Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Mike sparks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More Mike sparks

    This is mikes latest article.

    Have fun tearing it apart... i lack the energy at the moment.

    LOL

    If TF Smith had Stryker trucks? Outcome would have
    been same.

    Please take a few moments to read the account below of
    TF Smith and examine the map showing where they were
    positioned to block the road and consider the terrain
    where it was go and no-go for tracked and wheeled
    vehicles.

    www.korteng.com/Appleman/Chapter6.htm

    Notice TF SMITH HAD WHEELED TRUCKS.

    They were parked behind their defensive positions on
    the road to their rear.

    I doubt if even Stryker TOW ATGMs fired from their
    rubber-tired mounts would have changed the outcome as
    the T34/85s would have point/shot/blasted them on the
    road. Ditto that for MGS even if that 105mm gun
    variant worked.

    Once surrounded and routed the foot troops would be no
    better able to withdraw in Strykers along roads than
    they were in 1950 in unarmored trucks.

    Only TRACKED armored personnel carriers (APCs) that
    could have enabled them to move cross country in the
    face of intense enemy fire would have helped them
    conduct a mobile defense and carried the heavy
    firepower that could have been brought to bear from
    unexpected locations and move themselves, their
    wounded and their supplies. The whole point of the
    Army experience after Korea was NOT to move men around
    in helicopters so they could afterwards get shot up.
    The Korean experience forced the Army to get serious
    about tracked APCs beginning with the M75 at war's
    end, followed by the M59 and finally the greatest AFV
    of all time, ever the M113 at the behest of Gavin that
    was amphibious, air-transportable so infantry was not
    orphaned after airlanding and could move boldly even
    nuclear devastated battlefields. We progressed with
    gunshields to fight mounted with the ACAVs, and had
    firing ports figured out with a shoot-on-the-move
    autocannon with the AIFV when we went overboard with
    the 2-man turret Bradley to escort heavy M1 Abrams
    tanks. Infantry became second-class citizens and
    security guards for tanks (armored infantry) when we
    should have simply kept improving our M113 Gavins so
    ALL our infantry would have armored mobility even
    those that come by aircraft (Army's 4 divisions of
    light infantry).

    What has happed since this time is nothing less than
    tragic.

    Instead in 1999, the infantry led by a CSA who wanted
    a cash cow from Congress revolted with a regression
    into Soviet-style wheeled BTR motorized infantry when
    the problem was an oversized turret on the Bradley
    cooping the infantry up in back, not tracks. At great
    expense, we have bought a handful of thin metal boxes
    without turrets on 8 air-filled rubber tires dubbed
    "Strykers". We have once again reverted back to the
    feel-good, narcissistic foot-infantry-in-trucks
    pre-Korean war default mode this time
    institutionalized with the Canadian-made, expensive
    Stryker trucks begging for a high-tech version of the
    TF Smith debacle.

    Planet earth has not changed and the battlefield has
    gotten MORE not less lethal, making tracked AFVs even
    more critical. The best Army vehicular example of the
    Stryker silliness that we can somehow pick/choose a
    narrow set of situations to use the Stryker infantry
    is the WW2 M3 White scout car and tank destroyer
    debacles. Mechanized cavalry doctrine tried to have
    troops sneak ahead to observe the enemy and report
    back in unarmored, rubber tired cars. The German enemy
    in North Africa lefts hundreds of burning American
    vehicle hulks via artillery and mortar fires not
    factored into our pre-war force designs and war games.
    Lou Dimarco's excellent mechanized cavalry doctrine
    brilliantly details this: www.loudimarco.com

    The tank destroyers had the 90mm guns needed to kill
    German tanks but our own tanks were denied them (its
    not your job to kill tanks!) and Sherman tank losses
    were horrific when the TDs could not and were not
    where they needed to be on the fluid mobile
    battlefields of Europe. Dave Johnson's "Fast Tanks and
    Heavy Bombers" and Belton Cooper's "Death Traps"
    detail the Sherman medium infantry
    exploitation-through-enemy-lines tank disaster.

    And neither will the Stryker's myriad of
    variants---the Stryker truck is also born of phony war
    games, this time high-tech at the Fort Irwin,
    California National Training Center (NTC) that do not
    accurately factor in mortar/artillery fire shredding
    and igniting rubber tires. Wheeled vehicles do not
    even have MILES laser tag receptors for simulated
    bullets to deflate them--we live in a fantasy world
    like the 1930s where rubber tired trucks get a free
    ride on the firm-soil southern California desert
    because we want them. Knuckling under to ecologist
    pressures to not leave/roads and trails on restricted
    and cluttered with civilian buildings Army posts where
    our Soldiers spend most of their time, the
    Stryker/Humvee truck mentality "stays in its lane" so
    everything stays tidy. And do not even think about
    SWIMMING vehicles; this is dangerous and the
    Stryker/Humvee trucks can't swim anyway. M113 Gavins
    can swim but who says our Army wants to get ready now
    for wars that are not tidy where the unexpected path
    and bold maneuver across lakes and rivers surprise
    enemies and avoid roadside bombs? The real enemy here
    is the ITAM eco-nazi who will have your head and your
    career if you run over a tree with your track.

    Some Stryker truck spokesmen have tried to dishonestly
    justify Strykers as progress because its either
    "Wheels or Walk". To those in the stone age of
    military mobility (they were lightfighter who walked
    previously), the "wheel" looks like "science fiction".


    These Stryker proponents are dangerously wrong---its
    Aircraft, Tracks, Wheels or Walk?---and many
    combinations thereof. If we do this right we use
    tracks that can fly by aircraft, swim and go-cross
    country even in the face of enemy fires. Anything less
    and we put ourselves at risk of suffering another Task
    Force Smith.

    Mike Sparks

    P.S. when TF Smith flew in by C-54s they COULD HAVE
    HAD light tracked APCs:
    here is a photo showing a M22 Locust light tank
    underslung a C-54 transport plane which had tricycle
    landing gear...

    www.combatreform.com/m22underslungc54.jpg

    Maybe we shouldn't have been so quick to dismiss C-54s
    carrying light tanks, huh?

    Imagine if after WW2 we didn't go back to sleep and
    neglect ground warfare as General Gavin fought hard to
    warn us not to do...M22 Locusts had been fitted with
    106mm recoilless rifles and flown in by C-54s, others
    Bren gun style open-topped troop carriers....maybe we
    could have stopped the T34/85 medium tanks? At the
    very least we could have withdrew in good
    order...under some armor protection with some
    tracked mobility to pull out our wounded...when foot
    infantry is wounded it cannot walk anymore...if
    swarmed by enemy infantry you cannot afford to try to
    break out barreling down roads in rubber-tired
    trucks...

  • #2
    "and finally the greatest AFV of all time, ever the M113 at the behest of Gavin"

    Um yeah... truell\y unbiased work...

    "Imagine if after WW2 we didn't go back to sleep and neglect ground warfare as General Gavin fought hard to warn us not to do...M22 Locusts had been fitted with
    106mm recoilless rifles and flown in by C-54s, others Bren gun style open-topped troop carriers....maybe we could have stopped the T34/85 medium tanks? At the
    very least we could have withdrew in good order...under some armor protection with some tracked mobility to pull out our wounded...when foot infantry is wounded it cannot walk anymore...if swarmed by enemy infantry you cannot afford to try to break out barreling down roads in rubber-tired trucks..."

    I'm sure the M-22 would have killed untold scores of T-34-85s with the powerful 37mm gun and taken many 85mm, 76mm and 14.5mm hits with its "thick" skin and stayed in the fight by staying off the roads unlike the wheeled M-8 death traps from hell....

    Of course he messes up because the M-22 with a 105mm RR would have to really be open topped, the BC was open topped as well a thus like the M-3 vulerable to mortars and artillery bursts...

    Reminds me of his site claiming a B2F would have worked if the paras had M-22s and Tetrach tankettes to fight of Nazi Panzers...

    "I doubt if even Stryker TOW ATGMs fired from their rubber-tired mounts would have changed the outcome as the T34/85s would have point/shot/blasted them on the road. Ditto that for MGS even if that 105mm gun variant worked."

    Time travel?

    TSF was outnumbered and outgunned and so forth. At 2.36in rocket was unable ot kill a T-34 and they lacked many HEAT rounds for the M-101s. Of course giving them Styrkers with TOW missiles and the MGS would give them more power. Even if they were not able to stop the NKs that would have been a hell of a bloody nose, and who is to say they with weapons like that would act the same way.

    Plus how would NK troops in 1950 react to TOW missiles and the 105mm MGS? I don't know aboput you but I would smell a temp panic as the all conquering T-34s getting blown up from long range by TOWs. That is a black eye/bloody nose in the making really...

    Kind of like giving the 7th cavalry AK-47s.............. at little bighorn...

    "institutionalized with the Canadian-made"

    Damn Canucks...
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

    Comment


    • #3
      Strykers would outright slaughter 1950s era T-34/85s in massive numbers even if restricted to the artillery and CAS assets of that era.

      TF Smith armed with Strkers would anhillate the Communist forces in a running 'advance to the rear' engagement.

      Comment


      • #4
        obviously, an 85m gun from WW2 vs. 105mm modern gun, is it a smoothbore?
        for MOTHER MOLDOVA

        Comment


        • #5
          Could you imagine being a NK infantry man after marching down Korea alongside your invicible tanks and then watching in horror as TOW missiles blow each one up at long range?

          That is a slaughter which could easily lead to panic. SK troops often (though not always) ran from the T-34-85s having nothing to kill them (but grit) and then having them killed in rapid order without being able to respond would cause some major troubles in NK ranks. And being 1950 not like they would know what the hell a TOW or Jav was.

          And in the face of Mosin-Nagant, DPM, SGM and Maxin fire the Styrker would not be killed although those 14.5mm rifles would be able to hurt it. Team the force with CAS assets and its own mortars and do a running fight.
          To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

          Comment


          • #6
            a Mosin-Nagant isn't a 14.5mm caliber weapon, isn't it 7.9mm, or 7.62mm?
            for MOTHER MOLDOVA

            Comment


            • #7
              The MN was 7.62x54mm Rimmed along with the DPM, and SGM.

              I was talking about the 14.5mm anti tank rifles. Not the best anti armor weapon by 1950 but the best most communist infantry had.
              To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

              Comment


              • #8
                TF Smith
                2 x 75mm recoiless rifles (range 700m)
                2 x 4.2" mortars (range 5945m with newer ammo, probably less with Korea vintage ammo)
                6 x 2.36" bazooka teams (range 275m)
                4 x 60mm mortars (2800m using modern ammo)
                6 x 105mm artillery
                4 x M2 .50 cal (range 2000m)
                Anti-tank mines = 0
                514 men

                CPT Shek's Stryker Infantry Company w/ammunition basic load
                2 x 120mm mortar
                2 x 60mm mortar
                9 x Javelin Command Launch Units with 18 rounds (range 2000m)
                3 x Modified Improved Target Acquisition System (MITAS TOW) with 36 TOW-IIB rounds (range 3750m)
                6 x MK-19 40mm Automatic Grenade Launchers (range 2219m), 2880 rounds
                11 x M2 .50 cal (range 2000m), 22000 rounds
                24 x AT-4 (300m)
                M-21 AT Mines x 14 (maybe 28, can't remember)
                179 men

                Total #tanks in initial colum - 33 x T-34s
                Forces that eventually routed TF Smith's position - 3 x T-34s (firing from 200-300m), 1000 infantry

                I can't find a max effective range for the 85mm gun on the T-34, but all the sites list 500m as the benchmark, so my guess is that that is the max effective range

                "Road leading south to Suwon is visible for 8 miles from TF Smith's location."

                Good line of sight for TOWs and Javelins.

                "Task Force Smith was not able to use any antitank mines-one of the most effective methods of defense against tanks-as there were none in Korea at the time. Colonel Perry was of the opinion that a few well-placed antitank mines would have stopped the entire armored column in the road."

                I think it would be pretty one sided with just one infantry company. If you add a 155mm battery, a UAV, and a recon platoon (10 digit grid at over 10km to a target), no contest. As far as mobility, besides the flooded paddies, which I doubt a M113 could negotiate, there looks to be plenty of routes on higher ground that a Stryker could negotiate easily. I have never been to Korea, but I know it is hot in June, so I'm sure that the ground is not too wet in the higher areas.
                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ok so I was on his group under a different name....

                  He kicked me off for pointing out the losses the IDF took in thick skin M-113s in combat and the success Chadian and SADF units had in wheeled systems as proof that not all wheeled systems are death traps and the M-113 is not some thick skinned ultimate system that cannot be hurt. Kind of funny actually....

                  My failing to worship at the Gavin's altar got me this email...

                  -------------------
                  Suggest you find/create your own biased for wheels study group where you can make excuses and ignore facts to your heart's content.

                  We have real reforms to fight for and attain not waste our time repeating ourselves.

                  Mike

                  New Study Group Rules

                  1. From now on when someone brings up a FACT you are beholden to recognize that fact by either saying you disagree with it or counter it. It will not be
                  tolerated that you will disrespect another's posts by pretending their points never existed. For example I said that wheeled trucks would not have been able to get into firing positions off-roads where TF Smith was. We had a former study group member post all kinds of fantasy talk about how TOW ATGMs would have
                  destroyed all the T34/85s ie; he forgot that if the Stryker truck the TOWs were mounted on wouldn't have even got into firing position in the first place.

                  2. We had another former member tell another former member to ignore one of our member's posts, ie; deliberate disrespect described in point #1.

                  When I hear what I think is non-sense from other people I take the time to acknowledge it and to be transparent why I disagree with it, I expect the same
                  from all of you. The Delphi Technique where you make the good people of
                  a group repeat themselves will not be tolerated here. If you worship wheels and can only do it by ignoring the facts against them, then you will be ignored here
                  where HONEST debate is welcome.

                  Mike

                  --------

                  :) :)
                  To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mike
                    Stryker truck
                    I just love how he calls it a "Truck" man it sounds like this guy is sold on M113.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Does Sparky present any evidence as why the Stryker cannot go off the road? The Stryker can climb slopes of 60% grade going forward (I was scared shitless at NTC with some of the slopes my driver went up). It definitely can't go through the rice paddies, but I see a lot of spurs that would be dry and traffficable, especially in the hot season.

                      I guess his vision of a Stryker is like an equestrian horse that doesn't want to jump an obstacle, it just stops.
                      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        All things taken he is really just an idiot... ;)

                        I doubt he has talked to people like you who have served in combat on a Stryker. I doubt he has researched what happens to the M-113s "thick skin" when it charges head on to AT-4s and RPG-7s being fired by well trained guys. His "knowledge" of the M-113 stops cold at Ap Bac.

                        Kind of find one or two points to put in then add in a lot of crap with catchy terms like "death traps" and calling the Styrker a "truck". Catchy terms don't cover lack of research.

                        In his debate with M-21 he mentions the IDF charging into the enemy with M-113s but in reality after big time losses they learned to get out of the M-113s at the edge of the battleline and advance on foot (sounds a lot like the Stryker) and of course the vantued IDF is going for the Namer which is a tank-apc.

                        Someone has a point they want to make then get lost and trapped in a corner made of their own stupidy/mental problems... the only thing thick is his head... ;)
                        To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "I was scared shitless at NTC with some of the slopes my driver went up"

                          LOL, been there too bro. Thinking to myself, "I know this fuccker is gonna tip over and kill me".

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The worst thing about Mike is that he actually hurts the cause of what could be a very capable air droppable modern mechanized asset because of his attitude.

                            An "M-113A4" with aplique armor or ERA, FLIR, the same gadgetry as the Stryker, and a remote 20mm stabilized gun mount would be an extremely effective tool for the 82d Airborne to have.

                            Since the retirement of the Sheridan the 82d has really lacked any kind of mechanized element or mounted anti-armor punch.

                            IMO the US really needs to look into the idea of a new design light tank for it's light and motor units.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm no expert but I would certainly think a Stryker company would easily wipe out the NK forces under the same conditions of TF Smith. Sparks is so far out of touch with reality it's sad at times.

                              For Shek: How are the Javelins distributed in a Stryker company?
                              Also, I assume you're the same shek who posts at StrategyPage.com as well.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X