Strykers...and Why I thank god I am not Stryker Infantry

[The_Capt]

It feels like an age since I lasted posted here but the sight of JasonC trying to peddle his attrition-centric dogma is like sugar to me.

First off, finally bought CMSF and I like it. All this about bugs and no WE-GO seems very over-inflated. She runs as solid as a rock and I like Real Time, particularly when it is truly tactical in nature.

Now into the current debate:

I will speak of the Canadian experience so far, which has us going in a very similar direction as the Stryker Bdes.

First off lets seperate the vehicles from the idea.

The idea was (at the extreme) that speed and superior information when pushed very far ahead of your opponent will allow for extreme asymmetry between forces in your favour. Think of being in a boxing match where your opponent is moving in slow motion (matrix-time), blindfolded and you are in real time. Well your opponent can be Tyson and it won't matter because you can hit him a dozen times below the belt. Take a quiet breather and then hit him again, all without taking a scratch.

The Stryker concept (we here in Canada moved our entire Army to this idea, now they want to mix ACR type constructs except use LAVs) is but a means to the end mentioned above. Now if you take that basic idea and widen it beyond a tactical-operational construct you began to see gains at the strategic in that you can project a force very quickly, before Mike can get his shorts on and hit him in the dressing room. You can do this if your force is light and has the legs to do the job.

This was all very good news for a small nation like Canada, who with modest defence budget could now still be a war winner within a coallition..woo-hoo!! No more need to try and keep up with the Joneses to the south, cause they are just too damn rich.

Now you must seperate the nature of the conflicts. Modern symmetric wars are short and brutal and we have every indication they will remain so. They are so because we have found that we can tip the scales very quickly in our favour if you blow the hell out of everything from the air then drive in to pick up the pieces.

This is a dangerous course because it means that the US is the only western ally capable of going to war. It is dangerous because it means ONLY the US can wage a war, which can tire any nation out. The rest of us just come along for the ride. It is also dangerous as a hyper-power will force other spheres of power in to being in reaction. So when discussing the idea of modern war, I think that there is still a solid role for the Stryker concept. The sole alternative of heavys backed up with massive airpower begins to severely limit strategic options rather than enhance them.

A final point on urban warfare. What we saw in 2003 in Baghdad was not the norm of modern urban warfare. In fact the utter destruction of the government thru a single fast line drive to the city could support the fast-furious arguments of the Stryker supporters (overwhelming airpower accepted). In Baghdad we had an opponent who simply melted away.

A determined opponent, one that would justify heavies was not seen until Falujah. From those accounts urban warfare hasn't changed a bit from Stalingrad. Troops slogging house by house supported by tanks and other heavy assets are a reality that will not go away.

Now the follow-on. Modern war is in fact becoming the opening act in all of this drama. Tyson simply falls part into fire ants who hide in among the other..friendly ants. You can have all the matrix time you like but it is going to take a very long time to find those little buggers and they are going to sting you in the process. And if you take too long, or step on too many friendly ants in the process, they become fire ants too. Too many fire ants and you get very badly stung up, while looking like an idiot in the process.

At this point the Stryker, Bradely, in fact most kit issues fade away in the face of having to fundementally change the way you will fight. One has to balace the reality of keeping your own casualties down, severely limit damage done to the local nationals, gain the support of the local nationals, find the fire ants and take care of them very quickly and quietly.

Counter-insurgency is an entirely different type of conflict. So much so that one has to be thinking about reconstructing national infrastructure, rebuilding local governance capbility much more that which gun does a better job when someone does pop up on the grid.

So where does this leave our poor Stryker idea. Well I personally think they have utility at all levels of warfare in both modern symmetric or counter-insurgency operations.

Will they replace the heavies? Very tough call. I think it more likely heavy stuff will be enabled by Stryker in symmetric conflict, like that chair you finally hit Tyson with after stunning him up bad enough. This will allow for less heavy stuff overall, which do suffer from strategic speed issues.

And I suspect the heavy stuff will enable Stryker in counter-insurgecy in providing a backstop of force that prevents the insurgency from trying to form up too much resistence in any one location...let's keep the ants as ants.

Of course this takes up right back to to old attrition and manoeuvre arguments back in the day. To that my position remains the same. They are in fact two sides of the same coin and one must be able to employ either with equal ability. This is one constant that I have to see proven false.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Guardsman11b:

I absolutely hate Strykers. Its probably because I am a light infantryman (Mountain) and not into the "Armored" aspect of modern warfare.

I know the basis of the American Forces is the Stryker, but I have put together a list of units, and vehicles for another release that I hope are included.

The up armored Humvee, with a 50. Cal and 49mm Mk. 19

Bradley Fighting Vehicle, added to all Mech US Army units

Regular Infantry units, with either a mix of M4s to M16s.

National Guard units, with M-60 support, and or 240G.

Airborne units (Ar Assault)

and If the engine can support it, other Helicopters, such as Blackhawks, Chinooks, and the Kiowa (actaully showing if you zoom out).

I don't like Strykers... heh

What do you guys think about those units?

Are you really in the Army? There are so many things wrong with what you're saying that it makes me wonder. Have you been to basic yet?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Zipuli]

The lighter than heavy seems to be the trend right now when (western) countries want to spend a lot less €$£ for their armies, yet want them to be rapidly deployable. They are NOT preparing for WWIII here, you got to remember that! No one seems to believe we will run into a real WAR anytime soon, but rather smaller conflicts that don't require leveling the whole opposing country and its infrastructure. Some western (especially European) countries have armed forces SOLELY for piece-keeping/chrisis management purpose.

Patria AMV's:

The poles bought 690 of them (called Rosomak there) equiping a lot with them, so not just Af****istan. Also in many different versions. Slovenia also took some 130+ AMVs to replace their tanks (M55S and M84), bought even the new NEMO -mortar vehicles. South-Africa bought them (some 300+). Finland bought them - the uparmoured version with no airlift capability nor swim capability, but with enough armour to frontally stop 30mm APFSDS, but with .50 cal AAMG (OWS) as weapons. Also less armoured versions with twin 120mm mortars (AMOS) were bought for readiness bde's (24 pieces total). Then there's the LAVs, Piranhas, Boxers, SEPs etc. It seems like only Germany is developing new TRACKED IFVs (Puma), everyone else is converting to wheeled.

I won't try to depate wheeled vs. tracked, just pointing out what is happening around the (western part of the) world currently.

Zip

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

Of course this takes up right back to to old attrition and manoeuvre arguments back in the day. To that my position remains the same. They are in fact two sides of the same coin and one must be able to employ either with equal ability. This is one constant that I have [yet] to see proven false.

Excellent point. Throughout my career I saw commanders go to both extremes and both usually enjoyed the same success, none. Decisive action from a good position has the best chance of success. Plunging into a barfight at every opportunity or constantly trying to line up the perfect shot is almost a sure route to failure.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by AdamL:

Blackhorse,

Thanks for that. May I reiterate it as I understand what you have said? One, the people involved where mistakes occured were merely wrong. They were trying hard and believed in what they were doing. Specifically are their mistakes are characterized by not foreseeing the insurgency? Two, you and certainly many others have personally disagreed with the doctrine, e.g., Hercs, Urban, etc. That it's not a "scheme" but a product of many opinions, admittedly an imperfect product that is still being worked out.

Is that correct? Are those your main issues with Jason's argument?

Adam,

I'm a littel unclear on your questions, so forgive me if I miss the mark.

1. I believe you are referring to those who develop doctrine and force structure. If so, yes. However, the human element is so much a part of it that we can draw parallels to Mr. Rumsfeld and how we planned for and fought OIF1. One can argue that arrogance and pride prevented the opinions of others from being heard by key decision makers during the run up to OIF1.

Arrogance, pride, and inflexibility and an inability to listen to advice could very well have existed during the development of doctrine and force structure. Who knows? i wouldn't be surprised. It's part of the human condition, so most likely was present in some way shape or form. Hell, it's all around us. That aside, those people still thought thier own ideas and beliefs were the right ones all others be damned.

2. I'm having difficulty understanding question two.

you and certainly many others have personally disagreed with the doctrine, e.g., Hercs, Urban, etc. That it's not a "scheme" but a product of many opinions, admittedly an imperfect product that is still being worked out.

The development/refinement of doctrine continues. We try to learn from our lessons.

I'm not sure to what you are referring regards the Hercs and the Urban bit. Please clarify.

Hope this helps.

my disagreement with JasonC is that I like the STRYKER and the concept, and I believe that the Army got that right, and he doesn't.

So we disagree.

[ August 07, 2007, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Blackhorse,

Were you still with 11 ACR when they took over NTC? Just curious.

[Blackhorse]

sgtgoody, No I had moved on by then. Had friends who were however.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Blackhorse:

sgtgoody, No I had moved on by then. Had friends who were however.

I went through Air Assault school in Fulda when 11 ACR ran it. Col Noyes was in command then I believe. I still remember how to sing "Allons."

[Blackhorse]

I was there at the time. I was on Downs Barracks, 1st Squadron. Remember Wynn Noyes well. Some of my NCOs helped run the school.

Allons!

[SgtMuhammed]

It's a small army. Allons back to you!

[James Bailey]

Originally posted by Zipuli:

The lighter than heavy seems to be the trend right now when (western) countries want to spend a lot less €$£ for their armies, yet want them to be rapidly deployable.

....

The poles bought 690 of them (called Rosomak there) equiping a lot with them, so not just Af****istan. Also in many different versions. Slovenia also took some 130+ AMVs to replace their tanks (M55S and M84), bought even the new NEMO -mortar vehicles. South-Africa bought them (some 300+). Finland bought them - the uparmoured version with no airlift capability nor swim capability, but with enough armour to frontally stop 30mm APFSDS, but with .50 cal AAMG (OWS) as weapons. Also less armoured versions with twin 120mm mortars (AMOS) were bought for readiness bde's (24 pieces total). Then there's the LAVs, Piranhas, Boxers, SEPs etc. It seems like only Germany is developing new TRACKED IFVs (Puma), everyone else is converting to wheeled.

I won't try to depate wheeled vs. tracked, just pointing out what is happening around the (western part of the) world currently.

Zip

If I were a LAV salesman, I would be very very happy these days and my phone would be ringing off the hook. Wheeled heavies are clearly the direction Western military powers are headed. There are just way too many advantages against the light enemy compared to the tracked heavies. Sure if China suddenly invaded India or North Korea the South, this would change. But in the Dafurs, Iraqs, Afghanistans, Lebanons, etc wheels are the only way to go. Keep the HMMWVs inside the wire, the M-1 MBTs in reserve and ride in style on 8 wheels!

[Battlefront.com]

Linden,

The guys actually doing the fighting vs. Panthers and other late-war nasties were not quite as fond of the Sherman as the general staff in the USA...

Very true. However, the Germans were not fond of finding Shermans popping up whenever they looked around the battlefield. And Panther crews weren't all that happy with the later war variants either.

The point here is that every piece of hardware, every bit of doctrine, has a flipside. All doctrine has its weaknesses and strengths. The SBCTs in Iraq have proved themselves extremely capable and even uniquely qualified to handle certain types of missions. Stick the same unit out in the middle of a desert with an unsurprised, intact enemy armored force lying in wait... probably a totally different outcome from the successes in Iraq. But as others have said...

Which is more likely to happen?

If we go to war with China we will have to use nukes, so who cares what our conventional forces are like? They will either not see combat at all or they won't be the decisive force. No indication of war with anybody else at that level of mechanization and combined arms support. Even China is a stretch IMHO.

Iran, the most likely "next war" scenario is not going to be a conventional ground war. We can't afford it. Instead it would be large scale surgical air strikes with some limited rapid deployment forces inserted and withdrawn as quickly as they could be. It's the only practical way of going about it.

North Korea is a slightly different case. As long as we have enough conventional forces to hold them long enough to bomb their forces into the ground, that's all we need. That means that both Bradleys and Strykers aren't of much use. Tanks, infantry, and artillery would be what the Army would want most. In the event of a major withdrawal action, I would think that Strykers and Humvees would be the better choice.

In a nutshell, I just don't see the situation in the near future where we'll need an armor heavy force. Apparently nobody else does either since, as several of you have pointed out, all the Western militaries are moving towards wheeled medium weight armor. They can't all be idiots, can they?

Steve

[Bradley Dick]

I think the move towards medium wheeled armor is a reflection of the new fast attack and deployment doctrines. Basically, leg infantry is gone. Even a major urban combat environment these days requires vehicles for infantry. (see the Airborne borrowing trucks in Tal Afar 2005). Nobody seems to do much marching these days. Especially not in the desert. And seeing how most of the oil is in the desert, our equipment is modeled for that environment. When we thought Russia would be the fight, most of our vehicles had temperate camo. Now, most vehicles are desert camo.

[roboczar]

I have to say after reading this whole thread, watching two groups of people argue past each other is amusing. Seasoned tactical thinkers operating in a vacuum with informed strategic minds in the same situation. Have a little synergy folks, it's good for you.

What I found particularly shocking though is what appears to be an employee of the publisher verbally attacking what may be paying customer in a manner I would expect from a seasoned forum troll, not someone part of a business. I appreciate that one of these guys is a personal friend, but seriously, people come here to read about your company's products while forming a purchase decision.

It wasn't even like it was a valid argument either, it was just more talking past each other about tactical comparisons vs. strategic considerations. Thumbs down, and I hope fewer potential customers read this thread than I suspect.

Hell, I barely ever post here, but I do read, and this was enough to draw me out.

[Battlefront.com]

roboczar,

I have to say after reading this whole thread, watching two groups of people argue past each other is amusing. Seasoned tactical thinkers operating in a vacuum with informed strategic minds in the same situation.

I find it quite frustrating I understand full well the differences between tactical, operational, and strategic perspectives. Sometimes they are not compatiable. For example, having a mess of Shermans for the invasion of Europe was a great strategic decision that probably greatly aided in the destruction of Germany's forces in France, but try telling that to the tactical element that had to worry about every German with a spitball and angry words Operationally, Shermans could have been better but still got the job done admirably. Therefore, trying to argue the Sherman was "useless" it needs to be clarified what level one is talking about. Tactically it was useless in some circumstances, sure, but operationally and strategically it could be said to have been the best tank of the war.

So when someone starts saying that because Rumsfeld had his head up his arse that means a Stryker in the streets of Mosul is useless... well, it's not a strong argument. Especially when someone who was in that Stryker in Mosul comes on to tell said armchair Corporal General that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

What I found particularly shocking though is what appears to be an employee of the publisher verbally attacking what may be paying customer in a manner I would expect from a seasoned forum troll, not someone part of a business.

Must have missed that one. I've read all 10 pages and I've seen plenty of disrespect shown by by armchair warriors, with a muddled and confused line of argument, towards the soldiers who actually have been there. Not to mention continued perpetuation of factual errors about what the Stryker can and can't do, such as no self recovery (it can), can't be airlifted by C-130 (it can), costs more than an Abrams (first time I've heard poppycock like that!), etc. Or trying to distort the picture by saying things like "it has worse fuel consumption than it was supposed to" without understanding that, while true, the Stryker still has fuel economy far greater than the Bradley. In other words, purposefully or ignorantly applying a fact to a flawed argument.

Anyway, much of this discussion has been about one peronsality that has a loooong history on this forum of expressing a flawed argument and trying to tear anybody who challenges him a new hole instead of entering into an honest debate. Yup, I've seen JasonC do this more than once

Steve

[ August 07, 2007, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Renaud]

all the Western militaries are moving towards wheeled medium weight armor. They can't all be idiots, can they?

Not to be contrarian, but sure they can. Take for example the Western powers in the years running up to WWII. Maybe we're all lemmings.

[roboczar]

Well, I defer to your judgement. As a business owner, I tend to draw the line at things like this as it's gotten me into serious trouble before.

It doesn't really have anything to do with the previous discussion, it just shocked me a little because of how I run my business. I had to do a double-take when I saw 'Battlefront.com' feeding the troll, and doing a little trolling themselves.

But it's your business, not mine. Just a comment from the peanut gallery who will probably be buying the game at the end of the quarter.

[Battlefront.com]

Renaud,

Not to be contrarian, but sure they can. Take for example the Western powers in the years running up to WWII.

I don't think that is really true. Germany, France, England, and the US all embraced the tank (I presume that's what you're talking about?) and combined arms warfare. They each had different takes on it and Germany's proved to be the better overall concept. But it was by the skin of their teeth and they eventually lost, in part, because they missed opportunities to evolve the concepts they pioneered while their enemies didn't.

When a nation is at a crossroads it has to make the best estimate of what the future threat will be based on the information it has on hand. I don't think anybody credible could possibly claim that the most likely threat to a nation's security and economic stability is from a massive, combined arms enemy with air cover capable of thwarting what the West can come up with. Such a foe doesn't exist now and, with one exception, isn't likely to ever exist. That exception is China and the chances of a land war with that country are just about ziltch because of other reasons.

Therefore, what is the better direction for a military force? Maintain a Cold War force structure aimed at defeating an enemy that no longer exists, or adapting the force to be able to handle a broader range of threats, including the ones that are most likely?

Personally, I think the US military structure and equipment is on the right track. What needs an overhaul are the upper command echelons (civilian and military) that allowed itself to get sucked into a war it wasn't prepared to fight. No whiz-bang vehicle, tracked or wheeled, can win an unwinable war.

Steve

[Bradley Dick]

I'll be the first to admit that the Bradley has problems. But goddammit. I love that piece of crap. As much as it broke down... As much as I had to stop and fix something in the suspension.... As much as I wished to all hell that it had Air Conditioning(Iraq) or a heater that worked in more than 1 out of 5 tracks(Germany)..... It saved my life, it helped "freedom fighting jihadist's" find their 72 virgins, and by god it sleeps 3 comfortably. I'm VERY biased against the Stryker, with no real good reason. (other than tires, which go flat) I simply hate the idea of my chosen baby being replaced or sidelined by the new kid in town.

[Battlefront.com]

roboczar,

It doesn't really have anything to do with the previous discussion, it just shocked me a little because of how I run my business. I had to do a double-take when I saw 'Battlefront.com' feeding the troll, and doing a little trolling themselves.

There is a lot of Forum history here (9+ years) so I don't fault you for not picking up on some of the reoccuring themes Fortunately the BIG threads, like this, don't turn up that often. This particular debate (or half a debate) has come up several times before. This is actually one of the more civil versions!

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There is a lot of Forum history here (9+ years) so I don't fault you for not picking up on some of the reoccuring themes

I think his point was that it seems a bit unprofessional for employees to actually wade into the topic, and in his words "feed the trolls, and do a little trolling yourself." It's probably bad for business.

[PSY]

Originally posted by Bradley Dick:

I'm VERY biased against the Stryker, with no real good reason. (other than tires, which go flat).

I've heard the argument bandied about that Stryker tires are actually an advantage, because if a tracked vehicle throws a track it's immobilized. The Stryker tires can run while flat, and the vehicle can continue moving even if some of the tires are lost. Tracks are clearly better for off-road and for turning radius, but tracked vehicles may actually be more likely to become immobilized.

I don't really know one way or the other, but am curious as to how some of you with actual experience would evaluate this argument. Care to comment?