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/
I've been looking, but haven't found an indentification of the metal used for the Stryker's armor. It probably shares the "advantage" of making a great illumination flare when really hot!
The Army’s newest ship is a Theater Support Vessel (TSV – before called a HSV) was bought with the new Stryker Brigades in mind. To learn more about this ship check out the Ft. Eustis web page
To learn more about the Army’s watercraft check this out
True. But I object to the concept that heavy armored vehicles are not suitable for urban areas. In direct support of infantry units, tanks are very appropriate for urban areas. I don't think we've lost a single tanker to hostile fire since major combat operations ended, save perhaps that one tank where the crew failed to follow SOP and were driving across a bridge with the driver unbuttoned. Driver got shot, tank went into the water, rest of crew drowned. SOP says driver is never unbuttoned. Gee, I wonder why.
But imagine Mogadishu if we had dispatched a Mech Infantry task force with 2 Mech platoons and 1 tank platoon the moment that first Blackhawk went down. If I recall correctly, with the distances involved the heavy guys could have been there within 2 hours. Now imagine Somali reaction to an M-1 engaging them with direct, short range, main gun fire and Bradleys firing lots of HE 25mm instead of having nothing but our guys firing small arms at them. I don't think we would have lost 18 guys. And the Somalis would have lost either a lot more or a lot less than the 500-1000 they did - less if they reacted in the typical fashion when tanks show up spitting smoke and fire and death ("shock effect") and ran like hell, more if they obligingly hunkered down and tried to shoot at tanks with their small arms and RPGs.
And one other point - when I asked about the ultimate destination of the 6 Stryker brigades, Thunder 6 told us:
6 Brigades: Two currently at Ft. Lewis (one before too much longer), one in Alaska, one in Hawaii, one at Ft. Polk, and one in Pennsylvania. The ones in Alaska and Louisiana are separate BDE's. The other two belong to existing Divisions, one light, one mech.
Note that last division is a Mech division. I seriously doubt we're going to augment that division with a fourth brigade. So one brigade is going to turn in its M-1s and M-3s and transition to Strykers. That sounds like replacing M-1s and M-3s with Strykers. Iraq proved (again) that we need our heavy forces. I hope they're at least smart enough to choose the "light" brigade! Since we're deploying forces everywhere, my opinion is that we shouldn't replace any M-1s or M-3s with Strykers, but bring Fort Carson back up to full divisional strength and increase the number of maneuver battalions in the Army. And, again, I feel strongly the Stryker is a mistake when juxtaposed with the many other choices
For those who don't know, in a Mechanized Infantry division the "light" brigade is the one that has two Mech battalions and one Tank battalion. One brigade has two Tank and one Mech battalions, while the remaining brigade has four battalions, two of each. The only difference in an Armored division is it doesn't have a light brigade - both of the brigade with three battalions have two Tank battalions and one Mech.
Of course, my knowledge of division compositions could be out of date.
I have my doubts. When you think about it, if the Navy trusted the Army there would be no Marine Corps, and if the Army trusted the Navy there would be no ships in the Army.
USNS Shughart T-AKR 295 Large, Medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off ship [LMSR]
The LMSR ships are Large (950 feet long, 106 feet wide, 55,000 long ton displacement), Medium Speed (24 knots), Roll-on/Roll-off (RO/RO) vessels. LMSRs can carry an entire U.S. Army Task Force, including 58 tanks, 48 other track vehicles, plus more than 900 trucks and other wheeled vehicles.
The problem is that some bad guys in "urban areas" have been known to have RPG's and ATGM's. Tanks were "suitable" in Baghdad. And has been pointed out in detail, we had our lunch eaten in Mog when we had no M-1's or Bradleys. So where is this "suitable" area for deployment? Liberia?
You missed a service! Not only does the Army have more ships than the Navy, but it has more aircraft than the Air Force! Maybe for the same reason. :-)
Right. However, the testing showed that the RPG must hit "square" on the armor to get assured penetration. The Styker has lots of slope to its armor that can cause an RPG to either glance off completely or detonate at such an angle to the armor that the effect of the shape charge is at least partially deflected.
An M113 OTOH presents a nice square, flat surface for RPGs.
Well, of course you have to line up "square" to get assured pene . . . . Oh, you're talking about tanks. :)
…if the Army trusted the Navy there would be no ships in the Army.
It’s not so much a case of trust as necessity. The Navy takes care of it’s own, and the needs of other services are secondary – the Navy’s funding is based on supporting the Marines, not the Army.
If an Army Battalion Commander needs amphibious support from the Navy, the request has to go through channels – at one time all the way to the Theater Commander. If the Navy has boats setting around uncommitted, the Army Commander might get them. If the request goes to the Army, it goes to the local Transportation Group Commander. It’s much quicker and more likely to be approved.
The Stryker should have superior cross-country to HMMWVs--although as you say, the HMMWV is pretty good.
There's a lot more bad guys running around with 7.62 & 5.56, etc than with .50/.51 cal and the Stryker stops that stuff cold--as well as shell fragments--so on balance the Stryker is better deal than a HMMWV for the guys that have to ride in something.
A little out of date, but pretty good. Here's the latest: All divisions are going/have gone to 9 battalions. 1st Armor Division & 1st Cavalry are 5 tank battalions & 4 Bradley battalions (2 tank-heavy brigades & 1 Bradley-heavy brigade); the 1st Infantry Divison, 3ID, & 4ID are 4 tank Battalions & 5 Bradley battalions. The 2d Infantry Division is odd-ball: a heavy brigade in Korea, an air assault infantry brigade in Korea, and the Stryker Brigade at Fort Lewis.
The 25th Infantry Division has 6 light infantry battalions in 2 brigades in Hawaii & one Stryker Brigade getting organized and trained up at Fort Lewis.
Reactive armor defeats shaped charges.
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.