymen and often an engineer vehicle behind the Bradleys. The tanks would flush the enemy when Iraqi forces fired on the tanks or ran from them, allowing the Bradleys to employ their 25mm cannons and machineguns. The British used similar techniques in Basra where tanks would lead the advance, often smashing holes in buildings that allowed the infantry to enter and occupy the structure. The Marines also used tanks as the leading element going into urban areas. The most important difference between Army and Marine Corps urban tactics was that the Marines employed more dismounted infantry who operated close to the tanks. The British also made extensive use of their armored vehicles in urban operations

in the Basra area.

• Tanks had shock effect.

this article is definitely worth a read, I hope Steve and the BFC folks take a good look at it.

Thanks

-tom w

[ October 19, 2005, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[hellfish]

Good article. I agree that the concept of equipping all the Army with Strykers is insanity, but I don't know if that was ever a serious consideration. I can't imagine getting rid of the M-1/M-2 fleet unless its for newer tanks and IFVs.

[RMC]

The Strykers were never meant to replace heavy systems army-wide. They were (are?) meant to be a bridge to the future force. We were going to stand up 6 BDEs of Strykers (including one ACR w/96 MGS) as an interim solution to the deployability/operational mobility/firepower conundrum.

The system that is supposed to replace everything is the Future Combat System. It's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

This was also the experience of the British as recorded in their “after action” report on the Second Gulf War. The report of the death of heavy armour is premature .

In any “real” war, by which I mean a high-intensity war between developed or semi-developed nations, you would immediately witness heavy tanks fielded with 140mm high pressure guns and hard and soft kill defensive aids for protection against diving/over flight attack ATGMs.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. When I describe high-intensity warfare as “real” wars this is not meant as an insult to those fighting low-intensity wars. If people are try to kill you or your chums it is all only too real.

[Wisbech_lad]

Most worrying - there is a "British Army Doctrine And Development Command"??

WTF happened to "they don't like it up 'em?" Or "Don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes?" All the doctrine needed in the past...

Doctrine. Nasty continental stuff.

[aka_tom_w]

In summary, the tank was the single most important ground combat weapon in the war. Tanks led the advance, compensated for poor situational awareness, survived hostile fire, and terrorized the enemy. These attributes contributed much to the rapid rate of advance from Kuwait to Baghdad. A senior Marine Corps infantry officer offered an appropriate summation of what the authors repeatedly heard: “Everybody wanted tanks.”

If thats how to play the game in CM:SF then I want a platoon of M1A1's on my Side!

I like the focus of the article:

"Heavy tanks are where its at!"

-tom w

[ October 19, 2005, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Dirtweasle]

That is interesting.

Has anyone else read M1126 Strykers in Combat: Experiences & Lessons yet?

[Sgt Joch]

Great article. Thanks for posting that, looks like the authors are not jumping on the Stryker Brigade bandwagon.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by RMC:

The Strykers were never meant to replace heavy systems army-wide. They were (are?) meant to be a bridge to the future force. We were going to stand up 6 BDEs of Strykers (including one ACR w/96 MGS) as an interim solution to the deployability/operational mobility/firepower conundrum.

The system that is supposed to replace everything is the Future Combat System. It's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

You know that and I know that, but the author of your article doesn't know that.

"Until recently, the Army envisioned equipping all its forces with medium-weight combat systems. That concept now appears premature."

[RMC]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

You know that and I know that, but the author of your article doesn't know that.

The FCS is still medium-weight and still has this notion of trading armor protection for information. That's what they're talking about, not just the Stryker itself.

[Ivan Drago]

Hmmm, I think this article has to do with the simple fact that the Iraqi fighters didn't have access to modern-day ATGM's, while their neighbor Syria in fact does.

Sure, the mighty 'tip of the spear' Abrams can bounce 60's-era RPG projectiles off of its hide like Superman reflects bullets, but what happens when a Syrian Special Op platoon shoots a couple of Kornets and Milans up their tail pipe?

I'm no expert, but I think that 'tip of the spear' would then be quite likely to shatter on impact, resulting in lots of dead Americans.

Especially if the Abrams was the main weapons platform they were counting on to protect them.

I would love, as the Syrian player in a future CM:SF QB, to see the Americans charging at me with a couple of Abrams at the front, yelling BooYaa, thinking themselves impregnable

The Stryker brigade is a shift in the right direction, IMO. We aren't really likely to fight against 1st world countries any time soon (we hope).

Our tactics have to change from Cold-War armored thrusts into better equipped and coordinated mech-infantry actions where the armored vehicle is once again the support platform, not the main element of combat.

That's my view, I guess we'll see how it all plays out come Q2 2006.

[ October 19, 2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Ivan Drago ]

[Ivan Drago]

feckin' double-post.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Ivan Drago:

Sure, the mighty 'tip of the spear' Abrams can bounce 60's-era RPG projectiles off of its hide like Superman reflects bullets, but what happens when a Syrian Special Op platoon shoots a couple of Kornets and Milans up their tail pipe?

Depending on which Milan they have, the effect could be no greater than that of a '60s era RPG7 - about 300mm RHA penetration.

The Kornets are a worry though.

[Scott B]

Good post. Some of us have been pushing this for a couple years now: these lessons were as clear as could be within weeks of the invasion, in my opinion. It's frustrating that it takes so long for this to sink in with the people who'd committed to large scale implementation of a mobility>protection school of thought.

Scott

[Scott B]

Oh, hey, just looked at the pdf file: John Gordon's a great guy, helped me with my article on this last year. Very knowledgeable.

Scott

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for posting that, looks like the authors are not jumping on the Stryker Brigade bandwagon.

Er.... did you see the same article I did? The author stated:

Editorial disclosure: Like POGO, I haven't always been a big fan of the Stryker. Reports from foreign analysts with no axe to grind, and even more so from front line troops who have served with it in combat, are changing my mind.

I think 99% of the hubris over the Stryker comes down to paranoia from heavy armor enthusiasts. The Stryker never was, and never will be a replacement for heavy armor in some roles. However, the Tread Heads saw their favorite vehicle of choice losing some of its turf to a new system. And that set them off big time. Instead of challenging the Stryker on merrit of what it was designed to do, they introduced the false argument that it was intended as a complete replacement. With this false argument created, the attacked it for things it was never supposed to be doing. Some of the Stryker's perceived "failures" came out of this invented argument. Especially when the criticism often applied to Bradleys and Armor, not to mention dodging the "failures" of heavy armor that the Stryker is designed to address.

In short... a lot of BS is floating around about the Stryker program and use in the field, but my experience says that nearly all of it is coming from the heavy armor supporters with big axes to grind.

As for FCS... it is supposed to replace all current inventory equipment. Not all vehicles are wheeled either. The concept is for smaller, more robust vehicles that don't have to rely upon brute strength to defend themselves. Therefore you get a lighter, more mobile force with about the same level of protection and offensive capability. Yet to be seen how this will work out, but they have another 15 years or so before it is supposed to be fielded (IIRC).

Steve

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

That is interesting.

Has anyone else read M1126 Strykers in Combat: Experiences & Lessons yet?

what it seems to say, basically, is that the Strykeout is better protected than the Humvee.

Hooah !

[hellfish]

That said, I think there are plans to keep the M-1/M-2 fleet around to about 2030.

[Sgt Joch]

Actually, I was commenting on the article posted by RMC in the first post.

But yes, I am not convinced by the Stryker Brigade concept. My understanding is that it is a first reaction team which can be airlifted and deployed quickly on the ground, (in theory, 96 hours), until heavier forces can arrive. It will utilise the latest technology to monitor enemy forces, which it can then bypass with it's superior mobility while it calls in air/artillery assets to neutralize the threat.

However, firstly, the stryker has limited off-road capabilities, and would be mostly confined to the road net. That would make it easier for the Syrian forces to predict where they will advance and set up an ambush. Secondly, even with the greatest intelligence capability, there will still be situations where enemy forces are not detected. I can just see so many situations where a Stryker Brigade can run into trouble during a Syrian invasion.

In CMSF, I'm sure it will be tactically challenging to command one, but in real life, I would see the Stryker Brigade as being more of a rapid reaction force to be airlifted to, for example, Sudan, to quell a crisis or participating in peacekeeping or counter-insurgency operations. However, I don't think it is suited to spearheading an Invasion of Syria.

[ October 19, 2005, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

[MikeyD]

This line in the aricle is interesting:

"By the time they reached Baghdad, most tanks were combat capable but far from fully mission capable, largely due to an overall shortage of spare parts that plagued operations in Iraq."

I know they disliked the notion for CMx1, but with these new electronically sensitive weapons. I wouldn't mind having random armor show up with its IR sights offline, or broken laser rangefinder, or with its 'borg' network link down, or something like that. In otherwords 'combat capable but not full mission capable'.

About Stryker being road-bound, I believe in Afghanistan LAVs and Hummers went out on a loooong cross-country deployment to cut Route 1 from Helmand province (I think). It was a bit of a fiasco. Just about every vehicle got repeatedly ditched. Shocks broke, tires went. They even heli-lifted a dead hummer back to camp! But the point is they DID make it finally and successfully performed their mission. Unless you make a monster map CMSF would only cover the final 'successful' part of that hard drive.

[aka_tom_w]

In CMSF, I'm sure it will be tactically challenging to command one, but in real life, I would see the Stryker Brigade as being more of a rapid reaction force to be airlifted to, for example, Sudan, to quell a crisis or participating in peacekeeping or counter-insurgency operations. However, I don't think it is suited to spearheading an Invasion of Syria.

That makes sense to me. But is it a fair statement?

"However, I don't think it (the Stryker) is suited to spearheading an Invasion of Syria"

Is that the intention in CM:SF?

Steve did say something about the Stryker Brigade being the primary unit. But there would be tanks as well. Does the intense desire to model and simulate the Stryker Brigade in the game possibly overlook the actual role the Stryker Brigade was intended for? (as per the post above: " but in real life, I would see the Stryker Brigade as being more of a rapid reaction force to be airlifted to, for example, Sudan, to quell a crisis or participating in peacekeeping or counter-insurgency operations.")

I am curious.

-tom w

[ October 19, 2005, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[hellfish]

I see Stryker brigades taking up a similar role as what the 82nd, 173rd and 101st did in the initial stage of OIF - securing the LOCs and creating blocking forces.

By no means does that imply a secondary role, it's still vitally important and all those units did see some pretty heavy combat. But they're not a main thrust kind of force like the 3rd ID was. The 3rd ID bypassed nearly every town it encountered and left the 82nd and 101st to clear them up later on.

[Michael Emrys]

I don't see that there would be any need to rely on the Stryker brigades to spearhead an invasion of Syria, since there are already enough heavy elements present in Iraq to do that. The only circumstance I can imagine where that might not be true is if those heavy elements had been withdrawn to meet an emergency in some other theater. In which case, I am dubious that the US should be starting another war in Syria.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

JC,

Actually, I was commenting on the article posted by RMC in the first post.

My bad I only had time to skim it, but I don't see anything there that I'd disagree with or that paints the SBCT in a negative light. From what I see it reinforces the need for multiple types of forces, and for a large scale conventional fight the heavy stuff is of paramount importance.

However, firstly, the stryker has limited off-road capabilities, and would be mostly confined to the road net.

This is not entirely true. It does have some mobility issues in soft ground and it can not negotiate extremely rough terrain the way a tracked vehicle can. But other than that, it is fine. And don't forget that tracked vehicles have mobility issues too, mostly having to do with maintanence issues. Then there is the other aspect, which is would you rather have a capable armored force in place quickly or only a light force? Heavy units can not be deployed and supported on a short term whim.

Secondly, even with the greatest intelligence capability, there will still be situations where enemy forces are not detected. I can just see so many situations where a Stryker Brigade can run into trouble during a Syrian invasion.

But that is true for ANY unit. Stryker Rifle Companies also have more dismounted infantry than Mech ("heavy") and better armored support than Light Infantry. So like anything, it has its pros and cons. Focusing on just the cons of one group and just the pros of another is a bad way to compare capabilities.

In CMSF, I'm sure it will be tactically challenging to command one, but in real life, I would see the Stryker Brigade as being more of a rapid reaction force to be airlifted to, for example, Sudan, to quell a crisis or participating in peacekeeping or counter-insurgency operations. However, I don't think it is suited to spearheading an Invasion of Syria.

Er... this is like saying the 82nd Airborne or the 101st aren't well suited to anything bigger than Grenada or Haiti where heavy enemy forces and resistence aren't anticipated. And we know that is incorrect.

The role of a Stryker Brigade in a large offensive op could be critical to the rapid crushing of enemy resistence. Picture an OIF type Thunder Run not just through a single city but through an entire country. It is the kind of thing Guderian, Rommel, Patton, Zhukov, and others would have been very interested in trying out. Unfortunately for them, they can't. But you guys can

Steve