BTR-60
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/
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.