Stryker Vehicles deploy to Iraq.

[mindseye]

I dunno, to me it looks like it's very well suited to the wars Republicans keep getting us into.

It kills me that the Navy rejected the name "Seablade" as too gay-sounding, but the Army deploys a vehicle called Stryker.

[Saras]

lol @ mindseye

[DanS]

Well, at least we'll get some real-word tests of these vehicles. If they are as bad as you say, then this fact will become plain.

True, the cost for these tests may be high. Not exactly the right way of going about things.

[gunkulator]

MTG:

One of the treadhead ideas is to scrap the silly ass C-130 deployable requirement, use Bradleys as medium IFVs and base a gun variant off the Bradley, and develop a new heavy combat replacement for the Bradleys in the heavy divisions.

Sounds logical, however doesn't the Air Force and Army have something like a gazillion C-130s in service? The Bradley was certainly impressive in GWII. Can it fit in a C-130?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Er, that film was from Afghanistan. It was filmed by a French film crew during the anti Soviet war. And the explosion wasn't caused by a mine

Golly gee horsie, do you think there's only ever been one set of film on the subject? And since the terrain and vegetation didn't match with Afghanistan, and the explosion clearly originated in the road, and I said "improvised" mine, meaning 500 lbs of explosives in the road.

[Alexander's Horse]

right - you meant an explosion that a tracked vehicle wouldn't survive either

[Pekka]

They need Susie Q's. I give very good deal..

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by gunkulator
MTG:

Sounds logical, however doesn't the Air Force and Army have something like a gazillion C-130s in service? The Bradley was certainly impressive in GWII. Can it fit in a C-130?

I think the Bradley can phsically fit in the C-130, but it's over weight specs. The Army doesn't have 130's, since it's not allowed organic fixed wing aircraft as part of the Key West Agreeement in 1948 which separated out the Air Force as an independent service. In the 1950s, there was even some assinine interservice BS about arming Army helos with anything other than detachable MMGs on crew served mounts, as armed helos were in theory supposed to be reserved to the Air Force.

The problem with the C-130 deployability issue is that it presumes you either have safe rear area airfields, and have the time to fly a zillion 130 sorties to offload your brigade(s), or that you're going to do a forced entry with airborne forces to secure an airfield in hostile territory. In the first case, the time and distance factors in deployment really undercut the rapid deployability argument vis a vis the rapid deployable heavy brigades we already have - each of which has far more firepower than the Stryker brigades, so much so it isn't funny.

In the second case, if you're relying on forced entry by airborne and aerial resupply until you establish supply lines on the ground, you're limited to either very short incursions into hostile territory, or you've got your Strykers as glorified "light tanks" (a very dirty phrase in the US Army) in the airborne.

Given the C-130 landing profile and terminal approach maneuverability when fully loaded plus the capability of modern shoulder fired AAMs, you need to establish one hell of a large security zone around your seized airfield, and maintain it for a good length of time, to get your Strykers in. That pretty much means a brigade sized airborne or mixed airborne / air assault force to provide advanced deployment capability for your Stryker force.

Either way, you have a lack of clearly thought out doctrine for deployment and operations. "It's cool, let's buy it, and them I'm sure we'll be able to adapt our missions and doctrine to it's er, um, capabilities."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
right - you meant an explosion that a tracked vehicle wouldn't survive either

A tracked vehicle wouldn't be roadbound. The more places you can go, the harder it is for the *******s to mine you.

[Kirnwaffen]

I guess the thing that surprises me is that they're deploying a vehicle that they've even admitted has to make up for its lack of armor (to an extent) in standoff capability to an urban environment, where the enemy has made liberal use of landmines and RPGs, and even managed to destroy an Abrams.

[DanS]

Well, to be fair, tanks most often stay to the roads in Iraq and similar environments.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not in real combat operations. Use of tanks in occupation, patrol and security functions is just a waste, but we don't have enough forces in theater, and particularly, enough lightfighters. More than half the armored vehicle count in a US mechanized infantry division is in tanks and artillery, so we're using some of the tanks, and dismounting crews of other vehicles to use them as pseudo infantry for base security and local patrol duties.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Not in real combat operations. Use of tanks in occupation, patrol and security functions is just a waste, but we don't have enough forces in theater, and particularly, enough lightfighters. More than half the armored vehicle count in a US mechanized infantry division is in tanks and artillery, so we're using some of the tanks, and dismounting crews of other vehicles to use them as pseudo infantry for base security and local patrol duties.

todays WaPo has an article about the activities of 1st Armored in Baghdad. Tanks are all parked. But pseudo-infantry? Based on WaPo article, theyre doing a damned good job. Arguably at least as good as 82nd Airborne in Fallujah.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Nov4.html

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


A tracked vehicle wouldn't be roadbound. The more places you can go, the harder it is for the *******s to mine you.

we must be talking about different footage - the one I was referring to was on a narrow Afghan mountain road. One of the crew can be clearly seen being blown a couple of hundred feet into the air.

Anyway, its an argument about nothing really - we don't see troop transport as fighting vehicles. Its a secondary role for them.

The army is also getting about a 100 Bradleys as well I believe. They would be used in a close support role rather than the armored truck.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


todays WaPo has an article about the activities of 1st Armored in Baghdad. Tanks are all parked. But pseudo-infantry? Based on WaPo article, theyre doing a damned good job. Arguably at least as good as 82nd Airborne in Fallujah.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Nov4.html

1AD has five line battalions of M2 IFV's, so that alone gives them as many 11-Mikes (mechanized infantryman) as the 505 PIR/3 Bde 82ABD has 11-Bravos (light infantry). Add the M2 vehicle crews (who provide the squad leader and squad heavy weapons capability) as dismounts, and before you even get into the tankers, cav scouts and artillery vehicle crews, 1AD has more mechanized infantry in the field than all infantry MOS combined in the 505 PIR/3 Bde.

That doesn't count all the rest of the pseudo-infantry, who are taking a lot of menial base security and patrol heat off the real infantry elements of the division.

As far as what 82ABD's capabilities are, 505 PIR/3 Bde plus Div H&HC elements moved in to replace 3ID, which has over four times the personnel, and more than 150% of the trained infantry.

325 AIR /1 Bde of 82ABD is operating separately from 505 PIR/3 Bde, but even if you combine the two, 1AD still has almost as many infantry MOS's, plus the additional non-infantry types being used as pseudo-infantry.