|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Dec 17, 2017 5:45:30 GMT -7
It is appearing now that the US Army is not to happy with the introduction of the Stryker Brigade concepts. This light infantry structure built around networkcintric units is proving to be hard pressed to do its work.
In Afghanistan, the brigades are showing to be very vulnerable to attack from light weapons, the vehicles are showing to be prone to IED attacks, and firepower is not living up to the missions they are facing. The Stryker vehicles are not showing the needed mobility in the environment they are fighting.
It should also be noted that during operations in Iraq the Mechanized Infantry units were of the heavy nature built around the M2 Bradly. Have to correct myself, there has been deployments to Iraq, where they showed some value, in areas where they could apply mobility. Mainly on improved surfaces and flat desert.
Another problem being seen is in the networking built around the system itself. It appears about 25 percent of the time they are having troubles with it.
Has the Army taken on another flawed concept?
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Dec 17, 2017 6:10:33 GMT -7
War games have also shown when faced with a heavy opponent. the medium and light armor concept behind Stryker does not perform well. Basically i have to say putting a Stryker Brigade into the type of fighting that could break out in Korea would be like bringing a knife to face off against a howitzer. God forbid one of these units come up against a armor heavy unit.
At least units built around the M2/M3 fighting vehicles have stood up to and defeated heavy tank units. The Battle of 73 Easting proved this when the 2nd ACR (Armored Cavalry Regiment) engaged and inflicted heavy losses to the Iraqi Republican Guard's tank force. 2nd ACR's main vehicle in the engagement was the M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle. The Bradley CFVs were able to take hits from the guns of the enemy tanks. Sources vary on the number of enemy kills by 2nd ACR but the numbers put enemy tank losses to 25-30 tanks, 16 personal carriers and 25 trucks.
I don't think Stryker can hold up to that kind of fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Dec 17, 2017 7:42:49 GMT -7
Armored cars have NEVER been a good substitute for a proper tank in any kind of serious fight...
Wheels simply can't support the load of armor/gun/power needed for a proper fighting machine. The Bradley has evolved to a point where it's effective enough to stand and fight when needed while the Abrams is simply one of the best AFVs ever built (and has also been able to evolve).
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Dec 17, 2017 10:06:02 GMT -7
I do see some value in the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, but that value isn't as a replacement for the Mechanized Infantry Brigade, that value lies in providing transport to those infantry units that use to be moved by truck. The equivalent units like the "dog faces" of World War II.
What the Stryker offers is high speed under the right circumstances. That circumstance being a good road system. Taking advantage of that these brigades can move long distances on a march.
Though like truck borne infantry those soldiers are going to have dismount when reaching the objective and fight for it on foot. The Stryker just ins't the right choice to fight infantry mounted like the M2 Bradley is used for.
The Stryker is probably a fair replacement for those units that fight from the M113 APC, and yes the National Guard still has units that fight from the M113 and its variants. The Stryker would be a good vehicle to replace those APC's with as long as they weren't used as a means to Mechanize those brigades. Basically the Stryker is nothing more then a wheeled APC that has many of the same types of variants as the M113.
That being said for light infantry units, I would not remove the M113 variants that support the operations of the heavy mechanized units. The M113 is still the best choice to support armored, armored cav, and mechanized infantry built around the M2.
Stryker can have its place if we use it right, and being used right means you don't use it as mechanized infantry.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Dec 17, 2017 19:57:38 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Dec 18, 2017 8:26:27 GMT -7
In many ways the USMC had already tested the concept on a smaller Basis. When you start to look at the vehicles involved in the Stryker concept you find several similarities in the designs of weapons layout to the Marines LAV type vehicles.
And the Marines' LAV Light Armored Battalions have experienced over the years the same problems now being shown with the Stryker Brigades. These problems are mainly in mobility problems and the like. Both type units are good in open terrain and on good roads, but they are showing problems in dealing with mountainous terrain that tracked vehicles can handle. This makes them ill-suited for operations in Korea where the MLR will probably be in the hills and mountains again. Also god forbid they ever wind up trying to conduct armor actions in the environment faced by the mechanized units during Vietnam.
These units built around armored car type vehicles are "limited".
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Dec 18, 2017 8:46:08 GMT -7
I am from the old Cold War military establishment. I don't like the idea of light maneuver units. I was taught firepower and the ability to hit hard. The Cold War army could meet that idea. I am not so sure about this new modular division, when only about half of its four brigades are stuck on wheels.
This is another irony of history...looks like we are getting back to the unwealdy "square" divisions!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Dec 18, 2017 9:35:36 GMT -7
"Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it."
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Dec 18, 2017 10:24:01 GMT -7
None of the lessons from the past are being remembered. Look at the Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadrons and Groups of the US Army during the fighting in Europe.
Once the light tank M24 started to be enter service in the light tank company of the squadron, several of them, especially those attached to armored divisions, started to use the surplussed M5A1 tanks as replacements for the M8 light armored cars. This move toward tracks also led to some units taking old M3A3 light tanks and stripping them of the gun turret and converting them to T8A1 Tracked Reconnaissance Vehicles. The T8A1 replaced the jeeps, and carried the Cavalry Troop's machine guns and mortars. Each CRS attached to the armored divisions had troops A to D, which conducted scouting and security, Company E, which were the light tanks, and Troop F, which provided the assault guns in the form of M8 HMC (Howitzer Motor Carriage). The separate squadrons didn't have Troop D. When infantry was needed for the missions, a platoon of Armored Engineers were usually attached from Corps level. Also a Battery of half-track automatic AA Weapons could be attached.
Even though this slowed the squadrons down by about 10 mph in the recon role, it increased cross country mobility and it also made it easier to scout the best routes for the Armor Battalions to follow.
I think that 10mph loss in road speed was well worth the transition to the tracks, because they gained the advantage in mobility and in some cases better serviceability.
so as you can tell even back then the armored car wasn't liked very much
A note on infantry for CRS, There was a modified TO&E coming down the pipe that would have made infantry organic to the Squadron. A platoon of mounted "Dragoons" would have either rode into battle in half tracks or M39 AUVs. This platoon would have been assigned to the HQ Troop of the squadron and a squad would have been assigned to each recon troop in the squadron. After the war, plans called to increase this infantry force to a full company, and have a platoon attached to each Recon Troop. This was a nod to the fact that Cavalry waan't able to hold the ground it took as the CRS was originally planned.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Dec 18, 2017 11:08:48 GMT -7
This is also shown in the German plans for new vehicles towards the end of the war. They intended to retire the ol' Hanomag (and all half-tracks) and possibly wheeled recon vehicles and replace them with tracked designs. They were also noticing the same limitations that we were...
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Dec 19, 2017 13:45:01 GMT -7
Armored Cars do have some advantages over tracked vehicles. Mainly in operational costs. They are easier to maintain, easy to train crews on, cheaper to manufacture and they have less shipping restrictions because of wight.
These were some of the reasons the British chose to forgo light tank construction. Their armored cars fit better in the economics of mass production for war.
The armored cars also had faster top speeds on the improved roads.
Economics is also one of the reasons that the USMC went with the LAV series of vehicles to fill their light armor needs in the 80's and beyond. Stryker also offers the advantages of cost and so on.
The question is, is this saving in cost worth the loss of mobility and protection that armored fighting vehicles offer?
I am not sure it is worth that cost in operational abilities that are sacrificed when using wheeled vehicles.
|
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Dec 20, 2017 0:45:54 GMT -7
An armored car available immediately is a lot more useful than a tank that won't get there for another month. That was the whole Stryker ideal. Get enough equipment in place fast to stabilize a Bosnia or Rwanda. Air power plus the light vehicles would be more than enough to deal with improvised pickups with machine guns in the bed and the occasional unmaintained obsolete tank. Of course, the Stryker planning guides all recommended pulling the Stryker unit out as soon as US heavy divisions arrived since the Stryker would be very vulnerable to any form of attack if forced to defend a fixed position. Inadequate total forces made that impossible leading to unfavorable outcomes.
Designing a military around one type of war runs into problems if the world inconveniently supplies different types of wars.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Dec 20, 2017 6:28:53 GMT -7
The US is trying to design a do everything division around its new modular type division. This new division is designed to have four brigade combat teams. The brigade is to become the Army's main structure, being able to be moved between divisions as needed. The new modular divisions will have command and support elements under its direct control with brigades then assigned.
The Brigades will be of four types;
Armored
Mech infantry
Armored Cav
Stryker (light infantry)
The idea is to be able to customize the combat force to what is needed for a mission. The problem is again this was designed for a bush fire war type war, but in something heavy, i don't think it will work, because these divisions would not have had the years of training and operating together as the "traditional" divisions have had. On paper this may seem to be a good idea, but in operations i don't think so. Again this is probably good for war we are fighting now, but in a situation in Korea or Europe, i don't think it is going to work.
As it has been said, the army planners have planning for the war they are in now, and not the war that the world might just give them in Korea.
It is my understanding that the 82nd and the 101st would remain the three brigade divisions they are right now, but there has been a history of sending one of their brigades out for missions attached to other divisions, so you never know they might become modular divisions as well...
|
|
