honestly in a break hearts and armies fight anyone suicidal enough to ride helicopters is doomed long before the strykers. why you ask, for the same reasons the strykers are doomed magnified by the fact the death fans lack the firepower to even get a surprise kill in before its shot down(and the fact its hard to sneak up on anything with that distinctive whop-whop-whop) but these are tools. tolls meant for specific tasks helicopters move men and material swiftly between secured locations, strykers fight the unconventional war, and tanks do the frontal attack stuff.

Thats not the same at all Bobcat:

What you are forgetting to take into account is how the two are meant to be used according to doctrine.

Strykers - For Better of For Worse, is getting placed in the same realm as Mech Inf. Yes, about everyone knows A Stryker isn't up the same threat levels that a Brad is, but the Stryker is (sorta)Armoured, so it will get used to project Force on Force despite what everyone knows. Thats just the way things are, and why going heavy on Stryker Brigades in the amounts like we are is a mistake in my opinion.

Helo's are anything but. Airmobile is a term that needs to be payed attention to: Helo's are the penultimate battle taxi. No one, even the most die hard rabid Airmobile fan, ever will allow an Air Assault unit to fly into the face of built up mechanized forces. Just Won't Happen. Because, on this, you are right: Troop Carrying Helo's flying into the FEBA are called Skeet for a reason. Helo units fly to the immediate rear of the area where the troops are needed, and then dismount them so they can advance to the FEBA on foot. Else, they are used to bypass organized forces and deposited in a rear area - again, where there are few if any forces that can play duck hunter.

Attack Helo's also don't play in your face force on force: They scoot, peek, and then shoot. The Hide. They Duck. They stay out of sigh and out of mind until its time to take the ambush shot. Again, not at all what a Stryker does.

Agian, No One will ever even think of pushing a company, battalion, or even brigade of the 101st into a fight the same way they would Brads, or even Strykers. Apples and Oranges.

strykers have a big survival advantage over their peers in one aspect however. they can hide, helo's can't and armor isn't terribly good at it. as far as troop movers go the stryker is fast, agile, and can hide. cavalry forces have always fought dismounted for a reason. and that reason was to keep their means of getting around, around.

APCs in general, are nothing more than battle taxis - move in, drop off the infantry, then get the hell out of the way.
The weapons are really just there to support the infantry, preferably from hull down positions out of man portable AT range. Firing ports when they exist are there for emergency short range defensive fire - they're not an offensive feature no matter how much one may wish otherwise. Infantry fighting while still mounted is a recipe in my opinion for disaster. The strength of infantry lies in their ability to disburse and use the terrain for cover and not be all taken out in one rocket strike.

Yes, there are times staying mounted is preferable, such as rapid movement across the battlefield, or to close on an enemy strongpoint (provided there's no AT capability there), but all in all, they should be viewed as little more than transportation combined with mobile and direct fire support.

Note that there are some exceptions to the rule, but not all that many of them...

Remember even MBTs don't expose themselves unless absolutely necessary, and their armour is MUCH thicker than an APC or IFV.

Couple of things:


One, again, it comes down to Doctrine. Doctrine dictates all things.

Second, Cavalry hasn't always fought dismounted: In fact, until the advent of repeating firearms, it was death to dismount - at which point, until the advent of Armoured vehicles, Cavalry turned into nothing more than mounted infantry for is was death to stay mounted in the face of the sorts of firepower modern weapons (modern as in late 1800's) could put out.

Third: NO one is doing any traditional Cavalry Missions overseas anymore higher than at the Brigade level. In fact, most brigade scout platoons are being used more along the lines of an ad-hoc kinda-sorta wanna-be spec-ops type of role.

Fourth: I never said the Stryker was totally useless: Well.. maybe the *stryker* itself, but the concept behind the Stryker makes a lot of good solid sense. The Stryker has far to many bells and whistles for what it does. Now, as a family of vehicles, filling a multitude of roles with the same chassis? Pure Gold. If the vehicle itself was better, I would be all for it. I was all for the Stryker Program back before they settled on the Stryker itself: I think for less money we would have a better vehicle if we based it off of the ASLAV or NZLAV. Both of those focus more on mission than on fancy electronics - and are based on the same family of vehicles that the Stryker, Bison, Grizzly, Cougar, and LAV-25 come from, so we know they are mechanically sound. And originally while in the testing phase we used the Italian Centaro Armoured Cars, and those performed fantastically - and again, was cheaper.

Back on Doctrine, and Dragoon500ly check me on this, the Cavalry Mission depends on where the unit falls.

If it is a brigade scout platoon, its less cav than it is pure localized recce - whats over the hill in front of us, around the corner, and maybe the next town. DivCav squadrons - the lowest level of unit to be designated Cavalry - is focused on what will effect the division itself: Whats in the next town, how is the route to it, and the counter-recce mission. The only time it is supposed to get in a knock out drag out fight is in the counter recce role, as well as being able to make short work out of anything it stumbles into - but not to go out and look for trouble. Where as the scout platoon would be best mounted in light vehicles like the humvee, DivCav would be well suited to riding into battle in Light Armoured Vehicles. Enough armour to handle small arms fire, fast and light to take full advantage of the road network, and able to run off road almost as good as a tracked vehicle with enough firepower (In the MPGS) to deal with any small units it bumps into. And they wouldn't dismount except to form OP's: Most if not all of the recce they would do would be done mounted, for DivCav operates forward of the main line of battle, and they need the mobility to do the job. Corp level cav is in the form of the ACR. These have to be heavy: These form the same role German Gepanzart Aufklarungsschwadrons had in the second world war. One is to provide a corp level recon element, that had the strength and firepower to fight its way through (And by this, it is understood that its more a case to allow them to slip through, not destroy units holding the line) the enemies front line, and to operate in the backfield performing a level of recon that straddles the border between strategic and tactical levels, and then return to friendly lines. The second, is as a form of corp level fire brigade - a compact reserve force that can be committed as a hip pocket formation that is fully contained within itself, and doesn't need corp level assets to perform whatever mission is assigned to it. In this mission, the Stryker - or any similar vehicle for that matter - doesn't have the firepower or protection to pull it off. Which is why converting the ACR's from its heavy formation of Abram's and Bradley's is a huge mistake in my opinion.


As to armour isn't good at hiding, goes to show you haven't dealt with sneaky SOB tankers. The M1 is very good at sneaking and peaking. Better than the Bradley oddly enough - the Abrams is very quiet, lower, and has much better optics. While, and I said this earlier, the Stryker has a huge advantage, even over the very quiet Abrams, in the noise it generates - to a point, you still have that noisy diesel. I've personally snuck up to the back of a Brad in an Abrams, close enough to where the first they saw me was when my tube snagged the tarp hanging off of the back of it. I could have nudged the troop door closed, but I didn't trust my driver that much that close to another vehicle. I have *never* seen a CVC thrown so hard, so far, in my life. :)

Agreed: The IFV in my mind is a evolutionary dead end: Enough Firepower that it requires that the oppo's pay attention to it, and not enough armour to survive that attention. This is one thing that I love about the latest Israeli Merk Based H-APC. Its more mobile than the tanks they support, and armoured as well, if not better than, the tank in which it is based on. Which allows, for the first time, for a infantry unit to survive a mounted attack on a prepared position or small town. Tanks in a support by fire role, from a nicely hull down point to either side of the axis of attack, and the H-APC's running right for the point of attack. No matter how much suppressive fire you bring down, there is always going to be ATGW's that will survive, and they will always pop the IFV's when they attack - so the infantry would have to go in on foot, and soak up the causalities, where as the Namer will be able (and has in fact done so) soak up what fire is brought to bear till it reaches the debus point, allowing intact infantry formations to be brought to bear on the exact points needed.

It was always recognized that the DivCav Sqn was incapable of screening the division's entire front and flanks. Its mix of two ground and two air cav troops are an almost classic case of "too little, too late". According to the various manuals, the division's recon role had to be closely coordinated with the battalion's scout platoons in order to provide the most basic coverage. During the 1980s/90s, there was a lot of talk of boosting the DivCav Sqn up to three ground and three air troops or adding a full ground cav squadron and a full air cav squadron to the division.

It was also recognized that a pure M-3 troop simply didn't have the firepower to take on a Soviet Regt Recon Company. The Soviets had started adding a tank platoon to reinforce the usual BRDM/BMP mix. This is when the Army started experimenting with adding a Abrams platoon. Desert Storm saw several different mixes of DivCav. You had M-1/M-3, straight M-3, and even HMMWV/TOW, HMMWV/AGL and HMMWV/HMG. Of these, the M-1/M-3 worked the best.

The M-1 is one of the most quiet tanks in service, the turbine can rarely be heard much beyond 100 meters. On numerous field exercises, M-1s could get closer to red force units than Bradleys or even M-113s. When the Abrams first reached Germany, it earned the nickname "Whispering Death"...bestowed by the Canadians who were surprised at every turn by the speed, agility and near silence of the Abrams.

Stryker may have a use in a Peacekeeper role, but when the Army makes the decision to gut the Armor Force in favor of large numbers of a glorified RV....its only a matter of time before troops will pay the price.

I knew they was talking about adding to the divcav, but never twigged onto the exact reasons. Still and all, the doctrine was there, the ability wasn't is pretty much about sums it up?



And as to the last bit, thats the biggest gripe I have: It seems that once again, the army has forgot rule one of armoured warfare: It takes a tank to kill a tank. Missiles are good, but they are not perfect. Towed Guns was awesome, but they couldn't maneuver, and when mounted on a light chassis (MPGS anyone?) couldn't hang when real tanks showed up: A real tank can survive a near miss, or a glancing hit; A Stryker (Or Centaro, Rookiat, whatever) can't.

While everyone swore by Tank Destroyers (US because we believed in the Doctrine, Russians and Germans because they had to mount as many big guns as they could)in the second world war, if you would note, that once the lessons was learned, there was no more: It was accepted - finally - that tanks and only tanks could kill other tanks on a reliable basis.

What about track noise?
I'm yet to find a single tracked vehicle that doesn't clank and squeal every time it moves an inch. Might be able to sneak up on other vehicles with engines running, but on infantry I just can't see it....

Oh, thats there alright: Track Noise is what usually gives it away in the end. Depends on what is going on around you when we are sneaking up. In the case I mentioned, while the brad I snuck up on wasn't running, both the gunner and BC was listening to what was being sent out on the radio - and I doubt what noise they heard registered as a tank trying to sneak up on them - after all, what you expect to hear shapes a lot of what you do hear. Other times, the sound of a running humvee would mask the noise up till about a 100 feet or so. Of course, a quiet day or night, you would hear us about a 100 yards out, but still and all.

So in other words, the Bradley crew were not paying attention and had headphones interfereing with their ability to hear?
Sort of drives home the need for an infantry screen doesn't it.

Oh absolutely. Also helps to pay attention to your dismount who is waving and yelling that something was behind them. :)


Smart Dismounts, ones who know the job they are there for, and willing to it is much rarer than one might wish.

You might have one, or the other, but rarely do you get both. :)

That's it in a nut shell. The solution used in Germany during the 1980s was to add twelve M-113s carrying GSR teams, except that they were only of use at night or in bad weather. Not that the Soviets had any sort of radar detection equipment....:rolleyes:

On a M-1, the worst noise makers are the brakes, especially when the driver slams them on. They can easily be heard 3-400 meters off. The tracks, on hard ground, can also be heard, but at less than half the distance of the brakes. On soft ground, the M-1 is like a cat (as long as the driver lays off the brakes!). Sneaking the tank took some coordination between the TC/driver, but it was done on a routine basis.

The other big contender was the Leopard II. It was coming into service during my last tour and we had fun running circles around it! Compared to a M-1, it was not as fast and not as agile. In the various "unofficial" races, a 2ACR M-1 loaded with crew, full equipment and 40 rounds of main gun would leave a Leo II, with just TC and driver, basic equipment and no ammunition, eating its mud on every bit of terrain from hard-surfaced roads to mud trails (and when the Leo II bellied out, the M-1 came back and pulled it out...LMAO!)

The M-1 has better fire control and night sights than the Leo II. The only feature that the Leo had that I would loved to have was the TC sight. Once the gunner was lased to target, the Leo TC could search for another target, lock on and lase and as soon as the gunner was finished, hit a switch and the turret would move to align with the TC's target, it shaves 2-3 seconds off during a gunnery.

You know, always wanted to get up close to a leopard but never got the chance. I was always impressed by them- the latest versions more so. I am curious though how the latest version matches up to the M1A2.

Gunnery wise, at least from what I've heard over the years, the M-1A2 still beats the Leopard II. But this reflects more on where the Leo II is designed to fight, since Europe rarely has areas where you can engage at 2,000+ meters, the Germans see the ability to get off the first shot as more important than engaging at the earliest possible moment. Both sides have merit, but as to who is right...

With the latest uparmoring of the Leo II, its agility is significantly below that of the M-1. I've read articles in some of the various journals, that while the US is considering replacing the turbine with a diesel, that the Germans are considering going with turbines, go figure.

That's not all that surprising, though I have heard talk of a 1650hp MTU pack being bandied about. What's really making me wonder though is the 55 calibre barrel the latest marks sport: how does that effect theoretical long range gunnery?

Longer caliber = greater stabilization of the round before it leaves the barrel and greater muzzle velocity = longer range.

True enough: But only if there is enough propellent to make use of the longer barrel. I am tempted to say that there is judging by the muzzle flash I've always seen, but...


I don't know for certain.

I really really wish I still had a copy - or knew where to find again - a collection of studies done in the early 70's on performance of (then) current tank main guns compared to the second world war. I think it was done by the germans - 90% certain of this - and it came to some interesting conclusions.

If memory serves - I am not about to try to recall specifics - the conclusion was that the Soviets, then and now (again, Now refers to the early 70's through out) are still lagging significantly behind the west, due mostly to propellent issues. (Some thing they still have issues with even in 2011.) Unsurprisingly, the rate German cannon of the Second as on the whole vastly superior to the others, which to be fair, is mostly true. They further said the only guns the allies had that actually performed to standard was the US 76mm and the British 17 pounder - they was amazed that neither army type standardized on them instead of issuing them piecemeal. Another interesting conclusion was that the infamous 88 of Tiger 1 fame was actually not as good as everyone thought. It was actually, for its size, underpowered. Much like the US 90mm tank gun. And the only reason the L48 75mm guns of the Mk 4's was so much better than the allied guns, was because the allied guns by and large left a lot to be desired. The true winners of the period was the 7.5cm Kwk42 L/10 and the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 - and the KwK42 was the better of the pair due to ammo size - much easier to handle KwK42 rounds then the incredibly long KwK43 rounds.

But here is the funny thing. They ran the numbers and compared them to the western standard L7A1 - which the considered one of the best cannon designs ever, high praise from the Germans - and if you gave the KwK 42 modern ammo, and modern sights, it performed very close to the L7A1 - and the KwK43 even closer. In fact, it was theorized, that if you gave the KwK43 a smoothbore, and use fin stabilized ammo, it would actually outperform the L7A1 with the original ammo developed at its induction - mainly because of muzzle velocity. Now, by the 70's, and certainly by the 80's and 90's ammo for the L7A1 has improved by leaps and bounds making this comparison rather moot. Why this caught my eye is I think this might have been one of the pushes that gave Rheinmetall the idea to develop the 120mm Smoothbore of fame and legend - from it being a smoothbore, as well as perhaps the idea to make the rounds light and compact by using combustable cases.

I think I'm missing something here. Is the Army planning to replace all Bradleys with Strykers? Or most, or just some?

FWIW, I'm in agreement with the majority-- wheeled APCs are great assets for peacekeepers and light cavalry.

Except that the new 120mm still uses NATO standard 120mm ammo. What happens is that a significant amount of propellent isn't burned up during firing, the L/55 simply burns up more of the propellent hence more oomph to the projectile.

Its not so much as the Army is planning on replacing heavy armor with Strykers, its that the Army has gutted the heavy armor force, replacing it with Strykers, to such an extent that there is serious doubt that the Army can go one-on-one with any heavy force.

While Strykers are a badly needed updating of the light divisions, I strongly feel that de-mobbing heavy divisions and ACRs in order to field even more Stryker brigades is a policy that the US Army will eventually come to regret. The only questions are when and where it will bite us and most importantly how many soldiers will be killed or injured because our "leadership" has decided that a souped up RV is the combat vehicle of the future. I guess those with numerous stars on their shoulders have watched too many reruns of Stripes.

My five cents...

I was hoping that was the case: I didn't see the Germans making either a tube that was longer than the charge would allow, or making special rounds for the long tubes.

The RAAC Memorial and Army Tank Museum at Pukapunyal in Victoria has a display showing the effects of various rounds on armour plate which had been cut from a naval ship in the process of decommissioning. Everything from a 2 pounder up through an early guided missile and 105mm AP.
I think there's about a dozen plates one behind the other with about an inch or so between them. Some rounds only penetrate one or two plates, while the larger ones bore through several feet of hardened armour before stopping.
It's a shame they don't have those plates (which are located just outside the front door) on their website.
http://www.armytankmuseum.com.au/i-vd.htm
On the other hand, one of the friendly staff might take a few photos of them if you were to ask nicely.

The Stryker Brigades are based on the Armored Cavalry Regiment. A force rounded out with Mech infantry, and supporting Artillery, Armor, Air Cav, and support units.

It is meant for the Rapid Deployment Role. As in get some assets there on the ground (Airhead) while Heavy Units go by sea (Beach head). All the originators have retired, and mission creep has set in.

The Brigades are meant to be modular, plug n play. So since it is a prebuilt package. You could put three Stryker Brigades together and call it a Stryker Division. Send one ahead of the Heavies but as part of a Heavy force structure.

The though is and I will quote from the Cavalry here " Gets there firstest, with deh mostest". That a well rounded force with good weapons, good speed, outstanding coordination is better than a Light Infantry armed with ATGMs waiting for M1s that will be transported by ship arriving in 30 days.

Saddam could have killed the 82nd and the 101st if he had invaded Saudi Arabia as soon as they arrived. History would be remarkably different if Saddam were an able Commander.

We were quite aware of that at the 82nd, and we were expecting a hard fight from arrival. The rumors were that Saudi Arabia was next on Saddam's agenda. and main reason we sat on Green Ramp for four days after being called in was because they were debating a combat drop into Kuwait. Which would have been interesting for me if they did an immediate combat drop; being new to the Division, my 8th jump would have been a combat drop.

If you take a look at a earlier post I made on the uses of such a brigade like the Stryker, you would see 'speed bump' listed. :)


And you are right- while I will quibble on the good firepower bit - I think you are being generous, such a role is some that the brigade aught to be good at. Sucks to be in said unit, but there it is.

I understand that part, I'm just looking for numbers-- how many brigades have gone over to Strykers, vs. mech & armor? Are Armor battalions being converted, and if so, is it temporary/wartime or permanent?

Here is what the Army looks like, at least as of 2008:

1st Armored Division: 2 heavy, 1 Stryker. 1 infantry and 1 aviation brigade
1st Cavalry Division: 4 heavy and 1 aviation brigades
1st Infantry Division: 2 heavy, 2 infantry and 1 aviation brigades
2nd Infantry Division: 1 heavy, 3 Stryker and 1 aviaiton brigades
3rd Infantry Division: 3 heavy, 1 Stryker and 1 aviaiton brigades
4th Infantry Division: 3 heavy, 1 infantry and 1 aviation brigades
10th Mountain Division: 4 infantry and 1 aviation brigades
25th Infantry Division: 2 Stryker, 1 infantry, 1 airborne and 1 aviation brigades
82nd Airborne Division: 4 airborne and 1 aviation brigades
101st Air Assault Division: 4 air assault and 2 aviation brigades
170th Infantry Brigade: heavy
172nd Infantry Brigade: heavy
173rd Airborne Brigade: airborne
2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment
3rd Stryker Cavalry Regiment
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment: the two bn OPFOR at Fort Irwin NTC

that's a total of 17 heavy; 9 Stryker; 9 infantry; 6 airborne, 4 air assault and 11 aviation brigades.

Since this copy of the Army Times Green Book came out, four of the heavy brigades have been converted to Stryker and there are plans to convert another three heavy into Stryker by 2012. That is a total of 10 heavy and 16 Stryker brigades....and this does not include the NG divisions.

And these will be permanent changes.


Now you can see the concern of the old time tankers....

Right, thanks. What do you mean by "infantry"-- do we have leg brigades again?

*hrms*

You know, while packing up for a move to the DC area (the transfer is coming through, yay! Maybe I can find a group finally!), I have found that you need to throw things away every now and then when I found a old Fall 1987 Issue of "The Hook".


Jeesh.

I've been having problems getting an exact answer. The infantry brigades are essentially light infantry formations, the issue is whether there are 3 bns or just 2 bns plus their assigned FA and spt bns. I've also seen articles that state that these formations may be upgraded to Stryker as well. I have seen nothing "official" saying yea or nay as to this.

The heavy brigades are supposed to be made up of either 2 armd and 1 mech or vice versa (these are 3 company battalions) supported by a SP FA and a support battalion.

The Stryker brigades are 3 battalion with a towed FA and a support battalion.

The airborne and air assault brigades are both 3 battalion, towed FA and support battalion.

OK. I'd understood that all brigades were dropping to 2 line battalions (armor, mech or Stryker) and a Stryker cavalry squadron, and that the light infantry battalions were the first ones to go to Stryker.

Where is the 170th IB(M)? That's a new one to me.

IMO, a split of half/half between heavy and light brigades works for me, but I would try to keep the heavies together in the same divisions. Counerinsurgency/peacekeeping/LIC division commanders aren't as needed as they are in high-intensity combat, so I think the command cohesion of the heavy divisions is pretty important.

The 170th is based at Baumholder, Germany

As to just what the final makeup will be....considering that there are 13 heavy brigades, and converting one of the three battalions to Stryker......

Anyhow, here are the eight NG divisions:

28th Infantry Division (PA & FL NG): 1 heavy, 2 infantry, 1 Stryker and 1 aviation brigades.

29th Infantry Division (VA & MD NG): 1 heavy, 1 infantry and 1 aviation bdes

34th Infantry Division (MN & IA NG): 1 heavy, 2 light, 1 cavalry and 1 aviation bdes

35th Infantry Division (KS & NE NG): 3 infantry and 1 aviation bdes

36th Infantry Division (TX NG): 1 heavy, 4 infantry and 1 aviation bdes

38th Infantry Division (IN, MI & OH NG): 2 infantry and 1 aviation bdes, 1 ACR (really a heavy brigade)

40th Infantry Division (CA NG): 1 heavy, 3 infantry and 1 aviation bdes

42nd Infantry Division (NY, NJ, VT, & ME NG): 3 infantry & 1 aviation bdes.

This info is to be taken with a 25lb bag of salt. The latest Congressional Records refer to the NG losing all of its divisions and reorganizing into 39 brigades. While the Regular Army infantry brigades appear to be reorganizing, the NG infantry brigades are formed of 2 infantry and 1 Stryker battalions.

There are also a variety of Surveillance Brigades with the NG, these appear to be based on a cavalry squadron, reinforced with GSR and drone capability.

Another random observation.

While I had just finished many a day in the hospital, not all news was bad. Despite my best efforts, my Cholesterol was actually (if only barely) in the "OK" range.

This is good.

This, however, is bad.

From the Flat I am looking at in Frederick, within sight, there is:

A Ben and Jerry's.
A 5 Guys Burger Joint.
A bagel shop.

And down the road,
A Teavana,
And a Cali Pizza Kitchen.


Yeah kiss my diet goodbye.

My advice?
Get good curtains.

*laughs*


Smartass.

Tin foil on the windows is good too.

Tin foil will stop those government mind reading rays too... :D