Posted on 08/02/2003 1:42:16 PM PDT by kattracks
FORT LEWIS, Wash. (AP) - A whisper of cool, mountain air slips through an open window in Col. Michael Rounds' office at this quiet Army post in the shadow of the Cascades. The setting could hardly be more unlike what Rounds' soldiers will face shortly in hot and chaotic Iraq.Rounds commands a newly formed Stryker brigade combat team - the first of its kind, intended as a model for the Army of the future, and scheduled to make its combat debut in Iraq within two months.
``The brigade is ready to go,'' Rounds said in an interview.
Rounds' unit, formed from the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, has trained intensively this year in anticipation of being certified combat ready by October. It was not until July 23, however, that the soldiers learned they will be going to Iraq as part of a troop rotation plan.
Although President Bush declared on May 1 that major combat was over, military commanders in Iraq have said repeatedly that they still are in a war zone, one in which the tool they prize most - timely information about the enemy - is the very one that Rounds' soldiers are equipped to provide.
``One of the greatest advantages we have is that we can share information very quickly, and by sharing information very quickly we feel we are less vulnerable'' to surprise attack, Rounds said Friday.
The Iraq mission is a milestone for the Stryker Brigade, which itself represents a first step in the Army's effort to become a force more relevant to 21st-century missions.
It may one day be recognized as the most telling legacy of Gen. Eric Shinseki, who retired this summer after four years as the Army's chief of staff, the top uniformed officer. In October 1999, Shinseki outlined a plan for remaking the Army by 2010 into a more versatile force that can move quickly onto distant battlefields, armed with unparalleled ability to dictate the pace of fighting.
Coincidentally, it was the Army's experience in the Persian Gulf in 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait and seemed poised to grab the oil fields of eastern Saudi Arabia, that led to the Stryker model.
Shinseki often recalls that the Army's only answer to Iraq's threat to those Saudi oil fields was to send the 82nd Airborne Division. It is quick to respond but was too lightly armed to sustain an effective defense had the Iraqi army crossed the Saudi border and raced for the oil fields.
It was that gap between light and heavy forces that Shinseki and others realized must be closed.
Lt. Gen. Edward Soriano, commanding general of Fort Lewis and the Army's 1st Corps, said in a separate interview Friday that he has no doubt that Rounds has prepared his soldiers for the challenges of Iraq.
``It's going to be difficult,'' he said. ``But I have all the confidence in the world that these soldiers will do just fine. They are pumped up. They are psyched up.''
The Stryker is the Army's first new combat vehicle in two decades, although it actually is intended as a stepping stone to the ultimate goal: a high-tech family of fighting systems known as the Future Combat System, which still is on the drawing board and is expected to include unmanned ground and aerial vehicles.
One Stryker can be flown aboard an Air Force C-130 cargo plane, which is designed to land on short, substandard airfields in remote areas. Thus the Stryker Brigade is capable of reaching areas, including the deserts of western Iraq, that units built around tanks could not reach by air.
Gen. John Keane, the acting Army chief of staff, announced on July 23 a plan to maintain the current troop strength in Iraq while allowing those who have been there longest to go home. To do that, the Army is calling on the National Guard as well as active duty units such as the Stryker Brigade.
Asked what gave him confidence that the first Stryker Brigade is ready for real-world combat, Keane pointed to the Fort Irwin, Calif., and Fort Polk, La., training sessions the Strykers conducted last spring.
``We put it through its paces against the toughest opponent our forces have ever faced'' - the training center competition, he said. ``They are ready to go.''
The Stryker is a 19-ton, eight-wheeled armored vehicle built in the United States and Canada. It comes in two variants: an infantry carrier and a mobile gun system. The infantry carrier, in turn, has eight configurations, including a reconnaissance vehicle, a mortar carrier and a vehicle for the brigade commander.
It is named for two Medal of Honor winners: Pfc. Stuart S. Stryker, killed in action in Germany on March 24, 1945; and Spec. 4 Robert F. Stryker, killed in Vietnam on Nov. 7, 1967. They were not related.
On the Net:
Stryker Brigade Combat Team: http://www.lewis.army.mil/transformation/
The LAV-III 8x8 armored car is a 20-ton (combat-loaded) metal box suspended on top of 8 rubber tires which press down hard on the earth; 40 PSI to be exact. A vehicle pressing down on just 8 small areas can roll fast on pavement, but it cannot drive at will off-road in mud where it must grip. Except in the firm soil desert areas and roads, the LAV-III will get stuck often, ruining the tactical integrity of units and result in route selection where only clearly defined roads and paths will be selected. What we can anticipate is "GO" terrain for wheeled vehicles is also "GO" locations to set up an ambush and wait for vulnerable wheeled targets appear.
Me, I'm the kind of guy who would want nothing less than an M1-A2 but these guys seemed pretty enthusiastic about their go buggy. We'll see how they work up. Even the M1-A1 had a difficult workup.
WHEELED ARMORED CARS: FAILURES NOT THE "FUTURE" OF WARFARE
Transformation Lies and Deceits come home to roost
Wheeled Stryker, FCS, bite the dust
Most of these links are also heavily linked, you could spend entire days reading them all.
Wrong. Look again at the text of the main article:
Coincidentally, it was the Army's experience in the Persian Gulf in 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait and seemed poised to grab the oil fields of eastern Saudi Arabia, that led to the Stryker model.
Shinseki often recalls that the Army's only answer to Iraq's threat to those Saudi oil fields was to send the 82nd Airborne Division. It is quick to respond but was too lightly armed to sustain an effective defense had the Iraqi army crossed the Saudi border and raced for the oil fields.
It was that gap between light and heavy forces that Shinseki and others realized must be closed.
If one is filling the gap, then one is facing whatever the enemy is throwing at you in that gap. The 82nd was often referred to as a "speed bump" for enemy armored formations. Stryker units will die in droves if faced by anything more modern than T-55s. And, unlike those tracked enemy armored vehicles, the Strykers will be canalized onto terrain where they won't get stuck, allowing the enemy tanks to outmaneuver them. And an enemy on the defensive will know exactly which routes the Strykers will have to use. You can bet those routes will be mined, booby trapped with off-route ambush systems, targeted for artillery (we aren't the only ones with DPICM-type bomblet artillery), and have dug-in tanks just waiting. A little forethought and preparation will go a long ways toward negating our technological superiority.
I'm sure we will win in the end, but Strykers will see to it that the American body count is very high. "Light armor" is a euphemism for "Soldiers are expendable." As a former tanker - and I chose that branch when every branch in the Army was open for me to choose - I would have resigned my commission before going into battle in light armor.
There are better solutions to the gap the Stryker is meant to fill, but that would make this post rather long. :-)
M113A3 Advantages: True cross country mobility, very flexible armament selection, decent armor protection, air transportable . . .
Disadvantages: Costs a lot less (less Pork to bring home), not a sexy-looking wheeled thingy, doesn't emply enough constituents 'cause it's an upgrade versus a new vehicle.
No, I see BTR-60 too. Or a BTR-80. Or that German thing, I believe it was the Spahpanzer Luchs. And, of course, the LAV-25. Or the old Czech OT-64. Can you say, "Friendly Fire?" I knew you could.
Going to be a disaster. From what I have heard, when armed with a 105, the turret cannot traverse, otherwise it tips over. I have also heard that 12.7 can make mincemeat of the armor.
Plus, the 105 lacks the firepower to successfully engage a T-62 or anything better.
As many others on this thread said, the Army was better either modifying the M-113 or buying LAVs (a'la the Marines).
I had heard that the Israelis were punching holes through T-72s with the 105mm tank gun. But perhaps the 105 on the Stryker isn't quite the same as was mounted on the M60 series, the first versions of the Merkava, the M1, and a bunch of other tanks. (The M1A1 went to the 120mm, but the M1 still had the 105mm 'cause we couldn't get enough 120s at first).
Of course, I heard of one Israeli tank unit falling back to reload. The ammo point didn't have any "real" rounds left, but had some training rounds. In typical Israeli style, they uploaded training HEAT rounds and headed into battle. At the close ranges the battle had closed to, those "inert" chunks of metal took out T-62s nicely. But to head into combat with practice ammo - talk about . . ., uh, intestinal fortitude, yeah that's it, intestinal fortitude. :-)
By my count, that's 6 brigades. Unless things have changed a lot, that's two full divisions. Will there be two Stryker divisions, or will the brigades be distributed to existing divisions? If the latter, that would sure bite - replacing a tank brigade (2 Battalions of Tanks, 1 of Mech Infantry), a Mech Brigade (2 Battalions of Mech, 1 of Tanks), or, even worse, the division's "balanced" brigade (2 of each, Tank & Mech) with cute little wheelie Stryker things
If it's good for Stryker units, why not equip the normal infantry unit with all the goodies? Stack the deck enough and I can make a "leg" light infantry unit capable of defeating heavy armor!
If it ever come to it, these Stryker units may tangle with the large number of Syrian BTR-60s and the Air Force and Navy pilots will have to sort out who's who.
I agree entirely - the Stryker isn't meant to go up against tanks. But the original article indicated they were intended to get "there" quickly - meaning they're likely to be the only American unit in front of an advancing enemy. Unless the enemy obligingly plays by the "rules," he's likely to have tanks. Regardless of what the Stryker is meant to fight, in such a scenario what we will have is a vehicle that has less maneuverability, far less air transportability (= fewer men and vehicles deployed), less armament options, and a larger profile (bigger target). Not to mention the much greater vulnerability of that large set of wheels (compared to relatively short and mostly steel tracks) to various unpleasantness. And something tells me that, despite the much greater weight, its armor isn't any better than that of the M113A3.
But all of these shortcomings are apparently more than made up for by the fact that the Stryker costs much, much more than the M113A3. Further, since it has very little parts commonality with existing systems (the M113 series remains in the logistical system), there's the added bonus of the additional burden on the Army's entire logistical system.
My assessment of the armament options is based on the flexibility of the GE modular turret system mounted on the M113 and those variants we all know and love: the 4.2" mortar, the Improved TOW Vehicle, and the Vulcan. We must assume the enemy isn't totally moronic and has some degree of combined arms - light and mech infantry, tanks, artillery, AA, perhaps some type of combat engineers. Just a few high rate of fire AA guns and a mix of both shoulder-fired and ground/vehicle mounted missile systems, particularly IR systems and some good, old-fashioned Barrage Ballons (cheap, simple, invisible to radar, deadly to low-flying aircraft) and the only air assets we dare deploy in support of our Strykers are UAVs, F117s, and B-2s (only 21 B-2s in the inventory and something like 50-70 F117s). Some fairly rudimentary jamming systems may well prevent effective use of UAVs. This all adds up to very bad news to those guys in the Strykers.
Now, mind you, I'm not saying the situation is all skittles and beer for a force mounted in M113A3s. But since you can probably deploy 2-3 times as many M113A3s because they're actually C-130 transportable and I believe a C-17 can carry 2, you'll have a lot more forces ready to fight. Add in those neat combat support variants - most of which don't have to be upgraded to 'A3 variant to be effective - and you are much better prepared to do more than die in place. "Quantity has a quality all its own." But we're also talking more maneuverable, more survivable, and much cheaper.
An Israeli general once made the following comment about an entirely different topic, but I think it's most appropriate (wording isn't exact, 'cause it's from memory): "We are watching your experiments with great interest. But, unfortunately, in Israel we have to take war seriously." I'm not saying the Stryker is a pile of excrement. I simply maintain that it is far, far from the best choice. Newer isn't always better! But, like NASA refusing to use Space Shuttle External Tanks as part of the Space Station, the Army is blinded by New and Sexy and Congress by the copious quantities of Pork. I suspect the Stryker will do as well as any other brigade would when deployed to Iraq in the current situation (assuming the other brigade would have all the extra "toys" the Stryker brigade gets). But that ain't comparing apples and apples by saying one bridage is as good, or perhaps better, than another. In a rapid deployment situation, in the same time you managed to deploy a single brigade of Strykers, you could deploy 3 brigades of M113A3s - that's the combat units of an entire division! If you were the enemy, which would you rather face: A brigade of Strykers that don't have a lot of cross-country mobility or a division of M113A3s that can maneuver across virtually any terrain, including crossing water obstacles without any real advanced prep? The answer is obvious unless you've been consuming recreational pharmaceuticals.
The Army has forgotten the utility of guys with rucks and rifles. You can put these guys on buses, drive 'em to the airfield, fly them halfway around the world, land them at a Forward Operating Base, load them up on choppers and air assault a Himalayan mountain range. That's strategic and operational mobility, paid for at the expense of tactical mobility. Once they get there they hump and grunt and crunch gravel with their leather personnel carriers, augmented with whatever ATV's, Gators, and indigenous transport they can get. Too low tech for some people, who cannot stand to see other services or branches get more Buck Rogers War Machines than they do.
The Army has allowed the Marines to become America's 911 Force, and these Stryker Brigade Combat Teams are a half-vast attempt to get back into the Rapid Deployment business. The problem is the lift. The same admiral who owns the Amphibious Ready Group also owns the MEU embarked on it. No Army commander owns any C-17s. He must beg the Air Force for a ride, and if they aren't too busy deploying all the support troops needed by an Air Expeditionary Force the Air Force might scrape up some birds. The air lift does not exist to move these Stryker Brigades and move everything else that has to go at the same time.
Too bad the various proponents of mobile warfare in the different services and branches can't cooperate and graduate. We need a real Airborne Corps, with 2 Airborne Divisions, an Airmobile Division, an Air Cavalry Combat Brigade and an Armored Cavalry Regiment (Airborne), mounted in air-droppable armored fighting vehicles like M-113A3's and M-8 Armored Gun Systems. Whoever cancelled the M-8 should have his cod split. What would be so hard about recreating 21st-century versions of the Bren Gun Carrier and the M-114? We also need Armored Expeditionary Forces afloat in high speed large roll-on/roll-off catamaran sea-going ferries full of Main Battle Tanks and Cavalry Fighting Vehicles and self-propelled artillery. The idea is to get there firstest with the mostest, and sometimes that will be air and sometimes sea and often both.
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.