BTR-60
Posted on 08/02/2003 1:42:16 PM PDT by kattracks
BTR-60
BTR-80
Based on a national strategy that in essence says we will take the fight to the enemy versus let the enemy come to America, the U.S. military is expeditionary in nature. Since there are lots of different types of enemy forces in different climates and terrain, we have to have a broad mix of capabilities ourselves.
The trick is to not get so specialized that units become "one-trick ponies"--only capable of fighting in one geographic area against one enemy force.
Our current mix of foot infantry units with the strategic and operational forced entry capability of the 82d Airborne and 101st Air Assault coupled with the "heavy" force Bradley/M-1 tank mix is pretty good. However, we've been missing a "medium" weight force and that is what Shinseki gave us with the Stryker Brigades.
I agree with many that the M113A3 was on the shelf and ready, but with either vehicle, the purpose of the brigade would be the same--get there faster than a heavy force with a lot more firepower than foot infantry.
Further, after deployment, in areas where the ground is reasonably trafficable (most of the world), the Stryker Brigade will provide the advantages of vehicle mobility coupled with much more foot infantry than heavy forces carry--the ratinale is not simply strategic mobility--the Stryker Brigade also fills a tactical need.
As for fighting tanks--Stryker Brigades would have no problem defending (defending an airhead is one of their primary tasks) against heavy armor units. Offensive ops, except against an enemy with a very limited number of tanks, would be very problematic, however.
Meaning offensive ops against a primarily "heavy" force.
M-113
M-114
Aren't these kinds of
"experiments" yesterday's
news for a country
like America?
I mean, when we have things like
Spectre Gunships and --
probably -- things like
Brilliant Pebbles, do we need
so many options
for getting ground troops
from place to place? I mean, if
we're not going to
colonize some place,
then don't our high tech weapons
make these ground things moot?
We're not colonizing Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Phillipines and we are approaching 200,000 Army troops in those places. And if we lined up our Air Force wing-tip to wing-tip over any of those countries and vectored in every satellite in outer space while the entire Navy steamed off-shore it would not reduce the need for those soldiers by one man.
The problem with the latest greatest high tech whiz-bang idea is that the enemy never seems to cooperate. That is why the diesel snorkle subs didn't starve out the UK. That is why our fleets of long range heavy bombers with Norden bomb sights didn't destroy Germany's industry. That is why we can do shock and awe by launching missiles and planes from the other side of the world and guided by satellites and lasers to hit targets with pin-point accuracy--and have no effect except destroying a bunch of empty buildings & probably killing a few conscripts left behind to guard them.
The most flexible and effective weapon in our arsenal is a well-trained soldier on the ground--operates in any terrain, weather, or climate against any enemy. Can kill or capture, can separate bad guys from civilians, can use one shot to kill the sniper in the mosque, and unlike a high tech gizmo--a soldier can adapt to completely new or unforeseen circumstances.
I don't disagree
with that one bit! I'm saying,
however, we have
many proven means
of getting troops here to there.
To my eyes it seems
smarter to budget
money to build deep reserves
of vehicles that
have proven themselves
rather than invest in new
programs. (In regards
to well defined things
like troop-moving and such.) That's
all I was saying.
Bren Gun Carrier (US Ford T16 version)
Agree. We're doing a pretty good job of that with the B-52 & C130; sure seems like we could have done the same thing with a few upgrades to the M113 instead of a whole new vehicle. Not slamming the Stryker, just seems the M113 would have provided a roughly equivalent (and "proven" as you say) capability faster & in greater numbers & at less cost.
And the aluminum armor makes it burn nicely when hit with a hot enough round.
I agree with you about the pork issue. The "not new" issue is also big, as the development costs have already been amortized, so a new production run gives fewer opportunities to pad the bill
If the Stryker won't resist .50 cal AP, there's little to recommend it over a stretched version of the Hummer with a TOW launcher on top. At least we can transport lots of those by air, and they have good cross-country capabilities
M-551 Sheridan Armored Reconaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle
We need something like this, only newer and better, now!
XM-8 Buford Armored Gun System
Like this. But they cancelled it. Maybe we should cancel black berets and resurrect the Buford.
From GlobalSecurity.org:
The [Strykers] are not a replacement for the M1 Abrams tank or the M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The IAVs will be used in places, such as urban areas, where the heavy armored vehicles are not suitable for the mission.
Nope. It takes boot on the ground to take and hold terrain. We're not interested in colonization, but even if those of overly politically correct sensitivities don't like the word, we're interested in occupying places like Iraq and Afghanistan until they are safe.
Unless we want to nuke vast portions of the earth's surface or are willing to indiscriminately kill every human being in those countries where terrorists hang out, we will have to put infantrymen on the ground
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.