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

[JasonC]

Meanwhile, while we fought over those merry go round irrelevancies, we ignored the actual critical elements of military doctrine, because the entire class was chasing Lind's pipedream. When we actually went to war, we threw out all of the tried maxims of past doctrine as antediluvian and bet the farm on baffling 'em with static on the command net and winning without fighting through command shock etc. Which got rout but not annihilation and failed to prove decisive - exactly as the critics of the maneuver school had warned. Then we floundered around reinventing armor plate for a couple of years, dribbling away what political support their was, and waited until oh only year 4 to actual pay the slightest attention to existing counter insurgency doctrine. And the men who did this pretend to this day that they are utter genuises and anyone who questions them must be an ignorant git who needs only to see their sales literature to see the error of his ways, and the lost war is everyone else's fault, but no siree bob, not theirs, not even in the slightest. They are infallible, every decision they ever made was the definition of right and true.

[Guardsman11b]

uh...what?

[Blackhorse]

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]

Blackhorse - oh that is rich indeed, half the bleeding army screams at you how you are screwing up for 15 straight years and you pretend you can't hear them and it is their fault for not making their ideas better known. But to remove the fingers from the ears, first one must admit the possibility of being mistaken, and that apparently is the rub.

I am hardly the only one saying it, plenty of people have heard me do so in other fora, officers go to complexity conferences and use our software, and I've got better things to do than try to instruct men who refuse to listen. All the instruction is there, the collective knowledge was there within the army itself, the academic critics of Lind exist, of Rumsfeld exist, it takes a special sort of arrogance to pretend it is the first you've heard of it.

But of course that is not the intention at all, it is simply a backhand way of trying to claim infallibility again. "If any idea has merit, it has already been incorporated into the Borg's basic operating system, therefore every tittle of opposition is uninformed and may be dismissed". Stopped ears, lousy results, no self awareness. All the sensors on earth can't solve *that* problem...

[Guardsman11b]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Blackhorse - oh that is rich indeed, half the bleeding army screams at you how you are screwing up for 15 straight years and you pretend you can't hear them and it is their fault for not making their ideas better known. But to remove the fingers from the ears, first one must admit the possibility of being mistaken, and that apparently is the rub.

I am hardly the only one saying it, plenty of people have heard me do so in other fora, officers go to complexity conferences and use our software, and I've got better things to do than try to instruct men who refuse to listen. All the instruction is there, the collective knowledge was there within the army itself, the academic critics of Lind exist, of Rumsfeld exist, it takes a special sort of arrogance to pretend it is the first you've heard of it.

But of course that is not the intention at all, it is simply a backhand way of trying to claim infallibility again. "If any idea has merit, it has already been incorporated into the Borg's basic operating system, therefore every tittle of opposition is uninformed and may be dismissed". Stopped ears, lousy results, no self awareness. All the sensors on earth can't solve *that* problem...

The Borg? THE BORG ARE HERE? oh my god everyone run!!!

[Battlefront.com]

Guardsman11b,

uh...what?

Since this is your first? glance at a debate with JasonC, let me say that your response is not entirely unexpected. Even us grizzled Forum veterans are often left with the same puzzled reaction. This thread is no real exception

sgtgoody (esq),

I think the main problem with Stryker is that it wasn't allowed to be sold as an upgrade to light infantry, which I only partially agree with overall (in some ways it is spot on). The reason for this is the Heavy guys felt threatened by the concept and dumped bucketloads of poison into the well very early on and that framed the debate. It never, ever should have been an argument between Heavy vs. Medium since it is apples vs. oranges. Different tools in the toolbox. No need for the hammer to get nervous the pliers will replace them

I do agree, and I think CM:SF shows this to be true, that in some open conventional settings the Strykers are extremely vulnerable and the Heavies are not. But it is also true that there are settings that show exactly the opposite. There are also settings where both are screwed. An ambush by enemy light infantry armed with RPG-29s and AT-14 Kornets will likely smoke the rides no matter what they are. In that situation, Guardsman11b's armored Humvees and trucks are just as good. From a cost standpoint, the Army can afford to lose a Humvee more than it can a Stryker, a Stryker more than it can a Bradley. The guys inside of them are equally priceless, and (in some situations) equally vulnerable. When I hear other non-military types comparing which vehicle they would rather ride in, based on vehicle stats, I think I would rather walk

Steve

[Blackhorse]

LOL

Thanks 11b, That was truly priceless.

[SgtMuhammed]

As far as the 2ACR, I was part of the 199th Bde (MOT)(L) (The most hyphenated unit in the Army!) that was eventually reflagged as the 2ACR. They were a victim of budget cuts. They were already scheduled to draw down when GW1 kicked up. Once it was done they continued with those plans so they lost their tanks. But since they are the oldest continuously serving regiment in the Army it was decided to reflag us as the 2ACR.

We were an experimental unit. Remember the dune buggies with the 25mm on top, that was us, although by the time of the switch we were hummers with Mk19s and TOWs. They fed us a lot of that "we're too fast for the enemy to be engaged and don't need armor" stuff as well. It was a lot of fun and we could do a lot of damage but during our only NTC rotation we died to a man to anything the OPFOR decided to throw at us.

[Battlefront.com]

Yo, JasonC! How about you stop with your usual dodge/distract strategy and actually enter into a debate? Check my last two posts on my previous page. They are counterpoints made straight at comments you blurted out. Care to counter them, or continue to go on and on and on about things that are totally irrelevant to this discussion? Plus, you're running out of room in that corner you are painting yourself into.

Steve

[Guardsman11b]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Guardsman11b,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />uh...what?

Since this is your first? glance at a debate with JasonC, let me say that your response is not entirely unexpected. Even us grizzled Forum veterans are often left with the same puzzled reaction. This thread is no real exception

sgtgoody (esq),

I think the main problem with Stryker is that it wasn't allowed to be sold as an upgrade to light infantry, which I only partially agree with overall (in some ways it is spot on). The reason for this is the Heavy guys felt threatened by the concept and dumped bucketloads of poison into the well very early on and that framed the debate. It never, ever should have been an argument between Heavy vs. Medium since it is apples vs. oranges. Different tools in the toolbox. No need for the hammer to get nervous the pliers will replace them

I do agree, and I think CM:SF shows this to be true, that in some open conventional settings the Strykers are extremely vulnerable and the Heavies are not. But it is also true that there are settings that show exactly the opposite. There are also settings where both are screwed. An ambush by enemy light infantry armed with RPG-29s and AT-14 Kornets will likely smoke the rides no matter what they are. In that situation, Guardsman11b's armored Humvees and trucks are just as good. From a cost standpoint, the Army can afford to lose a Humvee more than it can a Stryker, a Stryker more than it can a Bradley. The guys inside of them are equally priceless, and (in some situations) equally vulnerable. When I hear other non-military types comparing which vehicle they would rather ride in, based on vehicle stats, I think I would rather walk

Steve </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

Steve,

Put too many miles on my feet to prefer walking under any circumstances. I was with the Manchus, those crazy guys who like doing 100 mile road marches for fun.

I definitely believe the Stryker has a role, I just don't think the one they advertise for it is the one it is best suited for. Hey, anything that saves my brother infantry from blisters and artillery is ok in my book. Personally I would make all the light units Stryker units, except the 82nd and 101st. Without a way to get around on the modern battlefield a large portion of your infantry is out of the fight.

The battle between the heavy folks and the Stryker folks reminds me a lot of the old arguments about the adoption of the tank in the first place. The military is an inherantly conservative organization and resistant to change. Prior to WWII U.S. artillery actually fought to retain their 75mm howitzers because at least it was something that they already had in their hands as opposed to the newly proposed 105mm's.

[LarsS]

Just a quick question when you all are on the subject: what kind of protection versus ATGMs does the slat armour of the Stryker provide?

[SgtMuhammed]

It should provide some even if it is just clobering the missile as it tries to fly through and causing it to hit at a bad angle.

[Battlefront.com]

Whoops! I missed JasonC's responses to my previous two posts. Therefore, I'll change my primary charge from "dodge/distract" to "blurt/misinform" and leave "dodge/distract" as the secondary charge.

BF - sorry, half of that is sales brochure nonsense not borne out in the field. Maintenance costs are running 5 times projected, they don't self recover, sitch awareness by sensors is better than without and readily cloned, etc. And oh, they cost as much as M-1 tanks and in practice get to theater by Ro-Ro; they were supposed to cost a tenth what they do cost and to fly there.

Cool... something I can sink my teeth into! Maintenance costs are indeed higher, but still far lower than the Bradley. Readiness rates are still at target levels. Fuel consumption targets, which you forgot to mention, are also higher than expected, though much lower than BFVs. Situational awareness with the old Mk1 Eyeball is superior in a Stryker compared to a Bradley. The gizmos, as you say, can be outfitted to pretty much any vehicle (though not as well). Don't know where you got the idea that they cost as much as an M1 tank, because they don't. Unless you're talking about the M1 tanks being sold by Crazy Eddy's Discount Military Hardware. His prices are INSANE, after all (note to others... this is a US joke that only some will get). Strykers cost more than Humvees, less than Bradleys. EVERYTHING costs less than an Abrams. This isn't even touching the logistics end of things, which means the Humvee has the lowest additional cost, followed by Stryker, with Bradley quite a bit more expensive, and Abrams... well, let's just say it is more than all of the others.

Other things... Strykers can self recover and buddy recover. This is a FACT that apparently you haven't read about yet. Either that or the Stryker guys are just lying because General Dynamics paid them to. And yes, everything goes by Ro-Ro when possible. It is the cheapest way to deploy. Why use the expensive option when the less expensive options is available? However, as the RAND study showed, the Air Force's heavy lift capability isn't up to the level it needs to be. However, this affects rapid deployment of heavy stuff even more so, therefore to argue "you can't deploy Strykers by air effectively" is akin to saying "you can't deploy heavier vehicles in any sort of practical way". Never heard a cost argument for moving these guys by air, but I am sure someone put it out and I am sure it is wrong. I am also sure it is still less than deploying the same sized force Mech Infantry.

BF - they aren't deciding US doctrine, or strategy, or how to fight the war in Iraq - but the incompetent ideologues who do, gave us the Stryker on the motto that light faster more deployable and maneuver-ee everything, would solve everything. And it doesn't, those ideologues were and are incompetent, and they pretend to be infallible, and I hope the disease is not catching and spreading into your software operation.

AH! OK, so you are saying that the Bradley guys who love their Strykers are brainwashed. I just wanted confirmation of that. I'm sure that without the brainwashing the non-coms would recognize that strategic level decisions have a huge impact on kicking in doors and how it is that they went down the street to get there. Because, as we know, Rumsfeld chose how soldiers move out of their FOBs to their AO.

Steve

[Blackhorse]

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.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Steve,

Put too many miles on my feet to prefer walking under any circumstances. I was with the Manchus, those crazy guys who like doing 100 mile road marches for fun.

Hey, so was I.

ASSUME THE MANCHU POSITION!!

Hehe. Yeah that march pretty much sucked. I did it three times.

[JasonC]

Why do you think the army can afford to lose a Stryker more than it can afford to lose a Brad? The Stryker costs a lot more. $8.7 billion spent to date to receive 1200 of them. The entire Bradley program cost $5.6 billion and got us 6700 of the things. To be fair, prices have risen and it would cost more like $3 million to replace one Brad today, but then we already have 6700 of the things...

A single Stryker brigade with all the trimings runs $1.5 billion. And if either is hit by an ATGM, obviously the Stryker has 2 more men inside. I fail to see any way in which they are more expendable than a Bradley, not that I want to "expend" either.

As to your last comment, I don't know what you think I haven't addressed. On some of the men in them liking them, asked and answered about 4 posts ago... "I don't doubt the men in Strykers like them - it is a more modern vehicle and I sure hope people managed to get some things right making them. The commo and situational awareness stuff ought to be far better than anything found on 20 year old equipment. But that is mostly a reason to upgrade old equipment with new sensors and comms etc."

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I have to agree, the Russians have for years, only showed their incompetence in Checnya. Only thing they are better at, is to use utter force, with no regards civiliance etc, which the US atleast *trys* to in Iraq.

End of the day, the sheer might of the russian forces, combined with their ruthless use of force and strategy, managed to subdue the rebels.

In no shape or form could this be seen as a "text book" reference on how to combat insurgents.

I could not disagree more. The Russians have, by most standards, won the war. If that is not an arguement for following a particular military strategy, then there is no such thing.

</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Blackhorse,

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.

Even the Germans got it wrong, to some extent. They were just lucky that their first trial was against the Poles and their second one against the largely static French. It allowed them to be a bit more prepared for going up against the Soviets, who incidentally had it very wrong before and were in the process of getting it right.

Steve

[whaco]

Blackhorse and Jason C, I am finally getting a good insight into strykers and their practicallity in Iraq. Good read gentlemen and amusing at the same time. Thankyou.

[Blackhorse]

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.

[thewood]

The armored guys also tried out flying tanks, so they just kept giving the Horse guys ammunition with crazy ideas.

[Blackhorse]

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

[Blackhorse]

thewood,

Flying tanks?

Interesting!

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/10/flying-tanks-that-shed-their-wings

[thewood]

It was a Christie invention...I beleive Russia actually deplyed a few. Don't have any references at hand.

Think of it from the horse soldiers perspective. They saw money wasted on some abysmal inventions by the aromored proponents.