Posted on 10/05/2003 5:09:48 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
In a few weeks, Fort Lewis will see the largest deployment of a combat unit since Vietnam. The Army's first Stryker brigade is about to leave three years of incubation at Fort Lewis for its real-world debut in Iraq.
The 3,600 soldiers of the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division are scheduled to move out later this month and in early November. They'll pioneer a new armored vehicle and a new way of operating that represents the Army's first steps toward transforming itself into a more mobile, technology-driven fighting force.
Observers from around the world will watch closely to see if the Stryker concept and its namesake troop carrier can deliver on high expectations while keeping its soldiers safe.
The troops know they'll be testing the hardware under unusually trying conditions.
"Kosovo was a piece of cake. Bosnia was all right. This is going to be a firefight," said Sgt. Steve Stroub, a veteran of two deployments.
Today, The News Tribune answers 12 questions about the Stryker brigade as it starts down the road to Iraq.
Where are they going?
Brigade officials say they still don't know for sure. When the Pentagon announced the deployment in July, the Army's No. 2 general said the brigade would go to the area in western Iraq where the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment operates.
The province of Ar Anbar is a 55,400-square-mile expanse of desert dotted with villages. Its largest city, Ar Ramadi, lies about 60 miles west of Baghdad. It's at the southwest tip of the so-called Sunni Triangle, where resistance to the U.S. military presence has been the most deadly.
Troops in nearby Khaldiyah called in tanks and helicopter strikes in an eight-hour battle with insurgents there Monday. At least one U.S. soldier was reported killed and three others wounded.
When are they leaving?
The brigade is scheduled to load its vehicles and equipment aboard at least two cargo ships at the Port of Tacoma in the middle of this month. While the ships make the two- to three-week voyage to Kuwait, the soldiers will begin the trip by air.
It will be the largest deployment of a Fort Lewis combat unit since 1966, when 9,000 soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division went to Vietnam.
The soldiers will link up with their vehicles in Kuwait, where they will spend two to four weeks preparing for the trip up into Iraq.
Will the soldiers be safe?
Naturally, that question is foremost on the minds of the soldiers' families. And it's been the subject of considerable speculation since the inception of the Stryker program.
Shannon Thompson of University Place, whose husband, Lyle, is an infantryman, said she didn't have a good feeling when she read recent news stories about Stryker armor panels that failed ballistics tests.
"I thought, 'Oooh, my baby's going to be riding around in one of those,'" said Thompson, whose dad is ex-Army and later worked in a tank factory in York, Pa.
But she said she'd worry a lot more if her husband was going to be riding in a Humvee or a 5-ton truck, with little or no armor.
What's the difference between this and the Army's other armored vehicles?
The Army's M1 Abrams battle tank is a heavily armored, 70-ton tracked behemoth. Until the Iraq war, none had ever been destroyed by enemy fire. The Iraqis knocked out two.
Likewise, the Bradley fighting vehicle is more than 25 tons, more heavily armored than the Stryker and has a bigger gun - a 25 mm cannon compared to the Stryker's .50-caliber machine gun or Mk-19 grenade launcher.
The Army acknowledges the Strykers can't take a hit like the much heavier Abrams and Bradley vehicles.
That's one of the vehicle's many deficiencies, said Victor O'Reilly, an Irish writer of military thrillers who compiled a 108-page critique of the Stryker in August for U.S. Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.).
"The (after-action reports) from Iraq show very clearly, to be blunt, the need to be able to take the first hit," O'Reilly said.
But other analysts say that's an unfair comparison, especially now that the main ground assault phase of the Iraq war is over.
The Army says the Stryker's infantrymen have the anti-armor missiles to fight enemy tanks, but the unit is really built for lower-intensity missions like Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and Somalia.
Compared to the Abrams and Bradley, "the Stryker would, of course, look like a death trap," said Ralph Peters, a retired Army intelligence officer and widely published military analyst.
"Of course, any soldier would rather go into all-out combat in a Bradley. But Stryker is for the in-between conflicts, where we've been relying on Humvees and trucks, which offer considerably less protection and firepower than the Stryker."
The Army says it is buying the Strykers, at about $2 million apiece, to build a force that can be put into action more quickly and require less logistical support than tanks and Bradleys.
Stryker brigade officers say the vehicles are meant to carry infantrymen rapidly over great distances. They're supposed to stay concealed or out of rocket-propelled grenade range, but close to enough to provide cover fire.
Misunderstandings about the Stryker's role are not confined to civilian critics. Even as late as the final training tune-up last month, senior commanders were chiding their juniors for driving the Strykers too deep into a mock city before troops on the ground had a chance to clear the buildings.
It will be a constant concern of the brigade's leaders that the vehicles aren't used like tanks.
"It's not a fighting vehicle. It's a carrier vehicle," said Maj. Chuck Hodges, executive officer of one of the brigade's three infantry battalions.
(Excerpt) Read more at tribnet.com ...
 |
Or mail checks to or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com |
and say THANKS to Jim Robinson! IT'S IN THE BREAKING NEWS SIDEBAR THANKS! |
|
Did a double-take when I saw O'Reilly's name--a number of years ago he was doing research for a novel that included the 101st. He came to visit @ Ft. Campbell & the PAO sent him to my unit during a division level exercise in which we were to do an air assault. He was somewhat overweight and out of shape & his vision of an air assault was to land right on the objective with movement limited to hopping out of the helicopter. Unfortunately, we had to go into the alternate LZ, which involved a long foot movement over hill & dale thru the thickest scheisse-weed on post. To make a long story short, the physical effort put him down for the count and four soldiers had to carry him to a road where the PAO & a medic took him to the hospital. We never saw him again. It was only training, but even that was a little too real for that poor guy.
As to where the Stryker Brigade ends up in Iraq, that will be up to the ground force commander in-country. Replacing a unit does not necessarily mean going to the same place or having the same mission. BTW, unit rotations are great times to do major operations, you temporarily have a much larger size force. If you recall, parts of the force build-up for JUST CAUSE in Panama was based on troop rotations in which the new units came in, but the previous unit stayed put instead of going home right away.
I think the Air Force has pretty much gone out of the close air support business in Iraq. There are few suitable targets for tac air in Iraq nowadays. 3/2 should be able to request attack helicopter support.
Air Force relunctance to provide the close air support the Army wants is a reason for not cancelling Crusader.
Stryker is better protected than a Hummer. It is also much larger, heavier, gets stuck easier, takes a lot longer to turn around, and the passengers cannot roll down the window and shoot back.
Bullsh**! They're going into a situation that's less than full-up combat. It looks like the powers-that-be are already doing their best to set low expectations.
"The Army's M1 Abrams battle tank is a heavily armored, 70-ton tracked behemoth. Until the Iraq war, none had ever been destroyed by enemy fire. The Iraqis knocked out two."
Yes, two M1s were "knocked out;" but they were not "destroyed by enemy fire" as this article suggests. Both were hit in the rear (engine compartment) by anti-armor missiles, making them mobility kills. The crews were completely safe, and despite being in degraded mode, the tank could still fire its main gun and associated machine guns. It's probably the most survivable vehice in the world.
Anyone recognize this author? It looks like he's helping to set the stage for the Shinseki's [--Oops!] the Stryker's impending disasterous combat debut.
IMHO he's correct. But this is not the first time I've heard/seen comments (many from senior Army officials) trying to lower the performance bar for the Stryker, now that they see that it's really going to deploy and have to prove itself.
I sincerely hope that this is a sign that the senior leadership knows that the Shinseki is a dud, and that its days are numbered.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...I smell a rat, a Rummy rat.
No one said this was a fighting vehicle
For what they'll be doing in Iraq it will be fine. Not as good as a BFV, but then a full stregnth BFV crew only dismounts 6 guys. And few dismount teams are full stregnth
Sure it will take losses to RPGs. All light armor does. It will provide better protection than hummers or trucks though. It will provide much better protection against IEDs
It will be as useful an APC as the .....M113A3. At over twice the cost.
As for the unit itself, the 2 ID boys will do just fine. They've been training hard and are up to stregnth.
All the best
Qatar-6
The most obvious problem is that of tires. What people fail to grasp is that the tires on large wheeled vehicles are quite heavy and are not easily replaced. This is especially the case in a field environment where you rarely have level ground from which to work.
In other areas, such as turret electronics, the Stryker should fair no better than other alternatives. Electronics are typically the bulk of repair requirements for most combat vehicles and the Strykers are just as loaded down with electronics as any other combat vehicle. So while it may not fair worse in this area, it certainly isn't going to fair better either.
There is also the matter of the Stryker simply having more components, and thus a greater likelihood for one or more of these components to fail. As a rule, the more complex a given system is, the more likely it is that the system will experience failure as a matter of odds. In this regard, the Stryker with its eight-wheel drive and automated suspension system is far more likely to experience mechanical difficulties than a comparable tracked vehicle. Plus we must also factor into the equation the increased need for supporting assets like engineering and recovery vehicles as these require maintenance as well.
Failure is not an option. GLDS will send out as many tech reps and replacement vehicles as they have to to make this a "success" and keep the contract alive.
I believe my nearly 30 years of military service qualifies me for stating that this question in WAR TIME is silly and conveys a liberal slant that deems all wars useless UNLESS no one dies and nothing gets broke. Once again.....an inane question!
Stryker is better protected than a Hummer. It is also much larger, heavier, gets stuck easier, takes a lot longer to turn around, and the passengers cannot roll down the window and shoot back
Proposals that are to be considered earnestly by our esteemed Secretary of Defense must first provide a transfer of ownership of the proposal to the Secretary. Additionally, all companies and contractors expected to benefit from such a proposal must have their ownership transferred to the Secretary and/or his cohorts.
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.