Posted on 11/12/2003 12:49:58 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
PORT OF KUWAIT, Kuwait (Army News Service, Nov. 12, 2003) -- For the first time since World War I, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division has deployed overseas.
The brigade’s Stryker vehicles and other equipment arrived Nov. 12 in the port of Kuwait on board the USNS Shughart and USNS Sisler after a three-week voyage from Fort Lewis, Wash., via the Port of Tacoma.
The deployment marks the second time that Stryker vehicles have landed on foreign soil though. In August a platoon from the Army’s first Stryker Brigade Combat team conducted a capabilities demonstration in South Korea.
Also on Nov. 12 the first main-body flight of Arrowhead Brigade soldiers completed their day-and-a-half trip from Fort Lewis Kuwait. The troops got onto buses and headed for Camp Udari in northern Kuwait while some went to the Port of Kuwait to assist in ship offload operations.
Soon after docking, advance-party crews from 3rd Brigade and members of the 598th Transportation Group (Forward), a Reserve unit deployed to Kuwait, went to work unleashing the vehicles and equipment in the ships’ cargo holds to prepare them for unloading, and eventually for their convoy to Camp Udari.
The team hopes to have the approximately 2,300 pieces of cargo unloaded in less than 48 hours, according to Maj. Faris Williams, 598th Transportation Group (Fwd).
“What makes it go so fast is that equipment is all fully mission capable and can be easily transported off the ship,” said Williams.
The goal for the 3rd Brigade soldiers is to get their vehicles ready for action.
“We are trying to download the ships and get the equipment to the marshalling yard,” said Staff Sgt. Darren Rone, 367th Maintenance Company, 44th Corps Support Battalion.
In the days leading to the ships’ arrival, the advance-party crews received safety briefings and were drilled in every aspect of the operation to ensure that the offload would be as safe as possible, said Maj. Sean McKinney, 3rd Brigade S-4, the unit’s logistics’ officer. The crews also had time to rest from their trip from Fort Lewis.
“Job number one here is taking care of the soldiers doing the work,” said McKinney. “The soldiers here were given crew rest and a place to recover and rest for the next day’s operations.”
That rest included time to go to the Internet café and take in the post exchange at the port so that they would be ready to go when the ships sailed in.
Rone said two shifts are working around the clock to put the vehicles in action. The teams of drivers and safety workers come from all across the brigade. Drivers are told to get in the vehicles they are licensed for and drive them off the ship.
“My job is to drive trucks off the ship and get them lined up for the soldiers to take to the marshalling yard,” said Spc. Sean Cruz, 296th Brigade Support Battalion.
A second set of drivers take the vehicles from the port to the marshalling yard further inland and ready them for their trip to Camp Udari, said McKinney. Once enough vehicles are ready, groups of soldiers will come down to the marshalling yard from CampUdari and begin the convoy north. The vehicles will head for each company’s motor pool and each unit will make final preparations for the journey into Iraq.
The brigade has been preparing to leave Fort Lewis for about a month. It held a going away ceremony Oct. 30.
The ceremony featured leaders from 1st Corps and 3rd Bde. who furled and cased the unit’s colors, a gesture symbolizing the end to the unit's training period and the beginning of its new mission as a certified combat unit, ready for action in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Following the ceremony, Soldiers were showered with kisses from spouses and hugs from children.
"I think (the departure ceremony) was a great idea," said Maj. Mark Landes, 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Bde. "It allows a sense of closure and a sense of community getting behind the unit. It's great for the families, too."
While the departure ceremony helped prepare families for separation, everyone knew the upcoming year would be challenging.
"It's tough. But I am here to support my husband - sending letters as much as possible, sending pictures (of the children)," said Karin Markert, wife of Maj. John Markert, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Bde., and mother of three.
(Editor’s note: Sgt. Jeremy Heckler is the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Public Affairs non-commissioned officer in charge. Steven Field, a journalist with the Northwest Guardian newspaper at Fort Lewis, also contributed to this story.)
But don't believe everything you read unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true.
Loose lips at the Washington Times.
Nothing there the Jihadists haven't learned from the BTR 70/80 kills they've made in Chechnya. The question is, are we willing to subject a civilian population center to the same levels of preventative or retaliatory fire as the Russians have to discourage such attacks. And still the attacks there continue, as they likely will in Iraq....
I was mightily impressed by the German artillery units that went through the tank gunnery *Table 8* course at Grafenwohr, Using the .50 and 7,62 MG3 atop their vehicles as tankers would use the TC's .50 and .30 co-ax, with direct fire from their 155mm main gun, roughly equal to the 6-inch naval guns mounted aboard light cruisers. Granted, they were a bit slower to reload than a tank with fixed-shell ammunition, but they were still pretty good at it. And they didn't need a direct hit- just a near one from the 155 would blow away the 6x6 targets and frames, which I kidded them about until one old gunner pointed out that they'd do pretty much the same thing to a lightly armored BTR or ASU they might fire upon. He was right.
And in city fighting, 155mm direct fire is an answer to a number of problems, from needing a new doorway in an existing building to discouraging snipers on rooftops. Their guns have the elevation to reach directly overhead, if need be.
-archy-/-
And although I'm no expert, it seems that they might be a little more roadside-bomb resistant than a Humvee.
Oh; wait!; We blew them all up, didn't we, so that some Contractor can get filthy rich providing brand-new gazillion-dollar tanks for the new Iraqi Army at American Taxpayer expense.
Well, we blew turrets and gun systems, sometimes leaving ammo aboard that wrecked the entire vehicle; or sometimes amusing special forces engineer demolition specialists trying to reach new altitude records for T-72 turrets [really!] or to otherwise make a more spectacular shot than the previous one, often videotaped or digitally recorded.
The T72 is essentially worthless as a tank, particularly the T72 M *monkey models* supplied for export. The location of the ammunition carousel for the gun's automatic loader is every knowlegable gunner's aiming point. The automotive performance is okay, and they can be used as wheeled artillery tractors or rebuilt into engineer bridge vehicles, recovery tanks, or self-proppelled artillery pieces. But as direct fighting vehicles, no great loss.
The older [circa 1950s] T55 is a much better bet, smaller, simpler and easier to maintain. Though the 100mm gun is obscelescent, the Russians have adapted the 100mm missile for the BMP-3+ fighting vehicle for use down the gun's smoothbore tube, giving it a dozen or so rounds capable of killing a hostile tank out to 4000 meters, plus 40 rounds or so of conventional ammo for backup. That leaves it actually less well armed than the infantry vehicle, which carries a 30mm coaxial gun as well, but as an airfield or bridge defense vehicle, the T55 still makes a viable reserve choice. They're the vehicle with which we're reequipping the newly reconstituted Afghani army's tank outfits, so it's a good bet we may see some Iraqi leftovers used in a similar role. And if there's a shortage, no problem: the Poles are selling their surplus T55Ls off for just $9,000 each, likewise Finland is replacing theirs with German Leopards and their own Sisu 6-wheeled vehicle. More than 50,000 T55s were built, so there's no shortage of them to be had.
But a better approach is to remove the turret entirely, improving the horsepower-to-weight ratio by 15 tons, and use missiles instead; see those listed in post #60 for a few likely candidates; US versions-or LOSAT or guided HYDRA- are additional possibilities. The Ukranians offer a track/roadwheel upgrade for the T55 using the components of the very modern T84U; and the more powerful T84 Diesel engine can also be shoehorned in, getting a turretless T55 up to M1 speed range but with less fuel consumption. And the Ukranians also offer a 105mm or NATO 120mm gun package that uses conventional NATO tank gun ammunition, if a conventional turretted tank is preferred for some units use.
The Israelis captured considerable numbers of T54/T55 tanks during the 1956, 1967, and 1973 wars, and rebuilt them as the T167 Tiran that equipped two Israeli reservist tank brigades. Now that Israeli-built Merchava tanks are becoming available for those units, the old T55s are being built into Achzarit heavy armored personnel carriers capable of withstanding RPG fire- and for use as armored ambulances. The Russians are also reworking many of their old T55s into personnel carriers, having learned in Chechnya just how vulnerable either a wheeled or tracked light APC is to multiple RPG fire, mines and off-route bombs.
Achzarit:
How about one of these?
I sure hope so. One of my very real big fears is that command will order them to ride inside instead on on top in mine country. We learned that lesson the hard way in Vietnam, even with tanks, as did the Russians in Chechnyan mine country.
That's going to be hard on a few of those guys when a Stryker rolls over, whether from a mine of soft sand on a road's edge. But that may be better than losing 13 in one go to a mine, one a week or so.
There'll be a way to tell, immediately obvious from news photos of the things in action, or even at rest with the crews dismounted. We shall see.
One reason given for the cancellation of the 155mm-gun Crusader Self-propel;led artillery system was concern that shrapnel from the 6-inch gun rounds would scatter on roads and damage Stryker tires. That likely means there'll be restrictions placed on M109A6 Paladin 155 fire and 120mm mortar fire near roads where it's planned to have stryker's operating.
Simple nails or caltrops likely won't be much problem for Stryker in Afghanistan, but the central tire inflation system plumbing cou;d offer problems in bush or forest country. It's the sidewalls of the tires that are vulnerable, not their outside diameter and tread surface.
Another interesting question, which I bet wasn't tried during the live-fire tests in which Stryker armor proved faulty: what happens when an M18A1 Claymore mine is fired at a Stryker from either side [or both!] from a distance of about 30 meters. 700 quarter-inch ball bearings at 2000 feet per second, figure roughly 75-100 per tire.
I have a sneaky idea I already know. And that the answer is why it wasn't tried.
-archy-/-
My bet: unless the RWS .50 feeding systyem problems are cured, and as recently as a month ago I was e-mailed by a Stryker crewman who says he thinks that's the worst bug in the system, you'll see the .50 or Mk 19 replaced with a pair of 7,62 M240Gs. Or even old M60 MGs, if there's a shortage of MGs for fitting to the vehicles.
One of the nice features of the now-cancelled Military Police 4-wheeled ASV was its ability to use both the .50 and the 40mm Mk 19 at the same time. Or should one jam or run empty, the gunner could flip his gun safe/selector switch, and resume immediately with the other gun. When Stryker's gun goes on strike, that's it.
I hope we see them sprout more grabs and handholds. But I fear that the composite armor may preclude obvious answers of that sort.
No. The Claymore is an American mine, though there are foreign versions. But as we begin training and equipping the Iraqi police/military, they may become available.
To date, most of what I've heard used are the Soviet TM46 and TM57 antitank mines, *pieplate* sixed three-four inches thick with a payload of around 15-20 pounds explosive, easily enough carried one in either hand by a 2-man [or woman] team, offering a 60-pound charge.
Add to that any leftover available artillery or mortar explosive projectiles and military demolition charges, and there's plenty of noisemakers around to handle a Stryker, maybe a tank.
-archy-/-
These two ships that transport Army stuff were named after Army heroes. Most FReepers probably know about Randy Shughart's heroism at the cost of his life in Somalia. Most of you probably don't know about George Sisler, who also won the Medal of Honor at the cost of his life -- in Vietnam. Here's Sisler's citation and here's a picture of that brave man. (It's retouched, yes -- he never lived to wear the medal).
Sisler's son is engaged in a very meaningful way in the Global War on Terrorism. I wish I could tell you how, but I don't want to expose him or his family to any risk. Suffice to say that his father would be as proud of him as he is of his father, even though he's in a different service and doing a different (but equally admirable, in my opinion) job than his Green Beret dad.
These are the sort of men that these transport ships are named after.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Hey, maybe they will contract out MSR security and convoy escort. That would be real career mobility.
How's that for hand holds?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.