Stryker units in action: media of the day

[akd]

After gathering photos of Stryker unit small arms, I thought a thread with recent Stryker media coverage might be of interest:

Spc. Kirk B. Hubbard, radio telephone operator, from Company A, 4th Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, takes cover while on patrol in Mosul, Iraq. 11-9-05

I'd swear these Aussies are on top of a Stryker:

Two Australian soldiers sit on a light armoured vehicle in Samawa, 270 km (160 miles) south of Baghdad November 9, 2005. Based in the southern Iraqi province of al-Muthanna, the Australian forces provide security for Japanese defence force personnel and training for Iraqi military units.

[ November 09, 2005, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: akd ]

[hellfish]

The Aussies are on an ASLAV-PC, which has a Stryker-like weapons mount (might even be the same?) but on an older LAV-II chassis as opposed to the Stryker's LAV-III chassis. I'm pretty sure the ASLAV-PC doesn't have all the commo gizmos either.

[MikeyD]

Yup, the aussi remote mg is the same as the Stryker.

If you notice the first picture, there seems to be a LOT of add-on armor on the roof. Looks quite substantial (and heavy). Plus it blocks the commander's vision blocks. That's the first time I've spotted that add-on armor configuration. In other shots I've seen a 6-8 inch strip of steel plate running along the top edge of the cage itself. That Stryker's got all the latest features too - the repositioned headlights and the big exhaust cover on the engine deck (also obstructing the commander's LOS).

[akd]

http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/large/CSA-2005-11-14-091537.jpg

November 14, 2005

Staff Sgt. Salelea Tuiolemotu, from 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, patrols Mosul, Iraq.

[hellfish]

Is that a Finnish name?

[akd]

Looking at the guy, I would guess Pacific Islander (Samoa, or maybe Hawaii).

[jrcar]

The ASLAV-PC mounts the Kongsburg Remote Weapons Station, either a 50 cal or a 40mm grenade launcher.

ASLAV is a type II hull, and is still amphibious. It lacks the advanced commo gear of the Stryker but is a good vehicle.

Cheers

Rob

[hellfish]

Originally posted by akd:

Looking at the guy, I would guess Pacific Islander (Samoa, or maybe Hawaii).

Ah yeah, you're probably right. There are (comparatively) a lot of Samoans in the Army.

[akd]

should note that last one was posted on the 14th, not taken then

[Tarkus]

Looking at these shots I see what seems to be another example of previously refered to "commandoization".

First shot shows a soldier with an M4 equipped with what seems to be a Bushnell holosight. Second soldier rather went for an Aimpoint red dot scope. (Both aren't exactly cheap, but I guess I'd be willing to chip the extra coin too if my a** was on the line). Does it means that soldiers are simply allowed to grab whatever fits their aiming taste best ?

Got me thinking... maybe BFC will model the personnal income of the player's troops ?

"Yay, pvt. Pyle got fresh money from stock option I bought after battle #2. Here comes the ghillie suit, sweeeet ! "

[akd]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

Looking at these shots I see what seems to be another example of previously refered to "commandoization".

First shot shows a soldier with an M4 equipped with what seems to be a Bushnell holosight. Second soldier rather went for an Aimpoint red dot scope. (Both aren't exactly cheap, but I guess I'd be willing to chip the extra coin too if my a** was on the line). Does it means that soldiers are simply allowed to grab whatever fits their aiming taste best ?

Got me thinking... maybe BFC will model the personnal income of the player's troops ?

"Yay, pvt. Pyle got fresh money from stock option I bought after battle #2. Here comes the ghillie suit, sweeeet ! "

Eotech holographic site, probably acquired at the unit level:

http://www.uscav.com/prodinfo/enlarged/22382L.jpg

AIMPOINT® COMPM2 - M68/CCO reflex sight, issue for U.S. Army and Airforce:

http://www.aimpoint.com/cache/ttf/0eee817920eefedb2a.jpg

[ November 14, 2005, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Tarkus]

Eotech it is.

So the commandoization is really the junction of army will to better equip the men for the task at hand and the men going custom on certain critical piece of equipment ?

I think Canadian militaries are going this way too, maybe someone who's in the service can confirm/infirm. I would doubt regiments here have some discretionnary budget for these kinds of toys though... my guess is that soldiers can opt for whatever they think might enhance their comfort/capabilities (camelback, googles, knife, 3-point sling, tec.) but have to get the bucks out to get them. Another side of RMA.

Thanks for the pics. These are good primers.

Cheers.

[edit: just saw your post on "main UI explained" thread. Indeed it seems there are wide range of optics issued. I wonder how would compare a WWII infantry squad and today's stryker infantry squad both in terms of volume of fire and, more importantly, accuracy/lethality of same. I wonder if there are available stats. I sure seems to me an infantry squad today is *a lot* more dangerous than it was 60 years ago.]

[ November 15, 2005, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[MikeyD]

Hmmm... "commandoization". Nice turn-of-phrase. I'll start using it myself!

One thing that's surprised me, dillitant civilian hobbyist that I am, is how the M4 carbine seems to be supplanting the long barrelled M16 assault rifle. Is this just Stryker Brigade? I noticed BFC's rifle list for the game had a lot of flavors of M4 but I can't recall seeing a plain-jane M16 in the listing!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Hmmm... "commandoization". Nice turn-of-phrase. I'll start using it myself!

One thing that's surprised me, dillitant civilian hobbyist that I am, is how the M4 carbine seems to be supplanting the long barrelled M16 assault rifle. Is this just Stryker Brigade? I noticed BFC's rifle list for the game had a lot of flavors of M4 but I can't recall seeing a plain-jane M16 in the listing!

The Canadian Army started doing this also; there is little difference in accuracy between the carbine and rifle at battle ranges, and the carbine is easier to wield in close-in terrain. The current plan in Canada is to reequip everyone with a carbine version called the C8 (our version of your M4), with collapsible stock and various rails for add-ons (and, incidentally, green plastic furniture rather than black as well as a CADPAT sling).

Apparently this was done as a result of combat experience in Afghanistan. There is a long article on the adoption of the carbine by one of the company commanders who served in Afghanistan, perhaps I'll dig it out - though I suspect your question was with regards to other US Army units rather than international usage.

[Michael Dorosh]

Here are the relevant bits of the article I mentioned.

I commanded Combat Support Company 3 PPCLI BG in Afghanistan last year, so I reckon I can offer some first-hand insight into this topic. Since 3 PPCLI became a light infantry battalion in 1997, we have afforded our soldiers considerable latitude in their selection of personal clothing and equipment. Although the degree to which this is permitted varies slightly as COs and RSMs come and go, the latitude that 3 PPCLI soldiers can exercise in selecting their own gear is far greater than that encountered in any mechanized battalion. Indeed, I suspect that this degree of freedom is unheralded in the post-Korea Canadian Army. More’s the pity, because in situations where what you are wearing or carrying on your back is all that you have, it is nice to have the kit that happens to work best for you.

This freedom to choose personal kit within 3 PPCLI long pre-dated our deployment to Afghanistan. However, I will be the first to admit that it reached new heights once we got the word for our mission. After all, if you’re gonna go to war you might as well go prepared, right? Once the mission was confirmed, there was a flurry of orders placed to many of the better known after-market gear providers within Canada and the U.S. Those who had been hesitant to spend money on custom gear before, were understandably willing to “drop some coin” in preparation for deliberate, real-world combat operations.

Provided the boots were black or green, the load-carriage system was green, the gloves were black or green, the headgear was green, etc, soldiers were able to wear whatever they determined worked the best for them. The "measuring stick" if you will, was that the external appearance had to remain unmistakably Canadian. That wasn’t terribly difficult to achieve when wearing Temperate Woodland CADPAT in the desert....

We were issued the 1st Generation "jean jacket" LBV for Afghanistan, however most of us at the "pointy end" elected to go with suitably modified 82 Pattern web gear. There were a number of reasons for this. First off, the LBV rides too high on the body when worn over top of the Generation III Frag Vest with ballistic plates inserted front and rear. As a result, the mag pouches interfere with proper placement of the buttplate against the shoulder. The 82 pattern web gear does not pose this problem.

Second, the heavy-weight NYCO Combat Jacket material of the 1st Gen LBV is far too hot for a desert climate where temps often reached 60C towards the end of our tour. The web gear allows for superior ventilation, although the issue is admittedly somewhat moot when you must constantly wear your Frag vest anyways.

Third, is the issue of carrying capacity. The 1st Gen LBV was designed for mechanized and peace support operations, and carries only 4 magazines in addition to the one on your rifle. In combat operations, we found the Canadian Army's "traditional" basic load of 150 rounds for a rifleman to be grossly inadequate. The long-standing solution of carrying an additional 100 rounds in a bandolier is ridiculous. Not only does the bandolier flop around and get caught up in everything, but why would you deliberately place your soldiers in a position where 50% of their ammunition is not readily available for use? Dumb. We went with a standard basic load of 10 x 30-round magazines for riflemen. Our basic loads of belted ammo for the C9 LMG and C6 GPMG were also proportionately increased.

Common mods to the 82 pattern web gear in Afghanistan included the addition of 2 extra magazine pouches, plus an old 51 Pattern "bren pouch" for use as a magazine dump-bag. Pouch attachment points were typically reinforced with small cable-ties, and in many cases the troops chose to modify their pouch closures (especially mag pouches) with fastex buckles and/or velcro rather than the antiquated "tab & loop" fastening system. 2 x M-67 fragmentation grenades were carried in the holders on the left-hand mag pouches, with smoke grenades carried in the utility pouch. An IR glowstick with an 18" length of para-cord was taped to one of the front Yoke straps for use in signalling helicopters at night (the SOP being to swing the glow stick in a circle over your head). IR Strobes were either cable-tied to the shoulder of the Yoke, or more commonly to the back of the helmet. Small "key-ring" style carabiners were attached at various points on the webbing Yoke to allow attachment of the rifle (see below), Camelback, etc. Some chose to paint their web-gear and frag vest covers with the Tan vehicle paint.

Above and beyond the LBV versus 82 pattern web gear choice, many troops chose to deploy with private purchase load-carriage gear. There was a pretty even mix of high-quality chest webbing versus commercial LBVs, all purchased from the usual dealers (Arktis, Eagle Industries, etc). You will see at least one "non-issue" rig in just about any picture of 3 PPCLI BG troops in Afghanistan. In fact, I defy anyone to find a photo of the unit's members on operations where 2 soldiers are dressed/kitted exactly alike. We had the kind of "operational focus" for equipment selection and modification that gives anal RSMs and clothing project managers conniption fits. Tough - it worked in combat operations, and that is the bottom line.

For weapons, 3 PPCLI has a similarly progressive practice of allowing the troops to choose the weapon sighting system of their choice. The unit requested as many iron sighted C7 rifles as it could get from the supply system back in 1998. The same with C9 LMGs, as the fitting of a scope to the LMG was always (and will remain) a stupid idea. I won't get into all of the "real world" (vice rifle range) short-comings of the Elcan C-79 sight here, but suffice it to say the majority of those who do the business up close and personal far prefer iron sights in the absence of a single-reference "reflex" type sight. This is why you will see far more iron-sighted C7s and C9s carried by 3 PPCLI troops than the scoped C7A1/C9A1.

As for the C8 Carbines, the unit requested those specifically for the Afghan mission. We eventually acquired enough for every member of the Battlegroup "F" echelon (eg. the fighters). The only troops who couldn't carry a C8 were the designated M-203 grenadiers (2 per section) and of course, the C9 gunners (2 per section). There was no system available to mount the M203 on the C8 (although we tried), because we bought the "pencil-thin" Dutch barrel rather than an M-4 style contour. Hence, the grenadiers had to stick with the C7.

Overall, the C8 was an ideal choice for Afghanistan. Notwithstanding the open terrain of the desert around Kandahar during our defensive ops, all of our offensive combat operations occured in the mountains along the Pakistani border where engagement distances were surprisingly close due to numerous re-entrants, nooks, crannies and caves (eg. complex terrain). The only problem with the C8 were those thin Dutch barrels that we bought when the weapons were modified a couple of years ago. Although they are a heavy-contour barrel underneath the handguards and up to the front of the foresight/gas block assembly, the forward portion of the barrel is turned down to the same "pencil-thin" contour as the original C8 tube. Big mistake as they tend to overheat very quickly, are much more prone to damage (bending), and do not have the correct contour to mount an M203. Aside from that, the modified C8 was outstanding. Acceptable accuracy (despite the shorter sight radius), reasonable muzzle velocity range (thanks to the 16" barrel vice the M4's 14.5" tube), comfortable/compact carry, and excellent reliability. I carried my C8 bone-dry due to the talcum dust over there, and would frequently fire a double basic load (600 rounds) during weekly range practices without a single stoppage.

Most of us removed the slings from our rifles/carbines in favour of attaching the butt-stock directly to the shoulder of the web-gear using a short loop of para-cord throught the rear sling swivel, hooked through a small carabiner attached to the front shoulder of the web-gear yoke. This way, the weapon can be carried in the "alert" position without undue fatigue, it rotates instantly up into firing position (the butt-plate is already positioned), the weapon can be easily controlled with the firing hand if the support hand is required to open a door, etc, and the weapon "hangs" down the front of the body out of the way when both hands are required to do something else. Slings on rifles just get in the way, especially the 3-point C7 patrol sling.

For rucksacks, most used the 64 pattern frame with an 82 pattern bag or a custom bag. The durable 64 pattern frame is common in 3 PPCLI, and is still issued to the Para Coy. The 82 pattern frame is a piece of coat-hanger crap. The 1 RCHA Mortar Platoon attached to the BG broke 50% of their 82 pattern ruck frames the first time they did a march with the 81mm Mortars. Most rucks were fitted with private-purchase shoulder straps, kidney belt, etc.

The typical load in fighting order (helmet, web-gear/LBV, frag vest with plates, weapon) was about 90 lbs. A "light" ruck during offensive operations weighed another 70 lbs, but most weighed more due to the requirement to carry spare ammo for support weapons, radio batteries, etc. Water was the big killer, as aerial resupply could not always be relied upon. You drink 12 litres per day when humping the mountains in the summer over there, and the water weighs a ton. Personal gear (aside from rations) was limited to spare socks, a t-shirt, a poncho liner, sleeping pad, survival kit, and that's about it. The rest was ammo, rations, water, and group equipment. The fact is, there is nothing "Light" at all about the Light Infantry. Especially when you are advancing to contact at 10,000' elevation, up and down the most rugged mountain terrain imaginable. "300 pounds of high-speed lightweight kit", as we like to say....

Hope you found my comments of some interest/use. There are lots of photos on the internet where you can see what I'm talking about, but if you need a link let me know.

Regards,

Mark Campbell

Comments by Major Mark Campbell, PPCLI, at my forum

[akd]

The U.S. Marines are sticking with the M16A4 for the time being (how can you be a rifleman first carrying a carbine?). Army seems to be moving more and more towards the M4.

[Splinty]

There are alot of Army Guard and Reserve units still deploying with M16A2s, mine did. But the M4 is becoming more and more prevalent even in Combat Support and Combat Service Support units. Rear Echelon types just aren't issued all the extra gadgets that front-line soldiers get.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by akd:

The U.S. Marines are sticking with the M16A4 for the time being (how can you be a rifleman first carrying a carbine?). Army seems to be moving more and more towards the M4.

Because as pointed out, the carbine has only slightly less MV than the rifle and one doubts the Marines are engaging targets any farther away than GIs in operational theatres.

Unless Marine doctrine is significantly different in this regard?

[Sgt Joch]

Very nice post Michael, we get so few stories about how our boys are doing in Afghanistan. It makes me mad that canadian soldiers are forced to spend their own pay on equipment, especially now that the federal government is forecasting a cumulative surplus of CAN.$86 Billion over the next five years

[Battlefront.com]

Man, I got to remember to talk to Mark (er... Major Campbell) about things other than camo uniforms In fact, I have to send him an email anyway so I'll do just that. He relocated this summer and has been out of touch due to the stress of getting settled in.

BTW, there was a nice picture on one of the military websites of MAJ Campbell at the front of a column on the move during Operation Anaconda.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

JC, US soldiers buy a lot of their own kit as well, even though we spend trillions of REAL Dollars (not those funny colored ones you use ) on our military. Armored vests was one of the high profile ones, but hydration systems, equipment pouches, eye protection, etc. are also being bought up out of pocket. I remember one officer saying he had to shell out $400 for kit that he should have been issued.

Really, the only difference between the US military and other militaries is the scale of shorting the soldier. SSDM is a term that could be used (Same Stuff, Different Military).

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Man, I got to remember to talk to Mark (er... Major Campbell) about things other than camo uniforms In fact, I have to send him an email anyway so I'll do just that. He relocated this summer and has been out of touch due to the stress of getting settled in.

BTW, there was a nice picture on one of the military websites of MAJ Campbell at the front of a column on the move during Operation Anaconda.

Steve

He was out and about on Rememberance Day by his own account...the full story is at http://forums.army.ca

JC, Canadian soldiers don't have to buy their own kit; as professionals, many opt to. If the government bought every expensive item of kit every individual soldier felt he "needed" there would be no room in the budget for anything else.

You don't NEED gore-tex socks or a 7 jillion candlepower maglite with helmet, rifle and hubcab attachments, but some stuff is "nice to have" in the field.

[Mace]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

The Aussies are on an ASLAV-PC, which has a Stryker-like weapons mount (might even be the same?) but on an older LAV-II chassis as opposed to the Stryker's LAV-III chassis. I'm pretty sure the ASLAV-PC doesn't have all the commo gizmos either.

Yep, and here's a good set of photos of the Aslavs currently stationed in Iraq:

http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/images/gallery/20050609/index.htm

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Here are the relevant bits of the article I mentioned.

Lovely post. Thanks, Michael. It would have been nice to have accompanying pics of all the stuff he is describing, but I'll have to wait until I get to heaven for that, I suppose.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

BTW, there were a bunch of pics of Polish army types in Iraq posted at AHF not terribly long ago. I was a trifle surprised at how Western their kit mostly looked. But these were some kind of elite troops IIRC, so that might have something to do with it.

Michael