Pardon the intrusion, but I'm surprised to hear this about the Strykers. Is it the machine itself, or the organization, or the deployment that is the problem? I'm hearing some of each.
As for the vehicle, I am surprised to hear that it is having mechanical trouble, as I had heard high praise for the testing procedures (back when I had friends on active duty). Also, since it was based on an existing (and presumable de-bugged) chassis, that seems extraordinary that it would be failing as described.
I also have difficulty with the newer brigade of 2 line battalions, but that's a different issue right now. Fighting guerrillas needs lots of well-trained troops, not lots of HQs without the capability to cover ground.
As for the medium-weight, wheeled-mobile, air-portable unit, well, that sounds like cavalry to me, at least in terms of mobility. Not for shock action on a "high-intensity" battlefield, but in my mind, Armor took over for Heavy Cavalry some time ago. Would it be less of an issue if the "Stryker brigade labelled a cavalry regiment" had a different, heavier, TO&E, rather than being "just another" motorized infantry brigade? Something to give anti-mech. capability to the airborne/light guys?
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.
|