View Full Version : The Stryker
This popped into my head earlier today from something Col. Moroney mentioned in a different thread. It seems like before the Stryker was fielded, all that you could hear was how it was a boondoggle, useless on the modern battlefield, a poor-man's Bradley, too big to fit into aircraft, unsurvivable, so on.
Since Iraq, however, all I've been hearing are the good things. It's quiet, has more mobility than a Bradley, is pretty survivable, etc. However, I have the sinking suspicion that where I'm hearing this all from is the same folks who have a vested interest in making it look good.
So here's the question. Has anyone out there used one of these things? Personal experience? Is this a useful, viable vehicle for a serious battlefield, or, as Col. Moroney said, "just the new gamma goat"?
Jack Moroney (RIP)
12-10-2004, 13:18
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have no personal experience with the Stryker but I do have experience with fielding equipment. I had an organization that made stuff for the black community that either contracted for stuff OCONUS, modified stuff in CONUS or stuff within the inventory. What I see happening to the Stryker is that they are adding so much stuff to it that it will no longer meet the original reason for its basic design of being air transportable. Sort of what is happening to the HUMMVEE, adding armor and trying to make it into an APC. The Stryker was fielded very quickly by Army standards but from my understanding has not gone thru all the testing and evaluation needed to validate its design or operational use. I do not have a dog in this fight, but I can almost guarantee that the modifications that are going to be required to make the system meet the military requirements are going to limit its air transportability and use in all terrain and environments for which it is being touted. Definition of requirements for any item of equipment against which its design and production depends takes a lot of vision and forethought. Items like when and where it will be deployed, what environmental conditions must be met, transportation to get it there and how it will be maintained and supported and other mundane items like mean time to failure and of course the treat environment in which you expect to employ it. You sort of saw the same thing when the Bradely was fielded. It was too small to fit the standard 11 man squad so rather than fix the system they downsized the mechanized infantry squad and modified the tactics to suit the technology. The result was technology and not the mission drove doctrine. Just my gut feeling that the same thing is happening to the Stryker.
Jack Moroney
My question is this:
Why not just use the LAV or the M113? The systems already exist, why not just modify them to do exactly what you need?
Jack Moroney (RIP)
12-10-2004, 14:57
That was the same question asked by a lot of folks. They even did a "run off" between the M113 and the Stryker and "concluded" that the Stryker had better mobility than the M113 under certain circumstances. However the results of those test have been questioned to death and decision was made by the same person who decided it was more prudent to spent $23 million dollars equipping the Army with black berets rather than other pressing needs.
Jack Moroney
The Reaper
12-10-2004, 15:52
I have spent brief periods in the M-113, and would not want to do so again.
The thing is big, barely C-130 transportable, IIRC, undergunned, and is very lightly armored with aluminum. 7.62mm AP will penetrate into the crew and engine compartments.
Guys I know with time in them say that one good RPG hit and you can kiss your ass goodbye.
The Stryker is protected up to 14.5mm, but the tires are admittedly more vulnerable and less mobile that tracks. Lower maintenance, though.
The LAV-25 is a family member of the Stryker. I like it, but it is limited to a recon role, not combat.
Not sure that transforming the entire Army is a good idea either. We need armor, mech, motorized, light, air assault, and airborne, in some mix.
TR
I have spent brief periods in the M-113, and would not want to do so again.
The thing is big, barely C-130 transportable, IIRC, undergunned, and is very lightly armored with aluminum. 7.62mm AP will penetrate into the crew and engine compartments.
Guys I know with time in them say that one good RPG hit and you can kiss your ass goodbye.
The Stryker is protected up to 14.5mm, but the tires are admittedly more vulnerable and less mobile that tracks. Lower maintenance, though.
The LAV-25 is a family member of the Stryker. I like it, but it is limited to a recon role, not combat.
Not sure that transforming the entire Army is a good idea either. We need armor, mech, motorized, light, air assault, and airborne, in some mix.
TR
TR - I readily admit that you have significantly more experience with these matters than I do, but don't the Israelis use M113s and variants with good results in their military? They have the advantage of not having to transport them by air, which could be why they are able to armor and equip them as they do. Just throwing that out there, not like anything I could have to say would have any impact other than to stir conversation.
The Reaper
12-10-2004, 17:28
TR - I readily admit that you have significantly more experience with these matters than I do, but don't the Israelis use M113s and variants with good results in their military? They have the advantage of not having to transport them by air, which could be why they are able to armor and equip them as they do. Just throwing that out there, not like anything I could have to say would have any impact other than to stir conversation.
Not throwing stones, since the decisions to do so are made far above my pay grade, but the Israelis are the recipients of over $7 Billion per year in assorted aid from the US, and since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel more than $83 billion.
Some of that aid is military assistance, which takes the form of hardware. Since they can get surplus equipment like the M-113s at a discount under the military assistance, they take a lot of surplus (and new) US military hardware, like the M-113s.
I am not there, and I am sure that one of our posters who are can correct me, but I suspect that the anti-armor threat in Israeli territory is lower than what we are seeing in the Sunni Triangle. Their security in Israel is a lot better than what we have at this point in Iraq as well.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
CommoGeek
12-10-2004, 17:50
.177,
IIRC, the IDF has a lot of bolt-on reactive armor for their 113's. I'm not sure if that helps with 7.62mm, but it will defeat RPG's. The Israeli's have done a great job at taking old gear and making it VERY viable with add-ons and updates. They had upgunned and armored Sherman tanks into the 70's.
This sort of begs a larger question (which Col. Moroney also put into my head with one of his replies). Do we need an army where every soldier needs an APC to go out into public? That is, I completely understand the desire to give every single soldier the best in protection that we can, but it appears to me that we're moving to a force where any soldier that's not hiding behind plate steel is somehow being abused. I mean, we have HMMWVs that were to replace jeeps, but are too big, so we added Gators; we have an IFV that's too small to be a tank but too big to be an APC (in many places), so we bought the Stryker; now we appear to be using HMMWVs where an APC should be used, and so are uparmoring the ones that were never designed to be, adding wear and tear, degrading much-need performance, and shortening the time before they have to undergo overhaul, which merely takes the vehicle entirely out of the motorpool, even more useless than an unarmed one....
The question being, where does it stop? I don't mean it rhetorically; I'm wondering what some of you other folks who may have more experience in mechanized areas (I was always an air assault kid, and it was either walking or flying) think. Do we need a new vehicle for every category? Or should we be seriously working toward finding vehicles that can fit into several roles? (Not to mention a C-130 ;))
I suspect that the anti-armor threat in Israeli territory is lower than what we are seeing in the Sunni Triangle. Their security in Israel is a lot better than what we have at this point in Iraq as well.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR[/QUOTE]
I would agree with the Boss 100% on this.
Remember, those lighter armored vehicles are also utilized in concert/as support to the big ol' D9's on point, that have taken hits from every weight and configuration IED and are still rolling. The Israeli's optempo is also no where near what our guys are seeing in the Sunni Triangle, in some areas a "time is not a factor" approach is often part of the clearence/render safe option that our guys can't use because of the AO. As for Israeli intel.... everyone from police commanders to the security guard outside the bar gets (almost) the same real time intel relative to ongoing threat venues/alerts - sharing is caring - nuf said.
Airbornelawyer
12-10-2004, 19:24
One of my concerns is similar to the colonel's. As he notes with regard to the change in squad size to accomodate the Bradley's dimensions, rather than vice versa, there are other tactical, operational and even strategic implications of letting the technology drive the process. The biggest example of this was the hollowing of the Army and other conventional forces when everyone thought nuclear weapons would define the future battlefield.
On Col. Moroney's Bradley point, another thing I'd add is that not only the size of the squad changed to accomodate the Bradley, but also the method of employment of the company. M-113s were "battlefield taxis" - they took you to the fight but you fought as infantry. Bradleys are IFVs - they are intended to be in the fight. As you know from the light side, when infantry platoons fight, it is normally as three squads, bounding and alternating as maneuver (assault, breach, etc.) and base-of-fire elements. In mech platoons, the IFVs acted as the base-of-fire element with the two dismounted squads as maneuver element. It's nice for firepower - 4 Bushmasters beats the hell out of what the rifle squad can carry - but the Bradleys can't really act as the maneuver element with the dismounts covering them. So mech tactics were changed. I understand the TO&E has been changed again in response to these problems and there are now supposed to be three dismounted squads in the mech platoon, but I'm not sure what other tactical changes have been made, or how this translates to Stryker unit tactics.
At the operational/strategic level, my concerns are more profound. As noted, a big concern was that the Stryker would lack survivability and useless on the modern battlefield. Assuming you are right, and everyone thinks the Strykers are performing admirably in Iraq, the next question is, "is this the modern battlefield"?
The Stryker concept was intended to fill a perceived capabilities gap. For the "modern battlefield", as perceived in AirLand Battle terms, we developed heavy mechanized forces organized around the M-1, Bradley, M109 and AH-64 - mobile, lethal, survivable, but heavy and dependent on a lot of supplies. For contingencies, we had light forces organized around the leather personnel carrier. But a series of events - from Somalia 1993 to Kosovo 1999 - showed that the Army lacked a capability between these poles.
Light forces were too light for the increasingly lethal contingency battlefield. Remember the references to the "82nd Speed Bump" in 1990? And in Somalia, the 10th Mountain's and TF Ranger's Humvees and trucks were vulnerable to widely-available anti-tank weapons
But heavy forces were too heavy for contingency warfare. Until Somalia, there was a (bad) political reason for this - tanks and the like were seen as too "aggressive" for peacekeeping operations. But there was also a military reason. Tanks are heavy and thirsty. It takes a lot of effort to move a heavy BCT and keep it moving, even when you can pre-position brigade sets like in Kuwait. And when you don't necessarily know far enough ahead of time where the next contingency is, you are left with the choice of too little or too late.
We saw in Somalia the problems light forces have when the enemy has anti-armor capabilities. The wars in the Balkans also exposed the weaknesses of light forces in the face of warring factions equipped not only with RPGs, but also T-72s, IFVs, heavy artillery and combat aircraft. Given this threat environment, even medium-weight forces like those of the French, British, Canadians and other UNPROFOR contributors were at a disadvantage. The peacekeepers not only didn't look too "aggressive"; they didn't scare the VRS and other warring factions at all.
When IFOR/SFOR deployed, it was a categorical rejection of this political reasoning. The Abrams, Challengers, Leopards and LeClercs might have been "overkill" but they sent a strong political/psychological message to the Serbs and others to not mess with us.
The political obstacle was overcome, but the inability to deploy an armored task force to Kosovo in 1999 showed that the military problems were still there. When 1AD rolled into Bosnia, it was down the highway from Hungary through Croatia and over a bridge US engineers (the "Trusty Seahorse" 36th Engineer Group) built at their relative leisure. But as Kosovo showed, when it comes to an opposed entry situation, difficult lines of communication and political problems, the problem of ports, roads and bridges with the right MLCs, etc. may become insurmountable.
So a medium force - light enough to deploy quickly in any terrain but heavy enough to be both lethal and survivable - became desireable, and the Stryker BCT is the result.
BTW, not that anyone asked me, and I know interservice rivalry and all that, but it always struck me that we already had 3 divisions of medium-weight forces trained and equipped for contingency operations. We called them the US Marine Corps.
The problem that I see is the flip-side of the problem the Stryker BCT solves. We now have a force that can deal with a more hostile threat environment than Humvee and truck-carried light infantry, but not able to deal with the kind of environment Abrams and Bradleys can. If we are right and the modern battlefield is mostly in this part of the spectrum, we will do OK. But since we can't afford everything, choices will have to be made. How many light brigades are converting to Stryker BCTs versus heavy brigades? It seems that we are sacrificing a good part of the heavy capability to get this medium capability. And as seen with the Crusader cancellation, we are also sacrificing to some degree modernization of the heavy capability.
It's a risky gamble if we are wrong and have to face an enemy with a modern armored force (Iraq's was a 1980s force seriously depleted by sanctions). I'm not sure how useful Strykers would be against a second-rate heavy force, like those of North Korea and Iran. If we are worried about whether PG-7s can penetrate a Stryker, what about 125mm APFSDS rounds?
When I say there are operational and even strategic implications, what I mean is that, just as we recast our platoon TO&E and tactics to fit the capabilities of the Bradley, we may recast our operational/strategic options to fit our capabilities. We simply avoid contingencies that our medium-weight forces can't handle, and redefine our doctrine to suit.
France has fallen into this trap already. While it maintained some heavy forces for national defense and NATO missions, France's main military operations after WW2 have been regional contingencies, mainly in colonies and former colonies - Indochina, Algeria, the Central African Republic, Chad, Ivory Coast, etc. France developed rather capable medium-weight forces for these contingencies, equipped with systems like the AMX-10RC (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/amx-10.htm) (for all intents and purposes a wheeled tank), VAB (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/vab.htm) and Sagaie (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/erc-90.htm). But in doing so, the heavy capabilities were neglected. France relied for too long on the AMX-30 as its main battle tank, and developed the LeClerc seemingly more to keep GIAT in business than to upgrade its army's capabilities. But tanks also fight as part of teams, and France's IFV, the AMX-10P, is obsolete (it and Germany's Marder were the first Western IFVs in response to the BMP-1 and belong to that generation; the Bradley and Britain's Warrior came later). In 1990-91, when the French deployed to Desert Shield/Desert Storm, they found they did not have the heavy armor capability to match the UK 1st Armoured Division and the US heavy divisions. By necessity, they were given the cavalry screening mission at the far left of the coalition line. Limited capabilities dictated their operational employment.
BTW, this was not limited to the French. The Marines had a similar problem, and though beefed up with units like 2nd Armored's Tiger Brigade, their mission was more limited than that of VII Corps and XVIII Airborne Corps. I think Gen. Franks' battle plan (i.e. who went on which side of the Euphrates) was also influenced by the differing capabilities of the LAV-equipped 1st Marine Division and the Bradley-equipped 3rd ID.
The fear, in sum, that I have, is that if we develop the perfect weapons systems for a particular type of operation, we will avoid other types of operations. And our enemies might not always be so accommodating as to fight us on our terms.
The Reaper
12-10-2004, 19:35
AL:
You give me a choice between unloading a C-130 and having one downloaded Stryker mounting a .50BMG and a short crew, or 54 airborne troopers armed to the teeth, unless I really have to move them long and fast with their own organic trans capabilities, I will take the troopers and have a lot more combat options in the end. Better yet would be a rifle platoon and 3 or 4 Jeeps.
TR
Jack Moroney (RIP)
12-10-2004, 19:53
The fear, in sum, that I have, is that if we develop the perfect weapons systems for a particular type of operation, we will avoid other types of operations. And our enemies might not always be so accommodating as to fight us on our terms.
And there in lies the problem. What is the threat and what tools do we have to address it. We seem to always come to the dance after the band has started to play. We need to get a whole lot smarter and prepare the battlefield to suit our strategies and competencies. Unfortunately in our society we often do not have the political will to allow such things to happen. It was only recently that the powers that be actually saw UW as an offensive rather than a defensive tool. Now we need to expand aspects of that for preparation of future battlefields. We still have problems identifying our own national interests and even then we seem willing to use the military as the tool of choice rather than the supporting tool to prop up the other elements of national power. Committing folks to stop genocide in Africa might make us feel good but it sure as hell does not meet the acid test of meeting a vital national interest.
Jack Moroney
Airbornelawyer
12-10-2004, 22:05
As I alluded to above, my main problem with the SBCT concept was that rather than defer to the Corps in its core area of competence, the Army decided to duplicate a capability the Corps already had, but with typical Army overkill.
The Marines for the most part view the LAV as a useful tool, but recognize its inherent limitations and don't expect it to be more than it is. It seems like the Army wants the Stryker to be like a gryphon - the deployability of an 11B, the survivability of a Bradley and the lethality of an Abrams, all in one 10, 20, 30 or 40-ton package.
The Italian Centauro had this problem. When planned, it was already envisioned as too much - a recon vehicle, tank destroyer and wheeled tank in one. Eight wheels, 21 tons and a 105 mm gun to take on tanks, but armor designed to withstand 14.5mm rounds. Like the AMX-10RC and similar wheeled vehicles, it was viewed as an ideal QRF vehicle for peacekeeping missions. In Somalia, though, they were found to lack sufficient armor protection. Add-on armor was added, I think even reactive armor. So now you had a tank destroyer still too underarmored to fight tanks, better protected against Sammies with RPGs and the like, but much heavier and slower than planned.
Meanwhile, the Italian Army's heavy capabilities have atrophied. The Leopard 1A5 was supposed to be replaced by the Ariete, and the fleet of M-113 variants (VCC-1/2) was to be replaced with the VCC-80 Dardo IFV. Instead, a small number of these supplement the older and lighter systems. Only three battalions - the "Ariete" Armored Brigade's 8° Reggimento bersaglieri and 18° Reggimento bersaglieri and the "Garibaldi" Bersaglieri Brigade's 11° Reggimento bersaglieri - have true IFVs. The rest of the mech infantry force makes do with VCC-1s and VCC-2s.
Not that we expect much from the Italian Army. Like most of our large NATO allies, the best it can reasonably deploy is a brigade-sized force, and even then it has to pull units from all over the peninsula to put together a force package.
When Kerry and others were call out on their criticism of the lack of allies in Iraq, they sometimes defended themselves by pointing out the lack of actual combat forces in the invasion outside of the US, UK and smaller contingents of Poles and Aussies (that Danish submarine was a valuable asset though). I pointed out (usually in vain to people who understand little about the military) that given the fact that the US would have had to move these forces, since these countries lack sufficient organic long-range transport, we had a choice between moving and sustaining in combat a US combat brigade, whose capabilities we knew, or a Spanish or Italian one, with all of the shortcomings that entailed (language problems, increased fratricide risk, poorer equipment, etc.). While politically for us having a Spanish or Italian brigade on our flank would have looked better, militarily for us it would have been a disadvantage while being politically troublesome for Aznar and Berlusconi. In that context, we relied on their political support and took our own troops to the fight.
Was there a point there? Oh yeah, we have to be careful we don't turn our own Army into the Italian, French, Spanish, German or similar ones, where we are forced by our capabilities to define our objectives downward.
brewmonkey
12-10-2004, 22:09
My concern with the Stryker is they went back to the battle taxi that the PC was. The stryker lacks a gun system like the LAV, which has the same M-242 Bushmaster that BFV does. Something about having that 25mm as covering fire makes me feel a bit better then having some .50.
Airbornelawyer
12-10-2004, 22:26
My concern with the Stryker is they went back to the battle taxi that the PC was. The stryker lacks a gun system like the LAV, which has the same M-242 Bushmaster that BFV does. Something about having that 25mm as covering fire makes me feel a bit better then having some .50.
But you have those 3 MGS's per company. :rolleyes: The US Army equivalent of the AMX-10RC and Centauro - a vehicle with a gun just big enough to take out tanks, but whose armor can be defeated by most IFV weapons and many infantry weapons.
But I predict that the regular Stryker turret will soon have a Bushmaster and a TOW in place of the .50cal or MK-19.
The Reaper
12-10-2004, 22:30
But you have those 3 MGS's per company. :rolleyes: The US Army equivalent of the AMX-10RC and Centauro - a vehicle with a gun just big enough to take out tanks, but whose armor can be defeated by most IFV weapons and many infantry weapons.
But I predict that the regular Stryker turret will soon have a Bushmaster and a TOW in place of the .50cal or MK-19.
Not unless they throw away the weight restriction.
TR
Not unless they throw away the weight restriction.
Exactly. And then we're back where we started. We have a Stryker, so we stick a Bushmaster on it to give it more punch (who could argue against backing up our boys with a bigger gun?), then, someone will complain that it's not survivable enough, so it'll get more armor (who could argue against giving the crew/passengers better armor protection?), then we'll find out we have to toss out the weight restrictions, because it's impossible with everything we want on the thing, and it'll start busting bridges and needing a C-5 to go anywhere. So we may as well have just used a Bradley.
The only way out of this never-ending upward cycle is just a common-sense view of what things are used for. If you want to send a Stryker on a mission but need it to have a bigger gun, use a Bradley. Because no one can win the 'no, this vehicle doesn't need any more armor' argument, as we're seeing with the HMMWV debacle. Unfortunately, I've never seen the NSN for 'Common Sense Module, General Purpose, 1 ea.'. :(
I'm with AL on this one. Why duplicate a capability our government already has?
Iraq is different. You guys are dealing with well trained ex-soldiers, and alot different types for fighting styles, I am guessing since they come from quite a broad range of countries. The amount and variety of weapons available to them are larger as well.
By the way we had a D9 on the Northern border get messed up with a Sager. They got the missile in the top portion.
M113s are used here precisely because Israel gets to use the aid money for US weapons/systems. As well as the fact that they are pretty good for the environment here (sand) However they are poor performers in the streets and the noise they make is big. Oh and annoying. This said, they are better than nothing and do the job...so far. I do better than most inside, since my height allows me :-) however it is a bitch to drive, and I always get complaints about the bumps ....
On a more serious note, we or rather I have used sand bags (poor mans armour) to protect the sides. Some units use a vulcan on top... This is .... nice.
With my very limited knowledge, compared to most here, I think professionalism will win the day and not the equipment.
Happy holidays all.
Just to add. The IDF do use a apc modeled on the T55 chasis as far as I have heard.
There are plans for something called the Wolf (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/light_combat_vehicles/wolf/wolf.htm)
I have not seen one ... yet.
A basic premise in the military is: "If its new it won't work."
I can remember, at Hohenfels, the TCs wouldn't use the new fangled radar on their M-60 tanks. They said that the "flash to bang" means of range determination was superior. Until --- a unit took their ATT on a foggy day with very limited visibility. They had to use the radar and maxed the course.
When Jeeps were introduced we all complained that they would never work. What would happen if you ran out of gas. All you had to feed a mule was some oats, or just some grass in an emergengy.
Of course, on the other side of the coin, this being a capitalistic society, arms R&D and production means big bucks and jobs. :rolleyes: ;)
Never having been other than SF, I would still think that being able to fight from within the vehicle would be a plus. IIRC the M-113 is merely a means of transportation. I also hear the M-114 mentioned. IIRC that was a mobile command post.
brewmonkey
12-12-2004, 08:12
A basic premise in the military is: "If its new it won't work."
I can remember, at Hohenfels, the TCs wouldn't use the new fangled radar on their M-60 tanks. They said that the "flash to bang" means of range determination was superior. Until --- a unit took their ATT on a foggy day with very limited visibility. They had to use the radar and maxed the course.
When Jeeps were introduced we all complained that they would never work. What would happen if you ran out of gas. All you had to feed a mule was some oats, or just some grass in an emergengy.
Of course, on the other side of the coin, this being a capitalistic society, arms R&D and production means big bucks and jobs. :rolleyes: ;)
Never having been other than SF, I would still think that being able to fight from within the vehicle would be a plus. IIRC the M-113 is merely a means of transportation. I also hear the M-114 mentioned. IIRC that was a mobile command post.
Production of military equipment played a huge roll in dragging the US out of the Great Depression.
One thing I liked about the Bradley when I was on them, I was on an original M2 which had a serial number of 00013, is that is had the 6 firing port in the rear. When the vehicle was buttoned up you could put the chain gun over the front deck and maintain at least some form of 360 security/cover. The downside to the firing ports was the M-231 firing port weapon.
For those who are not familiar with the M-231, it is an M-16 variant that is only automatic and fires from the open bolt. The problem is that it eats through a magazine VERY quickly. They should have designed a weapon with single-burst-auto and then they should have developed a bigger magazine for it.
Another problem was the evacuation system for the weapon was not the greatest and after about 100 rounds everyone was choking on the gas and their eyes were burning from it.
While I never wanted to be a mech warrior, especially on something with a high profile like the Bradley, after being onne for 3 years I could not see getting to the fight any other way (at least for me). Each method of infiltration has it's merits but the one that lets me carry extra gear/ammo and have the firepower of the 25 has sold me. :D
Airbornelawyer
12-12-2004, 10:21
Production of military equipment played a huge roll in dragging the US out of the Great Depression.
One thing I liked about the Bradley when I was on them, I was on an original M2 which had a serial number of 00013, is that is had the 6 firing port in the rear. When the vehicle was buttoned up you could put the chain gun over the front deck and maintain at least some form of 360 security/cover. The downside to the firing ports was the M-231 firing port weapon.
For those who are not familiar with the M-231, it is an M-16 variant that is only automatic and fires from the open bolt. The problem is that it eats through a magazine VERY quickly. They should have designed a weapon with single-burst-auto and then they should have developed a bigger magazine for it.
Another problem was the evacuation system for the weapon was not the greatest and after about 100 rounds everyone was choking on the gas and their eyes were burning from it.
While I never wanted to be a mech warrior, especially on something with a high profile like the Bradley, after being onne for 3 years I could not see getting to the fight any other way (at least for me). Each method of infiltration has it's merits but the one that lets me carry extra gear/ammo and have the firepower of the 25 has sold me. :D
Lightly armored, lots of firing ports, everyone choking on fumes ... :)
A basic premise in the military is: "If its new it won't work."
I can remember, at Hohenfels, the TCs wouldn't use the new fangled radar on their M-60 tanks..
Very interesting memory you have QRQ. Especially considering that no model of the M60 tank ever mounted any sort of radar, and no tanker in your lifetime ever used "flash to bang" as a serious method of ranging.
You'd have to be a heck of a lot older than I am to even have seen a tank with the old Flying Geese rangefinder system. The M60 series originally came with the coincidence rangefinder (inherited from the earlier M48 series). The M60A3 introduced the laser rangefinder. Tank Commander's loved the laser rangefinder because it was faster and easier than the old coincidence rangefinder. It was also more accurate if you were at least basically competent.
Yes, there were specific occasions when the LRF didn't work worth a damn, and it was just possible to encounter a situation where the old coincidence rangefinder would have done a better job. But there was never any situation in which any tank commander would have even considered flash-to-bang as a serious ranging method.
The only issue that ever existed with TCs using the LRF was that they tended to play around using it in situations where it was supposed to be prohibited (such as ranging on friendly troops). But TCs "not using the LRF" was never a problem.
Thanks for the compliment. I admit to never being in a tank although I have done considerable time providing SCUBA safety support for amphib opns with APC's.
I based my comments on those of old SF soldiers who had been in armored units and they mentioned the incident at Hohenfels during an ATT when visibility was reduced to zero. As I recall the electronic equipment was only installed in one tank per platoon. It was that new. Admitted it was hearsay but I trust these old NCOs of the fifties and early sixties, more than an unknown source.. I went to your profile to see what your credentials may be but found zilch!!
BTW Laser radar systems, however, have been used for precision range-finding in weapon control
The term"radar" is legitimate.
Sacamuelas
06-24-2005, 09:42
n4aof-
Terry is to friggin' nice to do it, so I will. What a sorry ass introduction post that was. :mad: You confront someone you don't know and call out a respected member of this site on your very first post on the board???
Here is a tip- READ the stickied threads at the top of all the forums, FILL OUT YOUR PROFILE, and then post an introduction in the base camp introductions thread. AFter letting everyone know who you are and what your background is then you can further display your winning personality. We tolerate and usually appreciate frank and honest debate, but not when it's coming from someone who is an unknown. Until you have done the above, it would be nice if you would go away.
One final comment. In limited to no visibility optical sights are useless and flash to bang range determination was all that was available prior to radar. It can be pretty close with a good watch but never pin-point. I have seen it used against mortar batteries with good results.
I have spent brief periods in the M-113, and would not want to do so again.
The thing is big, barely C-130 transportable
The Stryker is bigger. And NOT C-130 transportable unless stripped to the point where it requires major work to get it "combat ready" (and "combat ready" is a term that must be in quotes when used to describe any Stryker).
undergunned,
The most lightly armed M113 matches the Stryker. An M113 ACAV outguns the Stryker.
very lightly armored with aluminum. 7.62mm AP will penetrate into the crew and engine compartments.
Ditto the Stryker. Although, 7.62mm AP actually won't penetrate the M113 except at close range and near zero obliquity.
Yes, you CAN bolt more armor on the outside of the Stryker to protect it against 7.62AP and .50 BALL, but you can slap extra armor on the outside of ANY vehcile.
one good RPG hit and you can kiss your ass goodbye.
Again, ditto the Stryker.
The Stryker is protected up to 14.5mm,
Not 14.5mm AP, at least not at close range and near zero obliquity
but the tires are admittedly more vulnerable and less mobile that tracks.
Which is why the Stryker is effectively limited to operating on roads and decent trails.
Lower maintenance, though.
Only so long as you are comparing textbook maintenance AND comparing M113s operating cross-country versus Stykers sticking to paved roads.
The LAV-25 is a family member of the Stryker.
Actually it would be more accurate to say the Styker is a member of the LAV family. The Canadians developed the LAV to defend Canada against all its known likely invaders. The USMC decided to buy the LAV as support vehicle to carry the 25mm Bushmaster. The Army decided to buy a light wheeled vehicle, wrote the test results, then conducted the tests to prove that wheels were the right answer.
I like it, but it is limited to a recon role, not combat.
Anything that big had better be able to fight if you expect it to perform recon.
LAV-25's and Strykers both perform reconnaissance missions exactly the same way as the M3 Bradleys. You haul ass down the road and hope your wingman manages to identify and call in the location of whatever blew your vehicle to hell.
Not sure that transforming the entire Army is a good idea either. We need armor, mech, motorized, light, air assault, and airborne, in some mix.
AMEN on that. There is no single set of equipment, no single TO&E structure, and no single doctrine that is effective in all environments, all climates, against all enemies, for all objectives, under all rules of engagement.
That said, the old H-series ACR TO&E probably was probably as close as we have ever been.
- - + - -
Don't think that I am totally against the Stryker.
The Stryker is undoubtedly the best on-road battle-taxi the US Army has ever fielded. The vehicle as used in Iraq, has a great reputation for crew survivability. If you are inside a buttoned-up Stryker when a 500 lb bomb goes off alongside it, you get a headache and get tossed around as the Stryker rolls -- but you will probably be back out in a coupld of days after the contractors slap yours back together, or you might be back out the next day in one of the Operational Readiness Float replacement vehicles.
It is absolutely criminal that we have Soldiers being wounded and killed in so-called "armored" HMMWVs when the Stryker is available. Any mission where a HMMWV is even close to a reasonable choice should be performed by a Stryker.
On the other hand, I wouldn't want to take a Stryker on any mission that we clearly too risky for a HMMWV -- the Stryker is much more survivable than any HMMWV but it has somewhat less visibility and no better armament.
One of the assumptions underlying the Stryker design is that the Army will never send a Stryker brigade up against a real military force. (I certainly pray we stand behind that assumption.) An outgrowth of that basic assumption is the further assumption that the 'bad guys' whoever they may be, will never have air or artillery support. I'm pretty much willing to accept that no enemy where we are likely to send Strykers is going to have a serioius air capability. The USAF can certainly achieve air supremacy almost anywhere if needed. But I am less convinced about the 'bad guys' never being able to round up enough field arty to be a threat. Just about anywhere we are likely to send Strykers would be a place that has previously been equipped with former-Soviet or Chinese equipment and probably had its military organized on a generally Soviet-style TO&E. The bad guys might not be able to field an artillery battalion or even a battery, but it would only take one BM-21, Chinese Type-90 or any similar MRL to totally ruin your day in a Stryker unit.
One of the "features" of the Stryker is that most of the stowage is separated from the troop compartment -- which means outside the armor. Most of your ammo and equipment is strapped all over the top and sides of the hull, totally exposed to small arms and shrapnel, etc. Similarly, important systems such as the Rube Goldberg RWS (Remote Weapon System), the M6 Smoke Grenade Launchers, radio antennas, and GPS antenna are all exposed without any sort of armor protection against even the lightest small arms fire or fragments. Hit a Stryker unit with some airbursts or near misses and the crews will all be fine inside their battle taxis, but those crews have all just become dismounted light infantry with only the combat load they had inside with them (and whatever they can salvage from what is left of their rucksacks that were hung on the outside of the hull).
As the Director of Training at the US Army Infantry School said when explaining why the Infantry School sees no reason to train Infantrymen about the Stryker "IT'S A TRUCK! We don't train Infantry on trucks."
The Reaper
06-24-2005, 11:17
n4aof:
Do you usually just jump into a new situation with both feet?
The Stryker is resistant to everything under 14.5mm, so 7.62 AP and .50/12.7 AP should be defeated.
There are Stryker versions in the works with the 25mm cannon, and the AGS 105mm variant, whatever that may be. Is there an M-113 that mounts those weapons?
The Stryker appears to me to have less oblique angles than the M-113, but I suppose that is my subjective opinion. The M-113 is certainly slab-sided, by any definition.
I believe that the Stryker is lower maintenance then the M-113 if they are both operated on pavement as well.
As a former Recon Platoon member, I would not perform recon the way you describe regardless of the platform, but to each his own.
It would appear to me that we have re-invented both the BMP and the BTR, at much greater expense.
TR
I am in contact via the SF List with a retired SF Officer who is conducting pre-mission weapons training to soldiers from Ft. Lewis. He has had contact with returning troops who used the Stryker and the comments are overwhelmingly positive. I choose to accept the word of those who have had hands on experience in combat rather than a net surfer who basis his opinions on what he reads. :(
NousDefionsDoc
06-24-2005, 15:40
Hey n4aof, you may have invented the tank and I haven't heard anybody on this board other than Ghostrider claim to even be able to find the pointy end of one other than to destroy it and nobody on here is above learning - but you watch your tone. You are addressing a Man that was running recon when most of us were learning how to read and be situationally aware in kindergarten - skills you obviously haven't mastered yet.
QRQ lives here, you're just visiting and this ain't DAT.com. You smart off to another SOG vet or any QP for that matter on this board again and I'll ban your ass so hard and fast even google won't be able to lead you back here.
Ambush Master
06-24-2005, 15:48
Hey n4aof,
QRQ lives here, you're just visiting and this ain't DAT.com. You smart off to another SOG vet or any QP for that matter on this board again and I'll ban your ass so hard and fast even google won't be able to lead you back here.
If I don't beat him to ya !!!! I only believe in one type of warning shot, sport, and it's through the TEMPLE !!!
Martin
The Reaper
06-24-2005, 16:06
n4aof/Tom:
I am sorry, it appears that you have been exhibiting arrogance and stupidity above and beyond the call of duty behind the scenes as well.
You, Sir, are an assclown and are no longer welcome on this board.
Please leave by the exit and let your piss poor attitude and disrespect serve at least one small purpose as a lesson to others.
Wow, banned in the first day. Your Situational Awareness really is bad, and for a GS-11, you picked the wrong board to show your ass.
Have a very SF day.
TR
Its too bad he ran his suck, I would have liked to kick this around some more.
I am not a Panzer General or a QP, just a grunt. But I did spend the first 2 years on active duty tooling around in a M113 in Hohenfels, Graf, and the Bayern countryside. Yeah, the thing is bumpy, noisy, etc., but that was a loooong time ago, technology advances. There are improved armor, engines, hybrid electric thingamajigies, etc.
I believe that if you throw enough money at a defense contractor they can come up with whatever you need provided you keep throwing money at them. For the amount of money they spent on Stryker, I believe, we could have dramatically upgraded the 113's to the MTVL (or is it MTLV) version.
Reasons why 113 is better: Tracks swim, it floats, it turns on a dime - it can literally turn around in its own space - a very useful thing in a small street, lower profile, (I'm not getting into weight, but I think its not as heavy) it doesn't need a road to operate on, it can drive through rice paddies, over barricades in streets, you can mount a turret on it with a significant weapon.
Anyhow, there is an article on this and SEVERAL websites which explore why a modernized 113 is a better choice.
The best article I read on the subject is available through Defense and the National Interest here: http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf
Can we discuss this some more after you've looked at the article?
Jack Moroney (RIP)
07-09-2006, 12:03
[QUOTE= But I did spend the first 2 years on active duty tooling around in a M113 in Hohenfels, Graf, and the Bayern countryside. [QUOTE]
Me too. I commanded a Mech-Infantry Company of these critters and tore up much of Hohenfels, Graf, Wildflicken and a lot of terrain along our sector of the Fulda Gap.
[QUOTE]Reasons why 113 is better: Tracks swim, it floats, it turns on a dime - it can literally turn around in its own space - a very useful thing in a small street, lower profile, (I'm not getting into weight, but I think its not as heavy) it doesn't need a road to operate on, it can drive through rice paddies, over barricades in streets, you can mount a turret on it with a significant weapon. [QUOTE]
Yes they do swim, as long as Chester Wing Nut remembers to check to see that the drain plugs are in. I can remember an un-named battalion commander demonstrating how to swim his command track by roaring into a small section of an un-named "pond" breaking the trim vane which increased the rapid desent of his drain plug missing M-114 into 4 feet of water. There were a lot of pictures taken of him standing on top of his submerged track deck next to the only part of the track that had not submerged-his guidon.
The good old days eh, Sir? Here's one for you:
combatreform.com/m113combat.htm
I liked them, I was in the Scout Platoon in HHC (1/54 then we re-flagged to 6/6) of a mechanized infantry battalion, after spending all night moving around on foot or crawling into a surveillance spot it was sure nice to meet up with a nice warm track afterwards, they can move through a lot of crappy ground that no truck is ever going to get through. I liked them fine, water, food, storage, etc., it was a good rig. I've got my ass kicked by them too, driving around at night with my NVG's on, getting slammed from one side of the drivers hatch to the other. I do remember having to take the drain plugs out in the motor pool, and putting them back in before you rolled out the gate, otherwise ... better hope your bilge pumps work.
I do think they certainly would be very useful in Iraq, especially in the areas where I worked in OIF1. Lots of canals, lots of farm land, lots of IED's, we could've stayed off the roads and not given up mobility if we had had them.
Loved that site.
Had some great pictures.
Pete
I would not take to much creedence in combatreform.com...ie. Mike Sparks outfit (think tank). The guy as been outted all over the net as a first-class jackass.
It is easy to be one sided when you are an advocate of the "GAVIN" as he calls it...it is more than obvious that he has vested interest in the "GAVIN" if you read through the site...that and "paratrooper" bicycles... and countless other "ideas" he wants the big green machine to buy into.
Combatreform.com is a webring of sorts of a bunch of sites that have a different viewpoint on transformation. Some of the stuff is hokey - bordering on conspiracy theory stuff, but there is a lot of good in there too, you've just got to sort through some rants and crazy talk. But there is quite a bit of factual info too.
The guy probably is a CRAZY JACKASS, but after looking at some of it, I can't entirely dismiss everything he has to say.
Here are two more you guys might enjoy:
combatreform.com/lighttanks.htm
geocities.com/armorhistory/
They relate somewhat to the discussion about M113 vs. Stryker. It makes a grunt a little more jaded when he reads what the Army does to itself over the years. Sometimes I think decision makers at the top are no different than the ones on my level, just a little better vocabulary.
Joe Boo You're an Armor guy no? Look at that other report I linked at D-N-I in my post above, its not written by the Jackass, I think it has merit. I'm interested in your opinion.
NousDefionsDoc
07-09-2006, 18:14
JOE-Boo,
You are discussing the vulnerabilities of vehicles in the current inventory while The Nation is at war. We don't do that here.
Edit your posts please.
Well Joey, I gave you a chance and asked nicely. You came back to thread and then left without doing as asked. Reaper is always telling me, "Doc, you can't be nice to everyone." One of these days I'll learn to listen to him - Ol' Reaper is a pretty smart fellow. Since you couldn't do it yourself, I did it for you, and look what happened. BTW, that's one. Do have a very SF Day.
DND...PM sent...thanks again.
NG M4 Shooter...to be blunt...follow the money on this stuff...I bet if you look into it you would find that Stryker haters have stock in United Defense or at least a vested interest like campaign contributions.
None of my buddies that moved to Strykers have said anything bad about it...
I did not think much of the M113 in any varient accept maybe as a TOC or Med vehicle.
The best option I have seen is the IDFs main battle tank that holds infantry in the back.
I would go into detail more but as part the above post, I really would rather be a participant on this board than an expert in this thread.
edited for Grammar and Spelling
...I would go into detail more but as part the above, post I really would rather be a participant on this board than an expert in this thread.
I'm no armor type and stayed away from the motor pool as much as I could but I do have a question for you on the M113.
You put yourself forward as an expert on the M113. Your profile is a little thin on service. Could you tell me how much time you worked with the M113 series and where?
I kicked around some guys who used a version of the M113 a time or two but stayed well clear of them. You might have even known some of them.
Just wondering, thanks.
Pete
I am no Expert...I was trying to make the point that I would rather be on this board as an "ASSET" than be the local know-it-all about Maneuver Warfare.
I was a Platoon Leader/ Motorized Rifle Company Commander, executive officer/Motorized Rifle Battalion XO, Recon Platoon Leader, Infantry Liason out at NTC as OPFOR for 3 years. Now I am Enlisted CCT.
Worked with older and newer versions, with and without turrets. I have nothing against them (M113), I just do not think they are a practical answer as a "combat" vehicle to be offensive in nature or even in any sort of Recon or Patrol mode. Though I like the BFV weapons system, it to is not impessive to me...lots of neat electronics but poor performance as a manuever platform.
When they were fielding the Stryker for testing out at NTC, I was there...they were really good vehicles from what we could tell. They were fast, maneuverable, quiet, and were harder to "kill" because of all of that. Overall, a small signature in comparison. I know most ground pounder types don't understand mech recon, but the Stryker seemed much more suited than the M113. That was pretty much the feeling of everyone I know that "fought" against them...and we had M113s on our side modified to be BMPs and BMP-2s.
If you guys need me to be more specific with my profile let me know, just did not think you wanted all that poop.
Joey
NousDefionsDoc
07-09-2006, 22:21
DND...PM sent...thanks again.
NG M4 Shooter...to be blunt...follow the money on this stuff...I bet if you look into it you would find that Stryker haters have stock in United Defense or at least a vested interest like campaign contributions.
None of my buddies that moved to Strykers have said anything bad about it...
I did not think much of the M113 in any varient accept maybe as a TOC or Med vehicle.
The best option I have seen is the IDFs main battle tank that holds infantry in the back.
I would go into detail more but as part the above post, I really would rather be a participant on this board than an expert in this thread.
edited for Grammar and Spelling
We're friends again. Have a nice day.
......I was a Platoon Leader/ Motorized Rifle Company Commander, executive officer/Motorized Rifle Battalion XO, Recon Platoon Leader, Infantry Liason out at NTC as OPFOR for 3 years......
See, we did kick around similar places while in the Army. Wait, Ive got to resize my pictures, I'll be back.
And now found. Some pictures from some not so good memories. I can tell an OPFOR story or two my own darn self.
RE: Following the money.
the same can be said about Stryker, and its 'friends.' I'm just a guy, I am not Mike Sparks' friend, I don't know him, and I tend to agree with you that he is a little crazy. I suppose overly passionate is a better description.
But, when I consider the mobility of wheels vs. tracks, I have to say that a track is going to be my preference in a military situation.
PLEASE take a look at that report that I posted from D-n-i. Its not written by sparks, and as far as I know, the writer has no affiliation with him. The report is written for congress and its about the Stryker. Just look at the photos in it.
There is no replacement right now for the M551 Sheridans that the 82nd used to have.
I understand that the Army is changing to the modular brigade. The IBCT, the HBCT, and the SBCT. The IBCT is the same configuration whether its in the 101st, the 82nd or the National Guard. I think its a nice concept. But, we don't have ANY rapidly deployable tanks. You can't airdrop a Styker MGS, because it doesn't exist. All of this R&D has to be done, factories and design flaws worked out, while there is a war going on.
In the meantime, there are tanks, designed, built, type classified, etc. There are only 4 of them, but they could start manufacturing them.
We are hell bent on becoming a Styker Army, is it such a dramatically better platform that we need to jump into it with both feet? I don't think so. Dollar for dollar, our money could be better spent improving the 113's to the MTVL config. Same digital hardware can be installed in them as in the Stryker, without sacrificing MOBILITY.
Sure a Styker can go fast, how many roads are there in Afghanistan where a Styker can take advantage of its speed? What about the hohenfels mud bogs? If a foe restricts the roads, he restricts a wheeled vehicle, not so with a track.
Sure we can say that its the Airforces fault for limiting load capacity by using C130's. But they just bought a boat load more C130j's, that air frame isn't going away.
As pragmatic as most of us are, you can look at that report and see the advantages of the upgraded 113 MTVL. It makes sense to me. Maybe I'm the only one, but the Stryker isn't what they asked for in the first place, why do we keep trying to make it fit? Especially when we have a vehicle in inventory that already does?
Jack Moroney (RIP)
07-10-2006, 08:41
Sure we can say that its the Airforces fault for limiting load capacity by using C130's. But they just bought a boat load more C130j's, that air frame isn't going away.
Let's not put the blame on just the airforce. We have been building combat vehicles for years to meet design requirements established by folks who are not going to fight them. Even if you right now today designed a combat vehicle that met a specific requirement by the time it was fielded it would be over-weight and over-sized. Look at the Hummer, folks have been trying to turn that into a combat vehicle, something for which it was never designed. When we had M-113s folks in the concrete sphincter wanted to have them be able to fight like tanks, so they came up with the Bradley and cut down the dismounted fire power by reducing the size of the Bradley Infantry squad-now there is a solution:rolleyes: We are never going to have a vehicle where one size fits all-it just is not going to happen. As the threats change and the physical aspects of the theater of operation changes and mission profiles change so does the requirement for any combat system. This is not a static problem, it is a dynamic one. I commanded a unit that, among other activities, made things to support folks where the standard military solution of turning systems designed for one thing into something other than its intended purpose was a mission stopper. Want to know how we did it. This unit had folks that came from the communities that were to be supported so we already had an idea of what passed the common sense test. For vehicles we approached the problem a little differently than the norm. We got the user to sit down and define the requirement. Then we took unit representatives to the location where the vanilla system existed and had them look it over and drive it. Then we bought a couple, built all the widgits out of plywood and attached them in the configuration that the user wanted and had them involved every step of the way. Then we got the aircraft and other transportation on which it was going to have to be deployed and put them on that aircraft. This aircraft was not stripped down, it also included all the ancillary items that the user would normally bring on a mission to include the same number of troops. Then we built a prototype for each vehicle and had it taken to the users site for testing and evaluation. What needed to be changed was changed. Once everyone was happy we built the rest of them and all this took place in a matter of months not years. The bottom line is simply this, while you might be happy with the system you have you are going to have to adapt to meet the design requirements which may or may not have taken into consideration the expected mission profile for which it was originally fielded but currently needed. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the original intention of the Stryker was to enable the military to improve on its force projection capability and not necessarily on its ground mobility. It still all comes down to shoot, move and communicate and sometimes those folks who provide the tools allowing you to do that have different visions from reality. So, there is a place for each system or like system, but either one by itself is not now or will ever be the best solution across the entire continuum of military conflict. Just my .02 cents.
BMT (RIP)
07-10-2006, 08:54
I bet there is more a couple men on this list remember "CAMPO POND" vic Hanau. :)
BMT
BMT, I spent my time in Bavaria, but I never made it to Hanau.
I still remember that 'old baldy' is vic the 00 grid line in Hohenfels though.
Sir, I completely agree that no single vehicle is the right one in every circumstance.
As you correctly pointed out the big thing with Stryker was rapid deployability. It missed that mark by a long shot, according to what I have read. Just examining the weights of the MTVL vs. Stryker you can see the advantage.
There are times when a Stryker is going to be the best vehicle. I would say that the Stryker is a good choice in situations other that a high intensity conflict in europe or conus, with lots of roads, where you don't have to deploy it to places with unimproved airports or sea ports.
Third world, mudhutistan - I think MTVL is better because of mobility, weight conducive to deployment via any ACFT without being stripped down, proven performance.
But, I'm not COS USA, so its all just talk.
The Reaper
07-10-2006, 10:04
1. You armor up the M-113 to the same 14.5mm standards as the Stryker, it is going to weigh a lot more. I was not initially a Stryker fan, but the reports out of OIF indicate that it has done an excellent job.
2. The 82nd had a follow-on verhicle to replace the M-551 till the Army lost the funding for the AGS. The latest replacement is to be the 105mm version of the Stryker.
3. IMHO, the Bradley is a BMP designed by the Armor School. An IFV made into a mini-tank.
Good discussion.
TR
Sir, I completely agree that the Bradley is a Tank. Anytime they change the manpower to match the machine... well... what would Boyd say? "There they go again?"
IIRC, I think they worked the numbers with the armor on the MTVL, and its still lighter, with more mobility, shorter height, and a tighter turning radius than a Stryker.
I think the Stryker does very well at protecting its contents. But it doesn't provide that level of protection as soon as it rolls of the bird. You've got to add bolt on RPG protection.
Any vehicle design in the future should address the RPG - because they are as nearly prolific as the AK47, and it should be deployable from a C130 (whichever version of C130 that has the least amount of capability) - operating under realistic restrictions - not optimum conditions. Weight restrictions apply when its 120 degrees outside, 4500 ft elevation, landing on a short dirt strip.
There are several vehicles in the proper weight range, the German Weisel, the BMD, the old USMC ONTOS, etc. I think there is a place for light (weight) armored vehicles. Getting there the Furstest with the Mostest, is the situation where this light Armor plays a role. Thinking along those lines I am sure, a capable designer can come up with a suitable vehicle.
Heck make it a design contest - send out parameters to design schools, soldiers, marines, etc., as well as defense industry people, see what we can come up with. We can put a man on the moon, we should be able to deploy a 'medium' force via C130 in 96 hours. Stryker will never do that.
Why do our programs get chopped? Is there any truth to the rumor that when DoD calls on the Army it has to say "we can't?" Perhaps we're not relevant as a medium force, and should just leave that to the Marines. Then what is the purpose of the C130? Inter theater milk runs?
The Reaper
07-10-2006, 11:18
Why do our programs get chopped?
Because we have few 'big ticket" items, they are not sexy, and the projects are not spread around through as many Congressional districts as aircraft. Furthermore, IIRC, unlike the Navy and the Air Force, the largest item in the Army budget is personnel costs. Given their aircraft, I am not sure if the Marines have that situation or not. Unlike the other services, I do not believe that the Army programs for contingencies and combat operational costs. Hence the requirements for supplementals in wartime. When the budget axe rolls around (more appropriately the bologna slicer), the Army has to chop the few programs it has, cut into O&M, or offer up force structure. Remember that before 9/11, Rummy was trying to downsize the Army yet again to save money for programs. Anyone out there now think that we have too many soldiers?
A few years back, they Army was told that it had to sacrifice one of its three major projects to keep the others funded through production, the new Crusader 155mm howitzer program, the Comanche helicopter, or a third that escapes me right now. The Crusader was sacrificed, then the Comanche, I think the third is gone as well. So, here we are, with 1950's era SP artillery, a 1960's era light helicopter, and no replacements being developed. Where did the money go? IIRC, they have reduced the buys on the F22 and JSF, but they are still moving along towards full production. How many times have we been attacked by enemy aircraft or been denied air superiority in the past 50 years? How often do we need arty or scout helicopters? Obviously, given the threat that we are now facing, the helicopter and the arty would have been more useful than air superiority aircraft, or a strike fighter that has less loiter time, payload, and mission capability than an A-10. Is the MV-22 better than the MH-47 or -53? Is each Osprey better than several of the rotary wings, because that is what they are going to cost?
IMHO, the Key West Agreement should be revisited and CAS aircraft and tactical lift for ground forces returned to the Army, along with the required slice of the budget and force structure. They are certainly a low to no priority with the Air Force, But what do I know?
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Sir,
I would say then, that the Air Force isn't going to 'give up' its ownership of the dollars assigned to CAS or Tactical lift, because they use CAS dollars for the F16, etc. I read an article which was fairly recent, 2005 time frame, that said the Air Force was again trying to scuttle the A10.
A strong argument why the Army needs to own the CAS dollars. But unless the Army gets strong supporters in the political arena, we are between iraq and a hard place.
NG M4 Shooter...
"Written by Victor O'Rielly For Congressman Jim Saxton"
This is written at the bottom of the d-n-i article you posted...
lets do a search on Congressman Jim Saxton...
He may very well have some sort of bias, but I can't dismiss the report entirely because he wrote it for some democrat congressman.
Facts can always be interpreted differently. But why attack all the vanguards of the anti stryker movement? Is this vehicle to be completely embraced or else? Why not at least consider that there are many reasons why a vehicle in the inventory might be a better choice.
I know of no effort to get rid of the A-10s. CAS is the only game in town right now and fighter squadrons are doing everything they can to create and refine new TTPs with TACs.
As a former Army guy I believe to my core that outside of very isolated circumstances, AF TACs will continually be at the forefront of CAS employment. I know there is the school at YUMA, but I am telling you if you don't know ATC and the SPINS, outside of E-CAS your average Army TAC does not understand airspace. I realize where I am typing this at the moment, but just throwing a guy through a 3 week course and calling him a JTAC is not going to lead to the results that the Army wants. This in SOF and conventional forces. However, we all realize there is a shortage, especially in wartime of TACs available from the AF for the Army to use. However, this goes back to the SOF truths especially for CCT. It would be great if we could get the #s, but quality before quantity.
TACP has a little better option since they have so many more guys, but most of them are conventional and work within thier counterpart Army unit's battalion and higher headquarters and are thought of as an after thought. Very few of them will ever be SOF.
CAS is not like ARTY/MORTARS or even Naval Gun Fire. There is a lot of task saturation on both ends of the comm piece and not understanding airspace deconfliction, aircraft capabilities, and big picture operations gets you burned. Now stack that up with 2-4 different types of aircraft in the same airspace that travel at different speeds with different loitter times and different employment requirements.
The Reaper
07-10-2006, 12:34
The AF has tried to get rid of the A-10s at least twice, to my knowledge. The last a/c were built in a984 an are scheduled to remain in the inventory till FY2028.
The last time, they wanted to dearm them (remove the gun and hard points) and turn them over to the Army as FAC aircraft. When the Army asked for the slice that went with them, the AF changed their minds.
If you have ever spent much time in working up ATOs, the absolute last thing that air is apportioned for is CAS. Usually, NONE is apportioned, and the logic is provided that those missions will be filled by aircraft returning from strike missions, SEAD, etc. I understand that current operations are operating under different rules, given the lack of OPFOR air and hard targets.
If you think that the AF is big on CAS, what is the follow-on program for the A-10, since it would appear to be the oldest tac aircraft in the inventory?
TR
Also, note it was written in AUG 2003.
I have no particular love for the Stryker, but I have no reason to slam it either. My point is look at who is so mad about it and follow the money. The Stryker might well be Political in nature as well...however, none of my buds have bitched about it.
I think the Stryker goes off road better than the M113 for sure. And it cruised right up the hills at NTC without using the trails we had to use if we wanted to get somewhere fast. The thing worked great out there.
Outside of not being able to turn in its tracks I don't see the fuss. Other wheeled vehicles can't either, so convoy work means avoiding the 7 P's. Most fixed-wing aircraft can't take off vertically...so you work around your capabilities and limitations.
RPGs seem to be the fear buzz weapon of choice with the Stryker haters...but RPGs will stop any vehicle in its tracks if it damages its ability to move. With the Stryker, guys have had most of the tires blown and still made it through the situation. What happens if you loose 1 track? An RPG is like any other weapon...use it right and you get results. If you don't, occasionally you get lucky.
I don't know of any slow movers...but the F/A-22 is coming on line.
However, all the fast guys are reworking at a feverish pace to refine TTPs and technology to support ground operations. Personally I have worked with FAST Movers that are fighting more like gunships in many repects due to technological SA improvements for the pilots, especially with overwatch capabilities. Pretty neat stuff. Yes this would have been nice 15 years ago, but give it a few years and the Big Blue will figure out what to do before the A-10's go away, if they go away.
The Reaper
07-10-2006, 13:06
Yeah, the F-22 is coming.:rolleyes:
As a ground guy, all I care about is how much can it carry, how long can he loiter, and how low and slow can he go to accurately put steel on target.
Calling an F-15 a CAS aircraft does not make it one, even the Strike Eagle has problems with the above requirements. Because it was not designed from the mud up as a CAS a/c, and is a fighter with a few extra bells, it lets the fighter jocks do a little CAS while keeping an Air to Air bird flying.
How does the F-22 (notionally) compare to the A-10 in loiter time, ordnance load, and low altitude/airspeed for weapons delivery?
TR
I agree with your points. I am not here to be an AF hack....but we have to realize that most of the equipment is aging and we would like more of it with capabilities that fit our mission profile. It is cheaper to make people and organizations that can adapt.:cool:
With the money they are putting into the A-10 I see it being around a while. With the ever increasing capabilies of the rotary wing(attack aviation)side coming from the Army, the A-10 is still only part of the CAS structure. Because they are slow they are not always good alert aircraft. The full spectrum of CFF/CAS is a mish-mash of capabilities, and not every ground element is going to get it's own air support all the time....you take what you can get and you got to be able to understand those capabilies to exploit them or you are left to the abilities of the pilot. There has never been enough dedicated CAS aircraft in the inventory....seems like their is never enough indirect either. The message is clear to the fighter community that it needs to adapt. The bombers get it too.
I think the Army/AF could use a more robust attack helo as well. Nothing says "I got your back" like a MI-24 HIND.;)
EX-Gold Falcon
07-10-2006, 13:36
In the meantime, there are tanks, designed, built, type classified, etc. There are only 4 of them, but they could start manufacturing them.
The M8 Buford/Thunderbolt. The specs available online stated it's airmobility (with class-1 armor) yet as you mentioned nothing came about beyond the 4 prototypes.
Is it known whether this dog could hunt, or was a it a boat anchor?
Travis
P.S. The Thunderbolt version was fitted with a larger 120mm rather then the original 105mm and has a small 4 man crew compartment in the rear.
How does the F-22 (notionally) compare to the A-10 in loiter time, ordnance load, and low altitude/airspeed for weapons delivery?
Supposedly, the F-35 will be the CAS platform. The F-22 will do any job it is asked of though.
Sir,
The original Program Manager's slogan back in the 80s, from what a reputable industry insider who worked on the Navy's A-12 program told us was "Not a pound for air to ground." :rolleyes: The mission requirements were changed as the threat scenarios changed.
The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) in the 250lb range was developed specifically with the F-22 in mind because of it's air-ground payload limitations (if you want stealth to be effective, too). These would be effective for unmanned aerial vehicles, but we have plenty of CAS platforms that are cheaper and quite effective when compared to the F-22.
Not that these systems aren't top notch, but it is gold plating that doesn't need to be acquired. Lots of money is being tied up while the bread and butter stuff gets ignored. The conventional ammunition industry (bullets, grenades, artillery, etc.) has had a heck of a time trying to ramp up post 9-11, shaking off the 90s cobwebs. Working in this industry, it at times is sad to see how underfunded the fundamental stuff (what we are using the most) is. It isn't sexy and doesn't grab headlines, yet that simple 5.56 or 40mm grenade is used by troops all over the place. As disucssed earlier here, we keep up-armoring HMMWVs, yet mine protected vehicles designed to defeat IEDs exist. It would be nice to see if more folks just than EOD get an RG-31 Nyala, Cougar, Dingo, etc.
President Eisenhower said," In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. "
Jack Moroney (RIP)
07-10-2006, 13:49
[QUOTE=The Reaper]As a ground guy, all I care about is how much can it carry, how long can he loiter, and how low and slow can he go to accurately put steel on target./QUOTE]
Amen. That is exactly why we FOGs loved the A-1E. And talk about TTPs, my favorite air-ground conversation between one of my ground guys and the Sky Raider was "Drop the bomb, drop the bomb, drop the MFng bomb" and you know- he hit the target.
Look we can talk CAS and all the political and penis envy crap between the USAF and the ground folks, but as TR has stated more eloquently than I ever could it is all about getting it where it needs to go when it needs to be there and I really could give a rat's butt less about which service makes the call. I have seen both do it well. I have yet to talk to any airforce zoomie, with the exception of the A-10 folks, who thinks his calling in life was CAS. A-IE folks were different and they would come in by chopper to walk my camp perimeter and spend a night or two to get the lay of the land in VN. The only CAS support I ever got from a zoomie was the beating down of the elephant grass that was hidding my sorry butt as he showered us with expended 20mm shell casings from his gatling nose gun.
The Reaper
07-10-2006, 14:29
Significantly further off-topic, but does anyone else think that the AF's refusal to take CAS seriously and build updated, dedicated platforms may drive armed UAV development?
You could have significantly greater loiter time, munitions load-out, performance characteristics, with greatly lower cost and capture risk by removing the human element (and human support requirements from the a/c). We could put several dozen birds up and have controllers rotate them on and off station for the cost of a single AF fighter like the F-22 or F-35. Any video game qualified E-3 can operate them as well, no need for a highly trained commissioned officer to fly one. Would the Army be allowed to procure and operate these armed platforms?
That would not invalidate the need for manned aircraft, but it could get the AF to look outside the officer fighter pilot focus.
Thoughts?
TR
Definately!!! and perhaps it is alreadybeing done at small unit and strategic levels. Many think the last of the fighter pilots have already been born...
Ex- Gold Falcon
There was an article on one of those combat reform pages about the FORSCOM commander asking that the 4 tanks (Buford Guns?) be sent from their storage in PA, to Iraq, IIRC, they were supposed to be sent and then it got nixed. He probably got told he didn't need them.
Everyone else
There aren't any new attack helicopters coming down the pipe line for the Army any time soon. The last one was commanche, and it would appear that the Army intends for the next rotary wing attack platform will be an unmanned thingy. I don't think I'd want to be the first ground pounder whose life depended on UAV CAS. Thats a heckuvalot of firepower being controlled indirectly via a guy, maybe not in the same hemisphere. But then, the 'groundpounder' may be a 'UGV.' (now being cynical > And the war will be neat and tidy, because machines don't sleep or make mistakes and the baddies will never be able to outsmart them. :rolleyes:
I think robotics has a place in warfare, but the robots are only as good as their programming, and in the failure of programming there is likely a guy controlling the robot via a wirless link - whats his situational awareness like? Looking at the battle field from who knows how far away, through sensors?
What of the EMP? This type of weapon is being developed to answer the US technological advantage.
Stryker doesn't meet the original criteria they were aiming for in the first place, so why field it? To me its the new Gamma Goat.
Significantly further off-topic, but does anyone else think that the AF's refusal to take CAS seriously and build updated, dedicated platforms may drive armed UAV development?
Thoughts?i spent a year as the GLO for the 343rd TFW at Eielson AFB AK...on Fridays, when i was supposed to get my flight time in before the wing got rid of the OV10s, i would wear a one-piece leisure suit (aka flight suit) so that i could bond with the guys, i guess...anyway, the 343rd was equipped with OV10s for control and A10s for attack...
that said, one Friday we had a visitor, said visitor being a retired GEN who had at one point in his career commanded PACAF...at the conclusion of his visit, the drinking lamp was lit and the equivalent of an officers' call took place, with the young bucks asking the old warhorse questions...now, the man must have had brass balls, he had flown P40s in the CBI, F80s in Korea and F4s in Vietnam...but he spent a good deal of time disparaging CAS, saying that it was a waste of assets, that BAI was a better mission and that the A10s should be scrapped and replaced with F16s...he stated that everytime he had the chance to talk with the AF leadership he beat this drum and that the AF brass agreed with him, complaining that CAS was "forced" upon the AF by the "Army"...
since the situation was pretty much a question and answer period, i asked what his complaint was against CAS was...he stated that "you could get shot down..." at this point, the wing DO (combination S3/Deputy Commander) introduced me to the General and he then tempered his remarks...an AF captain (the son of a former 1st Group Commander) somewhat respectfully told the General that if given the choice between supporting guys on the ground and being safe, he'd "go guns" and fly to the front...i found that to be the common attitude of the A10 drivers...my impression of the attitudes of the adult leadership is not suitable for mixed company...
now to answer the question...the AF has put quite a bit of emphasis on the UAV program...they have a wing at Nellis that fiddles with the things quite a bit...one or twice a year, there's an article in one of the local rags about these guys and their exploits...i'd say the AF will do anything to rid themselves of the CAS mission...
sorry for the rant...meanwhile, back at Stryker Ranch, Luke the cowhand and Rex the Wonderdog...:D
NG M4 Shooter...
EMP will effect everything that is turned on and has a microchip in it. So pretty much shoot, move, and communicate will be effected to some degree or another.
UAVs are not a thing of the future and often they have a better SA than the guys on the ground or at least an expanded one.
I don't know why not use the Stryker if it is working...it is being used and successfully...maybe it wasn't a bad idea...sure it might not meet all requirements...but nothing did...that is why the M113 was not adapted sooner...it did not meet the requirements at the specifications either.:boohoo
Like I said it worked better, hands down we all agreed...nothing is perfect yet and the M113 was definately not.
I don't think anyone was trying to put us at risk by fielding it over the M113...to the contrary.
Gene Econ
07-10-2006, 19:57
I understand that the Army is changing to the modular brigade. The IBCT, the HBCT, and the SBCT. The IBCT is the same configuration whether its in the 101st, the 82nd or the National Guard. I think its a nice concept. But, we don't have ANY rapidly deployable tanks. You can't airdrop a Styker MGS, because it doesn't exist. All of this R&D has to be done, factories and design flaws worked out, while there is a war going on.
We are hell bent on becoming a Styker Army, is it such a dramatically better platform that we need to jump into it with both feet? I don't think so. Dollar for dollar, our money could be better spent improving the 113's to the MTVL config. Same digital hardware can be installed in them as in the Stryker, without sacrificing MOBILITY. Sure a Styker can go fast, how many roads are there in Afghanistan where a Styker can take advantage of its speed? What about the hohenfels mud bogs? If a foe restricts the roads, he restricts a wheeled vehicle, not so with a track.
NG M-4 Shooter:
I know about twenty or thirty guys who are alive today because they were in Strykers and not 113's or Bradley's when they encountered IAD's. They drove the Strykers so fast, it was too hard for the IAD guy to detonate the IAD accurately enough to get a K-Kill. Mobility has its advantages. The Stryker's armor package provides just as much protection as a upgraded 113.
The 113 wasn't even worth a damn forty years ago and no way you are going to put the gear inside of one that you can with a Stryker -- unless you aren't carrying people. They are way too slow and if you throw a track -- you aren't moving except in a circle until the other track throws. Guys have had their Strykers get hit with IAD's and roll a couple of times -- only to be pulled upright and driven back to their FOB. That is a very tough vehicle and when they say 'run flat', they mean it.
Sure, a track can move over rough terrain better than a Stryker. However, there aren't too many places left in the world that have absolutely no road system of any sort and to date I haven't heard of any mech outfit going cross country for more than a few miles between roads. Maintenance in a mech outfit with tracked vehicles is incredibly expensive per mile driven. I would say it is half for a Stryker outfit if not more.
I guess you never got an M-113 stuck in mud. I have and threw a track at the same time because tracked vehicles tend to do that when you are trying to pivot out of bad places. Five hours later we got out of about three feet of mud.
The MGS doesn't exist eh? Tell that to the Brigade I am working for right now.
Strykers are an interim vehicle. Who knows what a future vehicle will be. I do know that guys who have been in mech outfits and Stryker Brigades tend towards the Stryker over the Bradley.
M-113's are forty plus years old and need to take their place right next to Gamma Goats inside of Artillery Impact areas.
Gene
good topic: ive read the whole thread I spent 4 years as mech inf before i went SF in 1/23 and in 2/9 inf korea I was on the bradley as a dismount team leader,squad leader and gunned for about 6 months.
What i think most mech units are missing is not so much what kind of armor they have, but how to best employ it. when i was in a heavy unit, it was broken down into mounted sections and dismounted sections in our Platoon. it was like we where not even in the same platoon.
Ok dismounts your the ground infantry and we are the mini tanks here to support you. This is wrong thinking totaly..
It should be ok infantry squad leader here is your weapon's platform and your Men figure out how best to use them. here comes my point on how Mech should change for the better... It would all revolve around the Bradley. I say the Bradley because of a few reasons mainly higher payload and Armor it was also designed as a IFV.
the M113 while good in its day is just to small. the stryker while its larger and more comfortable ride for the dismounts in the back, does not have the Pivot stear that was mentioned before and that is a key feature in a city or tight place. I also know for a Stryker cant cut threw obsticals like a track can. IE wire, trenches, fallen tree's, cars. they all have the ability to stop small arms, but can be disabled by RPG's
The main drawback to the Bradley is how heavy it is, At 66,000lbs combat loaded its a beast,
you could cut some of this load by making the turret a 1 man turret instead of 2 man, this would in turn add space for 2 more dismounts and gear in the back. you could also switch from the ageing Tow systems and goto a all Javelin antitank system this would serve multi missions. you now have a fire and forget system that can attack the top of tanks it can also shoot aircraft out of the air. the javelin would be the best common system because the dismounts in the back would use the same missle.
Tactic's one of the worst things about being in any track is the total lack of situational awareness in the back
as a dismount,
The squad leader needs his own remote cupala so he can see, and remote aiming station so he can pick targets as they move into a sector, the gun Should be set up to auto slew to that target the squad leader marks so the gunner can engadge that target.
The rest of the dismounts as they are sitting in the bench seats should have a plug in port for commo and a video Feed that would allow them to see diffrent views around the track giving the squad a much better picture of the cover they have avalible to them once they dismount.
Once dismounted the squad leader must have control of that track not the mounted personel!!! its to be treated no diffrent then a machinegun crew. it does me no good to have my main firepower 2km back behind us when we get contact. and what ive observed most tracks are very vunrable unless the dismounts are close at hand to keep a eye on the flanks.
The command and control tracks would have 1 less dismount infantrymen each. In the plt leaders track a RTO that would stay mounted while the plt leader dismounted. the RTO would keep the nets going so the plt leader could keep in contact with company and the rest of the plt.
on the plt sargents track would have a medic that would stay mounted untill needed. sence the tracks are so close you can drive him to where the wounded are and provide cover fire with the bradley while the wounded man is loaded.
As it is now plt leaders and plt Sgt stay mounted, I ask you how are you going to lead from the rear in your nice safe armor while you send your dismounts out into the unknown ahead of you this has always perplexed me.
With this set up i stated above you could now have 4 tracks loaded with 4 squads of infantry not just 2 squads, and the plt leader would know what the hell was going on not just get updates over the radio.
Scout operations could be done with a bradley if you took out all the dismounts and added a electric engine,
the scout bradley would have a 4 man crew and a added survelice package. and a forward observer capability. but mostlikly be better served with a wheeled transport.
Finaly Instead of all the open rucks on the outside it would be nice to have a sponcer box on the sides for gear that would also serve as extra protection just make it bullet resistant up to 7.62mm this would then defeat RPG's because of the stand off away from the main armor, yes your gear would get messed up but thats better then eating a RPG your sleeping bag can be replaced :D
We will see what the next IFV will be in the future but we have to deal with what we got for now.
if you guys want to see a funny movie watch pentagon wars. its about the IFV program.
Sorry for the long post but just some of my idea's not like i have to deal with being Mech infantry anymore but it was part of my roots.
Significantly further off-topic, but does anyone else think that the AF's refusal to take CAS seriously and build updated, dedicated platforms may drive armed UAV development?
You could have significantly greater loiter time, munitions load-out, performance characteristics, with greatly lower cost and capture risk by removing the human element (and human support requirements from the a/c). We could put several dozen birds up and have controllers rotate them on and off station for the cost of a single AF fighter like the F-22 or F-35. Any video game qualified E-3 can operate them as well, no need for a highly trained commissioned officer to fly one. Would the Army be allowed to procure and operate these armed platforms?
That would not invalidate the need for manned aircraft, but it could get the AF to look outside the officer fighter pilot focus.
Thoughts?TR
Yes totaly agree.
wouldent that be Nice...
E-3 at airfield the Airforce cant use, sends armed UAV to ODA's location.
ODA sets up thier remote pilot station and takes control of bird.
( they have eye's on target and wont bomb themself's we hope:confused: )
ODA finishes CAS mission and hands control back over to E-3 or sends the UAV the fly home command and it flys home to rearm and refuel.
that would be dreaming wouldent it ?
Yes totaly agree.
wouldent that be Nice...
E-3 at airfield the Airforce cant use, sends armed UAV to ODA's location.
ODA sets up thier remote pilot station and takes control of bird.
( they have eye's on target and wont bomb themself's we hope:confused: )
ODA finishes CAS mission and hands control back over to E-3 or sends the UAV the fly home command and it flys home to rearm and refuel.
that would be dreaming wouldent it ?
problem...who is going to own that peice of gear for the ODA to use...who eats the cost when ODA crashes it into the side of a hill or into a crop of trees.
I know there is a want by the ground forces to OWN the CAS assets, but if you are not signed for them and a represetative of the unit that is flying them to control them, you are dreaming...this is why the MC and AF have conventional Teams like TACPs to do this sort of thing...they set up the nets, they monitor the nets, and they control the nets. SOTACs or JTACs (whatever the term of the week is) operate in their umbrella. I do not think guys know how much time it takes for a TAC to stay current. There is a reason there is someone flying the platform and someone on the ground assuming the risk for control of the release ordinance are not the same person. There is also a reason why the GC has to give his authorization to targets within a given distance.
This is not Indirect like we were brought up to think in the Army. There are a lot of factors that go into controlling ordinance falling from the sky. Then you bring in lasers, airspace restrictions, threat analysis, verbage, commo etc. We are having a discussion about the Army having issues with manuever platforms...something it has a lot of knowledge about...how can we begin to take seriously the idea of the Army gaining Fixed Wing Aircraft and all that entails (airbases, security, maintenance, training areas, R+D, pilot training). The MC is a different beast that is smaller and all aircraft is basically CAS with a Navy to support their employment and they still can't crack the code. It is a nut role for Army units to integrate organic rotary-wing assets into a battle plan and the Ground Commander already owns those assets.
Now we field UAVs either Army or AF to be handed over mid-operation to the ground unit for both flight control and ground control. That is a cluster if I ever heard of one. Then you add in rotary-wing, arty/mortars, gunships, the fog of war, then pile on a nice helping of the ENEMY engaging that ground unit and a guy who thinks himself a shooter first trying to make CAS happen. What an investigation that would be.
Just something to chew on...
The Reaper
07-11-2006, 07:42
JB:
You might want to review the history of SF.
There weren't a lot of AF ground controllers during WW II, Korea, or Vietnam. The SF guys in VN (many posting here) called in the air themselves and did not stuff too many planes into the sides of mountains.
This is the same logic that says you have to be an officer to fly a plane, but the junior man on a tank crew is the driver.
TR
I do not think guys know how much time it takes for a TAC to stay current.
There's a cost/benefit analysis here of being the absolute best, and being good enough to kill bad guys while not killing yourself or other good guys. You know, kinda like specialty USAF units needing to maintain ground combat skills as a secondary to their primary function?
Like TR said, it wasn't so long ago SF guys would call in CAS that was stacked thousands of feet high and not accidentally kill any pilots.
There are a lot of factors that go into controlling ordinance falling from the sky. Then you bring in lasers, airspace restrictions, threat analysis, verbage, commo etc.
So the assumption here is that an ETAC or Combat Controller can mentally handle this, but an Army NCO can't? Wow Joe, I think you've successfully stepped into the blue with both feet.
Peregrino
07-11-2006, 15:40
There's a cost/benefit analysis here of being the absolute best, and being good enough to kill bad guys while not killing yourself or other good guys. You know, kinda like specialty USAF units needing to maintain ground combat skills as a secondary to their primary function?
Like TR said, it wasn't so long ago SF guys would call in CAS that was stacked thousands of feet high and not accidentally kill any pilots.
So the assumption here is that an ETAC or Combat Controller can mentally handle this, but an Army NCO can't? Wow Joe, I think you've successfully stepped into the blue with both feet.
Especially since the TACP and CCT assets are USAF enlisted. And IIRC the last time there was an "accident" everybody involved in the delivery was a blue suiter. Pimping your service/specialty is fine but for those of us who know better, it gets old after a while. I've worked with CCT and TACP and most of the guys were great people - once they got over their attitude. AF ground elements may be special from an AF perspective but to real grunts you're just another radio operator that has to be kept alive until it's your turn to do your job. And that job is not rocket science. If you take a bullet and the radio survives somebody else will be using it ASAP. (And if the radio is the casualty, you'd better hope the AF version of ground combat training is effective.) FWIW - Pilots can work off of a 9-line call for fire just like everybody else does - and that's taught to every SF soldier in the "Q" Course (entry level training - it's that important). Pilots also have various assets to deconflict airspace, ground controllers are just one of them. I've written ATOs - as an Army NCO - at a JSOC. The only change from the time it left my desk until it got to the supporting Air Wing was the addition of the AF section chief's signature. The only difficult part was getting the AF to understand that they were in support. And I wouldn't get too cocky about the rotary wing control issues either. I know a few flight warrants who would (justifiably) take offense. Peregrino
And I wouldn't get too cocky about the rotary wing control issues either. I know a few flight warrants who would (justifiably) take offense. Peregrino
Ive never had any problems with rotary wing assets.
they are actualy my perfered air unit if i had a choice mainly because with these guys you get to have a face to face with them before any mission. and they know ground combat. and what we will be doing.
Ive also had OH-58 pilots seek out my team just to get some flying in because the regular army wasent using them at all.
Bombs are nice but you cant always get a nice clear picture of the target to walk a plane onto it.
a helo on the other hand you can have them hover right over your head if you feel thats the best way to get them to see the target.
besides that who else is going to land to pick up a wounded guy. not a fighter jet.
EX-Gold Falcon
07-11-2006, 17:20
I accept full responsiblity for writing this humor piece.
Lord I hope this isn't stepping in it too deep, and please help The Reaper to laugh and not ban me....
SOCOM's New Top Secret Weapon System Spotted in Iraq
Staff and agencies
Tuesday July 11, 2006
API Exclusive
The first known sighting of SOCOM’s (Special Operations Command) new top secret weapon system has been spotted in Iraq during it’s initial combat testing phase.
Known as the Personal Armored Mobile Tactical Weapon System or PAMTS for short, is seen in this exclusive photo taken in an undisclosed location in Iraq while patroling for insurgents.
Anonymous sources from the field are quoted as saying, “ The PAMTS Rocks!” “It’s faster, quieter, more capable and scares the living Sh!t out of the insurgents!” “Only problem we’re facing right now is coming up with enough Plutonium to feed the Flux Capacitor...”
Other anonymous sources from within SOCOM have quietly let it be known that with the new P.A.M.T.W.S, SOCOM finally has the “big ticket” item to compete with the other services for budgetary spending.
“The PAMTS costs us $10 billion a pop, but hey that’s cheap compared to the F-22 that the Air Force has been shoving down everyone’s throat! Besides, without a really expensive weapon system no one is ever going to take us seriously?”
No baby seals were clubed to death while writing this article; we waited until after the story was written....
Travis
...Known as the Personal Armored Mobile Tactical Weapon System or PAMTS for short, is seen in this exclusive photo taken in an undisclosed location in Iraq while patroling for insurgents....
Travis
Why did Star Ship Trooper spring to mind when I saw that picture?
Thanks for the chuckle.
Pete
problem...who is going to own that peice of gear for the ODA to use...who eats the cost when ODA crashes it into the side of a hill or into a crop of trees.
<snip>
Now we field UAVs either Army or AF to be handed over mid-operation to the ground unit for both flight control and ground control. That is a cluster if I ever heard of one. Then you add in rotary-wing, arty/mortars, gunships, the fog of war, then pile on a nice helping of the ENEMY engaging that ground unit and a guy who thinks himself a shooter first trying to make CAS happen. What an investigation that would be.
Just something to chew on...
Coming from a systems house, and politics and inter-service issues aside, I can't see how this won't happen in the not-too-distant future. Isn't this where all of this network-centric crapola is headed?
I just don't see any "hand-off" problem from a technical standpoint. Program the UCAV to move to a loiter location -- that should be as simple as programming GPS coordinates and saying "go." Ground assets know their location (i.e. they have a control platform that knows), they GPS/lase in the enemy location, and select threat = "hardened bunker" or "enemy in the open" or whatever. The UCAV will know where the mountains and friendly assets are -- no human should have to consider that. UCAV selects the most appropriate ordnance store remaining in the pod, plots the optimal flight/delivery path to minimize risk to blue forces, and releases. Blue forces should be able to perform "danger close", "I don't give a crap if you are running out of fuel, stay overhead", "if you have to fly into the mountain to get the target, oh well" and other overrides.
This can't be more complicated than robotic anesthesiology, and that's here now.
Make the UCAV cheap like an unmanned Skyraider with a fanjet. Have fuel and ordnance in magazines and you could even have relatively simple mid-air refueling/rearming.
Gene Econ
07-11-2006, 19:19
I say the Bradley because of a few reasons mainly higher payload and Armor it was also designed as a IFV. the M113 while good in its day is just to small. the stryker while its larger and more comfortable ride for the dismounts in the back, does not have the Pivot stear that was mentioned before and that is a key feature in a city or tight place. I also know for a Stryker cant cut threw obsticals like a track can. IE wire, trenches, fallen tree's, cars. they all have the ability to stop small arms, but can be disabled by RPG's
7624U:
Can't compare a Stryker to a Bradley or a 113. The Bradleys were designed to support the M-1 and the 113 to support the M-48 and M-60 series of tanks. Of course the 113 couldn't keep up with the M-1 but it did well with the M-48 and M-60 series. Bottom line with Mech is that the vehicle becomes a fighting platform and doctrine ties the vehicle in with the tank.
The SBCTs by doctrine view the Stryker as a means to get guys into, through, and out of areas with armor protection. Doctrine doesn't focus on the vehicle at all. It focuses on the Infantry inside the vehicle doing their job. Thus a wheeled vehicle that is extremely agile and fast -- and very quiet in fact. You can not hear a Stryker coming up on you -- unlike a track. Very strange indeed.
Strykers have a armor grate on them that detonates RPGs quite well. In fact, I can't recall an RPG penetrating the armor on a Stryker, or a Stryker getting a mobility kill from an RPG. Take my word for it, a Stryker will drive right over a civilian vehicle, logs, and almost anything else. Not as good as a track but good enough for urban combat. Fact is that Bradleys are too slow for urban stuff and have no hatches for Airguards etc. No RWS and no ability for guys inside the vehicle to see what is going on outside.
In the SBCTs, the LTs dismount like anyone else. Remember that the Stryker is only a vehicle to get guys into and out of the area. It isn't a fighting platform by doctrine.
I am not going to say the Stryker is the heat. It is an interim vehicle but it has proven itself beyond a doubt in severe urban combat and has done so far better than a track. I believe the Stryker has actually outperformed its expectations which is something pretty significant.
Gene
From all reports the LAV 3 minus the armoured slats are proving quite effective in A Stan both for survivability and firepower.
Gene,
I've never thrown track, or got stuck, although I've seen it happen to other Soldiers in my platoon when I was in Mech. My NCO's were good teachers, real sticklers for maintenance and driving skill. I never once lost a track or got stuck, and I drove Hohenfels, Graf, our LTA outside of Bamberg, etc. But I think its possible to get stuck in any vehicle, especially with unskilled drivers, but much easier to get stuck in a wheeled vehicle, ground pressure being the primary difference between the two.
When you talk about the "113" remember, that the MTVL isn't the same as the "113" new engine, more horspower, better armor, a bigger crew compartment. Its not the same interior dimensions as the "113." They added an extra road wheel and lengthened the vehicle. Same 14.5mm protection as Stryker. Lower profile too.
None of this matters because when comparing the weight of the MTVL, and the Stryker, the Infantry Carrier version of the Stryker is 2, 000 lbs lighter than the MTVL. So really neither of these vehicles meet the C130 requirement.
IAD? You mean EFP? Explosively Formed Projectile? I can't critique in public the reason why the attack failed (thank God it did!). But you and I both know adjustments will be made.
Perhaps the Stryker or the MTVL are both wanting. Why must we place an entire squad and vehicle crew into one vehicle? Two smaller vehicles, designed to allow the infantry & crew to fight from the vehicle, or to support the infantry crew when they dismount, is a better proposition to me. We put two or more M1114's with an Infantry Squad now in Iraq. We use it as a platform to support the Squad, the Crew Served on the roof providing overwatch for the Squad (-).
So what if it doesn't match the Tanks with Infantry Doctrine? If doctrine isn't working, why be Soviet about it? Getting a small armored vehicle to a place to support the infantry, is desireable. Crew of two with space for three plus full gear and boat loads of ammo. Should be able to drive on and off a CH-47, stop a 14.5mm projectile, and RPG standard shaped charge round. Put a CROWS turret on it with a 20mm Gun, and a Javelin mounted on the Turret. Eight per platoon. There are very few places this vehicle couldn't go.
Think I am crazy? Thats exactly what they are asking the M1114 Hummer to do. I htink something like this is nearly ideal: http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/8897/05021393xa.jpg
TR-
I don't think an SF NCO will run a plane or UAV into a mountain...what I said was in a hand off situation where some one else OWNS that UAV and now someone who is not a representative of the unit damages it during its usage...who is going to pay for it... When I run one of my unit's UAVs into something, I am responsible. (I was trained and signed off as a user, as well as signed it out by hand receipt)
Razor, We have talked off and on for a long time...you know damn well I don't have any anomosity towards SF NCOs and think them capable of whatever task they are given.
That being said, I took a TCCC class, does that make me capable of doing an 18D job...no. I am trained on demolitions to clear UXOs and obstructions off LZs/HLZ would that put me in the ballpark of a 18C for bringing down a bridge...no. I am schooled on radios, antenna theory, SATCOM, and somethings that SF does not have access to on a regular basis yet...would I put myself in the catagory of an 18E?...no. I go to shooting schools, DARC, fams on US and foriegn weapons and trained on small unit tactics, would I say I am anywhere near on par with an 18B?...no. So it is not an arguement of SF NCOs abilities, it is that of training, currency, and institutional knowledge.
Yes SF has called in airstrikes in previous wars...CCT was also calling in airstrikes in those wars and a large amount of those operations to this day are still classified because of where they took place.
SF will continue to call in airstrikes, but if it is sensative in nature or HVT you will most likely have a CCT/E-TAC there. Over 85% of strikes in the opening phases of OEF were CCT calls...embedded with other units. Why was that? Probably because we have skills and so do you. Peanut butter and chocolate.
Peregrino, the fault of those incedents were blue-suiters yes ...CCT no. This is not a green/blue issue as much as a training and maintained currency issue. A 3-week course is not the end all be all. I am on a small team much the size of an ODA...we have a TAC shop..not a guy...a shop... all the resources, regs, simulators and equipment to do this job for the 80%+ of our guys that are current...not just trained...current. If you don't think CCT are real grunts and just radio operators then you are out of the loop. I would put my 27-30 month pipeline up against any other careerfield as far as selecting and training Special Operations guys. I wonder who was in the first MFF ops into GWOT? You obviously do not know what we do or how we are trained. Too bad for you. Look at the wall of CDQC and read the honor grads and top dive team's services and or careerfields. Chances are if CCT or PJs were in the class, we took it. :lifter Why? Because that is what we are trained to do in our pipelines as well as 9-lines in our initial training. It is that important to us and DOD. The SECDEF came to the graduation 2 classes before mine and was the guest fo honor/speaker for 16 graduates. Evidentially some people think we are "real" grunts and assets to the fight.
Calling a 9-line is neat and all, but not the skill level demanded to do anything more than E-CAS. If you don't know that then perhaps you need to do more investigating. When your TACPs come over before a deployment to give you a class...that is all it is for. If you think it is like calling in indirect then you have no business talking to bombers and fighter unless you are in a bad way. Which is probably why we are embedded with you in the first place.
I can't speak for E-TACs /TACP since we are not connected in anyway other than that we are part of Big Blue and much of our Careerfields do CAS. We do not go though inital training together and outside of CAS, do not share any Primary skillsets. They work for the Army in any practical sense, so in my eyes any faults you may attribute to them you can share with the units they are attached to (Groups, Regiment, or conventional brigades) as well as them being Blue-suiters. If you think they have not raised the bar to be with you then raise it for them.
I did not come in here bashing your training or your skill set. I only pointed out that AF and MC has highly trained and resourced personel who do the TAC job. It is not additional training or an additional duty. It is a skill set that must be given commitment and time to stay on top of. Not all TACP and CCT are TACs even though all CCT go through Air Traffic Control School in our pipeline. If we do not get the calls in and in the required conditions over an amount of time, we are no longer a current TAC and we are not to be used as one unless in an E-CAS situation. :eek:
As far as ATOs and THE airwing you are working with, welcome to the club. Since they are the ones who have to do the maintenance and CRM I say they have a vote. Now lets try it with multiple wings of differing airframes to be employed in an urban environment and employ it for a HVT. Not a CAS range on an a military post. Do they task that sort of operation to SF alone? If so, I will give you my siper and you can send me the name of that OP/AAR so I can read about it.
Please understand this is just a point of view from a current CCT and former Green Suiter. If I sounded off about your skillset in a matter that tried to deflate the effort and expertise you and your job brought to the table, perhaps you might have something to say about it. Am I proud of what I have done and job I do? Hell yes. I am even more proud that a careerfield of fewer "grunts" than what is in an SF battalion without much of a support structure can have a major impact in every major Joint Special Operation going back several decades. Ya, I know we are "REAL". Luckily those who assign the taskings do to. :cool:
I don't remember getting cocky about rotary-wing assets. They saved a friend of mine's life recently along with some of our brother's from NOTB.
Gene,
So what if it doesn't match the Tanks with Infantry Doctrine? If doctrine isn't working, why be Soviet about it? Getting a small armored vehicle to a place to support the infantry, is desireable. Crew of two with space for three plus full gear and boat loads of ammo. Should be able to drive on and off a CH-47, stop a 14.5mm projectile, and RPG standard shaped charge round. Put a CROWS turret on it with a 20mm Gun, and a Javelin mounted on the Turret. Eight per platoon. There are very few places this vehicle couldn't go.
Think I am crazy? Thats exactly what they are asking the M1114 Hummer to do. I htink something like this is nearly ideal: http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/8897/05021393xa.jpg
Yep that would be perfect, would want it just a tad bit longer so you can get 4 men in the back. (fire team)(2 tracks per infantry squad)
if it stoped 14.5mm cold that would be enuff.
A small track like that with high angled plates would be fast enuff and small enuff it would lesson the chance of a direct hit from a RPG.
keeping it light is key. (less noise, can be trasported easy, less wear on parts,fast,fast,fast)
The Germans tell me you can put two of them in a CH53. Imagine a few of those showing up at an Anaconda situation, 20mm Gun in support. ... Dreaming.
I guess you would need to strech the frame, add another road wheel, maybe a hybrid turbo diesel/electric engine, fiddle with the turret so that you could mount Javelins on it, common round being shared with the infantry Soldiers on foot, or you could use 84mm rounds in a fabricated launcher instead. I'd use a 20mm auto cannon, with it's smaller round - you can fit more of them in the vehicle.
Still the RPG would be a problem. Using the bolt on slats would probably prevent it from driving into/out of the helos.
some fast de/attachment system could solve that though?
Gene Econ
07-13-2006, 19:30
The Germans tell me you can put two of them in a CH53. Imagine a few of those showing up at an Anaconda situation, 20mm Gun in support. ... Dreaming. I guess you would need to strech the frame, add another road wheel, maybe a hybrid turbo diesel/electric engine, fiddle with the turret so that you could mount Javelins on it, common round being shared with the infantry Soldiers on foot, or you could use 84mm rounds in a fabricated launcher instead. I'd use a 20mm auto cannon, with it's smaller round - you can fit more of them in the vehicle. Still the RPG would be a problem. Using the bolt on slats would probably prevent it from driving into/out of the helos.
Sounds like you want to see the M-114 again. Total failure and was scrapped very soon in its life. Only carried three I believe plus a 20mm cannon. Neat looking but didn't perform.
Also sounds like you want to stretch frames, add road wheels, bigger engine, heavier cannon. Add two thousand pounds of slat armor and you will need a bigger frame, more road wheels, a bigger engine. Sounds to me like you want a Bradley.
I doubt that German vehicle will hold up to a 14.5. Didn't see any skirts over the tracks either. Lose a track and the vehicle is dead.
Gene
Jack Moroney (RIP)
07-14-2006, 05:40
Sounds like you want to see the M-114 again. Total failure and was scrapped very soon in its life. Only carried three I believe plus a 20mm cannon. Neat looking but didn't perform.
Yep, carried the Track Commander, Driver, and FO. Armament in the 60s was a .50 caliber that could be fired electronically (when the solenoid was functional which wasn't often) and had a mount for a M-60 for the rear hatch for the observer. Was faster than the 113. Most of the room inside was taken up by commo equipment and ammo. In addition I carried maps, an assortment of command and control items, and some moral items for the troops. In the 2-36Inf in 65 each company commander had one for a command track in addition to a M-151 jeep and the scout platoon had 8 of these little mothers. They were maintenance intensive. The shot below was taken in Germany circa 1966.
:rolleyes: No Gene, I don't want a Bradley.
I want a small track, that will fit a fire team. Adding ONE road wheel per side to a German weisel vehicle, to strech the frame, doesn't equal a bradley.
Yes, the M114 was a failure - IN THE 60'S. Technology has advanced since then. The weight and size difference between the weisel and the M114 is considerable.
Bigger engine? No, I said Hybrid. Because it would increase the range, but if thats not possible - so be it.
Heavier Cannon? The weisel already has a 20mm cannon, I think its a good idea, HEDP rounds are nice to have around in desperate situation.
A Javelin or 84mm Rocket is not a TOW II missle weighing 54 lbs. (Bradley missle)
I'm thinking of a vehicle that can Air Assault to remote locations and provide limited cover and fire support. A step up from light, a step down from stryker. There is an in between need.
Every vehicle is going to have some vulnerabilites. A light infantry unit, is intended for restricted terrain, a light tracked vehicle can cross restricted terrain, bringing long range powerful direct fire weapons to the fight with the light infantry. Capable of defeating armored vehicles and suppressing hardend positions.
This isn't a Tank. 14.5mm protection and RPG protection is the goal, but if the vehicle can't reach that goal it shouldn't mean you don't send the weapon system to the fight because it will only stop 12 mm rounds. You make adjustments.
In COIN, this type of vehicle faced with IED's, and RPG ambushes isn't going to be the vehicle of choice.
The Stryker set out to be the light weight rapid deployment vehicle. Because of the War, its gained weight and the Army doesn't seem to care about the rapid deployment thing. It wants to protect our Soldiers. The need for a Rapid Deployment vehicle still exists.
The Air Force just bought more C130's - J models. The Army is going to be restricted by ACL for quite some time. We should think on getting vehicles that fit in the current load carrying parameters. CH-47, CH-53, C-130.
You don't rapidly deploy a Stryker Brigade via C130. The AGS doesn't even fit on one. But like they said, the Stryker has momentum, and it is going to be fielded. Fine. They won.
The rapid deployment requirement still exists. Why not field Weisels with the D Companies of the Light Infantry Battalions? Eight Companies in four Brigades. You would bring a 20mm auto cannon to the fight, a step up from the hummers.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
07-14-2006, 13:38
[QUOTE=NG_M4_Shooter
The Air Force just bought more C130's - J models. The Army is going to be restricted by ACL for quite some time. We should think on getting vehicles that fit in the current load carrying parameters. CH-47, CH-53, C-130. /QUOTE]
IIRC the airforce did not buy more C130s, they were directed to pay for those that the politicians included, because of their astute military knowledge and strategic accumen, in their budget.
Some units have been getting vehicles to fit the limitations of available lift, but they have been designing them to meet their mission requirements. They also have been defining future requirements for lift. These units have adult leadership with commanders and a supporting chain that are not risk adverse.
The Army is always going to be restricted by ACL because they keep on trying to apply new technologies and good ideas for which missions have yet to be defined. How many directed packing lists have you had to meet for items that were not needed but increased the cube and weight of what you had to carry because common sense and ground truth made you also carry what you knew you were going to need?
Gene Econ
07-18-2006, 19:43
In the 2-36Inf in 65 each company commander had one for a command track in addition to a M-151 jeep and the scout platoon had 8 of these little mothers. They were maintenance intensive. The shot below was taken in Germany circa 1966.
Jack:
Hopefully these two pictures will attach. Took them last week. Thought I would get a close up of the gun system just to bring back fond memories for you. Looks like something out of the set for Alien.
Gene
Gene Econ
07-18-2006, 20:53
Outside and inside of a Stryker.
Note the Mk-19 w / RWS and 'Slat' armor.
Nothing classified here -- common knowledge.
Gene
Jack Moroney (RIP)
07-19-2006, 05:30
Jack:
Hopefully these two pictures will attach. Took them last week. Thought I would get a close up of the gun system just to bring back fond memories for you. Looks like something out of the set for Alien.
Gene
Yep, that's the critter. I have come to the conclusion that the only reason why we had to wear the TC Helmet were not as much for the commo link but to keep up from killing ourselves when we dozed off and our heads slammed down forward onto the butterfly trigger and grips of the 50 cal.:D
BMT (RIP)
07-19-2006, 05:36
Damn picture's of that White Ename paint. I will probably have nightmare's tonight. :D
BMT