Thread: Fiddle's Green
View Single Post
  #280  
Old 10-02-2011, 03:00 PM
Panther Al's Avatar
Panther Al Panther Al is offline
Sabre Ready!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DC Area
Posts: 849
Send a message via AIM to Panther Al
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral View Post
The idea that the Stryker is better-suited for one type of operation than another goes to the heart of one of the US Army’s biggest problems: we try to do a one-size-fits-all force instead of dividing the force into specialty units that can be retrained for other missions in a pinch. I’ve pitched the idea of greater specialization before, but I’ll keep doing it for the practice.

There need to be several US Army variants. There needs to be an Old Guard that looks great in parades and worries about whether the general is getting enough fiber. This job has been filled the US Army. There needs to be an Army that kills folks and breaks things and does nothing else. Killing folks and breaking things are skills. As the destructive potential of conventional weapons continues to rise, the need for skilled and motivated small unit leaders grows ever greater. Moreover, the men who volunteer for the combat arms signed up to kill folks and break things. Using them for other things like peacekeeping is downright wasteful of their motivation and the time they need to continue to grow their ability to kill folks and break things efficiently and effectively. The initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 demonstrates that a small effective force can move the required distance and get the conventional job done. When we’re talking about fuel hogs like the M1 Abrams, numbers don’t always equal security or rapid mission accomplishment. High quality tankers, artillery crews, combat engineers, and light infantry need a lot of practice executing a relative handful of battle drills.

Then there needs to be an Army that does the bulk of the peacekeeping. These guys do things like man the checkpoints and generally police the place after the steely-eyed killers have done their bit. The peacekeepers have at least as much in common with police as they do with the throat slashers. The peacekeepers need a whole different set of skills than the war fighters. More importantly, the peacekeepers need a whole different mindset and set of expectations of their role than the war fighters. Tank crews and light infantry sign on to be in combat. Peacekeepers sign on to keep the peace. There is some common ground, but the common ground is less than the ground that is not in common.

The majority of the peacekeepers should be reservists. Reservists tend to be older than their Regular Army counterparts. My experience in Iraq indicates that older men are less eager to press the trigger. Older men are married and have children at higher rates. Perhaps those of us with wives and children have an easier time imagining what happens when undisciplined fire goes through the walls of residential areas. In any event, older reservists (who generally are less physically fit for the demands of combat) have more of the mindset needed for peacekeeping. Perhaps most importantly, peacekeeping is more forgiving than combat.
This isn't a bad point: And you might very well be on to something here.

The problems are based in what do we need an army for?

Do we need an Army that is built around breaking your heart and army? Or to get involved in 'nation building'? Expecting the Army to do both is a stretch, but not undoable: We just need to decide which sorts of units we need for each role, and then let them do that role without being pimped out to do things they are not suited for.

Now, lets take the Stryker (Please!): In a peace keeping role, I can actually agree its not a bad thing in the least. Expensive for the job, but its actually probably pretty good at it. Enough armour and firepower to deal with irregular forces that lack any heavy weaponry or training. Perhaps a little too fancy for the role, but it is a lot better than Brads and Abrams. But in a Force on Force mission - the traditional Break Hearts and Armies - the Stryker is by and large a total failure in my mind. In this realm there is two roles, and two roles only for the Stryker Brigade.

The first role is that of a Rapid Reaction Force. AKA "The Designated Speed Bump". In a fictional point of view, lets look at it like this:

The 27th Corp is assigned to defend West Krasnovia from the evil hordes of East Krasnovia: Its ruling Amway party decides that its time to invade the west, and bring forth the joys of pyramid marketing to the corrupt and lazy westerners. Now, the 27th Corp is scattered all over, tasked to cover a multitude of area's with their heavy forces, and the EKA (East Krasnovian Army) gets clever, and attacks through a supposedly impassable forest (Like we haven't seen that a time or three). Now, it would take days to get heavy forces to move to block them, time the Corp doesn't have. But the Corps Stryker Brigade, being light and wheeled, can scream down the highways at speeds tracked vehicles can't match. Of course, once it gets there it is going to be outgunned and outnumbered, but thats OK: The mission they have is to buy time for heavy followup forces to get in place.

The second is as a Cadre force: Equipping National Guard units with heavy mechanized equipment is expensive. Only thing more expensive than that, is training with the same. So, lets say, looking above at a Peacekeeper side of the army and a force on force side, you have a Active Duty Army: Designed around Force on Force, it is made of a small number of Active Divisions built, and trained for, Force on Force. This is all it does. Now, lets give this new model army a total of 3 Corps: One for Europe/ME, One Continental, and One Pacific. 1st and 3rd Corp, the oversea's Corps, are nothing but Heavy. 3 Heavy Divisions, a Heavy Cav Regiment, and a Corp Stryker Brigade. 2nd Corp in the States, now that is a Peace Keeping Corp. 2 Divisions of "Stryker" style units, and a single Heavy Force on Force division to serve as Cadre for more should the need arise and as support for 1st and 3rd Corps. The Guard goes all stryker. Now this serves two purposes. One, is that as Guard, they are, as Web said, less likely to do something stupid when used in the Peacekeeper role, and with that being its primary mission, will be given Strykers to suit that mission. But, it also tabbed that should the need arise, they can be called up to fill up new Force on Force units. For this, they will draw upon stocks of heavy equipment set aside for this, and since they have trained with the (relatively) cheaper Strykers, it wouldn't be very hard for them to get used to heavier equipment.

Best of both worlds you could say.
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon.

Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.
Reply With Quote