Wraith601

Except the Stryker carries a full rifle squad while you'd be lucky to cram a fully equipped fire team into a LAV-25, not to mention that the LAV-25 is much thinner skinned than the Stryker and the already overtaxed powertrain can't take more passive armor. Upgrading the automotive systems and armor plus adding all the electronics would likely push the price up considerably, not to mention you still need to buy simulators and upgrade existing bases as we did for the SBCT program. In the end you have very little cost savings and you wind up trading firepower for dismounts. I guess it comes down to what think is more useful a 25mm gun or 5 dismounts?

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

Shek

The discussion is starting to travel down an apples and oranges road. There are probably three questions when looking at the Stryker Brigades.

1. The first question is whether you think the United States Army required a medium force?

2. If so, then you need to decide whether the medium brigade should be infantry-centric.

3. Finally, for an infantry-centric medium brigade, what is the best platform?

To answer question one, you only need to look at Desert Storm, Mogadishu, Bosnia, and Kosovo as answers to the question on whether there was a void in Army capabilities between the light and heavy forces.

Question number two gets at the LAV-25 argument. A LAV-25 choice doesn't provide much of a differentiation from the heavy mechanized infantry force in terms of firepower, and it doesn't add any additional infantry over a Bradley. It does provide more rapid deployment and a smaller logistics footprint, but it would still suffer from a mounted-centric platform. This lack of infantry and 7.62mm only armor would make a huge difference in the current COIN fight in Iraq when compared to the Stryker - the primary threat is IEDs and VBIEDs, not RPGs (don't get me wrong, they are still a threat, but they aren't causing the casualties anywhere near the way the various IEDs are).

Question number three is where you get at the M113A3 v. Stryker debate.

To go back to some of the intuition of the IBCT, it was designed to fill the medium force void and to invert the 1:2 ratio of killers to loggies that you find in the heavy forces (that's two supporters for every fighter). In order to reduce the logistics footprint, you need to reduce the need for gas, the need to carry numerous different types of parts (the Stryker engine is common with the MTV engine - these two vehicle types make up the majority of the SBCT - having the M113A3 or the LAV-25 doesn't improve parts commonality within the brigade, which is what you are after), have a vehicle that is capable of self/like-recovery, and have a reliable platform. Furthermore, the smaller log footprint means you have less rolling stock to transport via planes, trains, and ships, and you don't need as large of a log footprint up front during a deployment. The Stryker has the clear logistics advantage - with the Stryker, a force that was 2 trigger pullers for every supporter was achieved.

Back to the 25mm issue - it would be nice if the Stryker could incorporate a 25mm without kicking out infantry, the raison d'etre of the IBCT. However, it is important to remember that the IBCT platform, which was awarded to the Stryker, was not designed to be a "fighting" platform. The infantry that dismount from the "carrier" are the primary finishing force.

The fixation around the main weapon system that was never intended to be a primary support by fire platform and the "big one" scenario that the SBCT was not designed around are always criticisms, that while are fair to make, aren't fully appropriate in terms of the SBCT context.

__________________
"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

Officer of Engineers

Anyone else get the feeling that Shek is being bucked for a leaf?

Edit: No offense meant, Captain but your defence of the SBCTs are spirited to say the least.

__________________
Chimo

Shek

Sir,
I'm not sure what you are getting at

Officer of Engineers

I'm getting the feeling that your next posting might be battalion 2IC.

Shek

Sir,
No. I'm heading off to teach cadets economics at West Point this summer and have put in for the strategic plans and policy career field, which takes me out of the infantry operations career field. There's a large part of me that would have liked to have stayed at the tactical level, where BN S3 and then BN XO would have been most likely my next two jobs, and I would have requested a SBCT, but having seen a skewed command selection process and the opportunities that the strategic plans and policy offers, I chose the latter.

As far as this any thread goes, I like to see debate on the merits of an issue, and having seen all the BS printed about the Stryker while I was serving with the first Stryker Brigade, with all of the attention going to the negative (much of which was incorrect) and none going to the great job that the soldiers were doing, has made me slightly hypersensitive to Stryker debates. In fact, that's how I first got involved with WAB, trying to counter the false propaganda about the Stryker.

There's certainly things that can be improved with the Stryker - my point was to simply expose that you need to address the right context when debating the Stryker. For example - an argument that the Stryker is flawed because it doesn't have a 25mm is not an argument against the Stryker; it is an argument against the medium brigade concept that was developed by the Army. Simply put, a 25mm cannon wasn't an operational requirement, and so you can't just add a 25mm cannon, add water, stir, and then everything is all right. You need to go deeper and actually look at why a 25mm cannon wasn't a required and what you sacrifice and gain by adding the 25mm cannon. Another example is the argument that the M113 would provide commonality of parts within the US Army context - this is true, but false with the IBCT context - the goal was to limit the parts that had to be carried in the supply trains of the IBCT. However, these types of arguments almost always gets lumped into a "Stryker is bad" argument, which can improperly focus debate on the platform, blurs the context and obscures the reasoning behind decisions.

Shek

As an interesting aside, I came from an airborne battalion as a LT, and because infantry branch requires those that served in light units as a LT to go heavy as a CPT, I had to choose something other than walking. Mechanized didn't appeal to me, and so the newly forming Interim Brigade had slots that I put in for. I figured that it was the lesser of two evils, I could check the not-light infantry block, and then return to the light world. After my time at Fort Lewis and in Iraq with the brigade, the Stryker Brigade is where I would want to serve in the future if I don't get picked up for the strategic plans and policies career field. Because it is designed around rifle platoons just like the light infantry, your training and ethos follows very closely. However, the vehicles and combined arms organization provide you with a lot more firepower and a faster pace of operations, and I enjoyed the "light infantry on steroids" time.

Anon

So then use M-113s if it really matters that much to you. They have an 11 man dismount squad.

As far as small squad sizes, the Brad only holds six dismounts, and i dare say you would not want to tangle with six US infantrymen supported by a M-2A3 unless you really, really had to.

Anon

We need more C-17s and Fast transports so we can bring the 1st string to any fight. That's what i think.

For COIN i'd say infantry-centric is good. Otherwise, i see no real problem with small squads.

If someone is going to make me ride in a big old target i'd prefer it had as much armor and weapons as possible.

Call me crazy...

If one HAS to have a med force, then really, as i've said all along. The M-113 woulda been fine IMO. It was already fully in place and has been for decades.
Commonality and all.

I think the shortfall is in heavy lift, both sea and land based. Throwing a new vehicle at a lack of transport is to me really bass-ackwards.

Ie, stupid.

This is a bit of a trick argument IMO. The Strykers were taken to Iraq in ships. That means M-2s could've gone in ships(or uparmored M-113s, or UA LAV-25s). Good as the strykers armor is, it's not to the level of the latest Brads, and is no better than what could be achieved via applique kits for the 113 or LAV-25.

Question number three is where you get at the M113A3 v. Stryker debate.

Most of the same is true for the 113 as well. Same exact role, big infantry sqd, easy to maintain, decent mileage, good mobility, etc, etc.

To me the Stryker gives me nothing over an upgraded 113 except higher road speed. That was not worth the cost of admission IMO, and at any rate.......this money SHOULD have been spent on Fast transports and or C-17s.

The army already has so many 113s it could never shake it's stick at all of them.

Again, just my opinion, and again, for WHAT IT IS, i think the stryker is well suited. It's about perfect for COIN ops, and that has been a happy coincidence and good selling point, lol.

Anon

BTW, the latest generation of 20mm cannons are almost the same size and weight of the M-2.

Remember, the M-2 is encumbered by being a 80+yo design made of heavy steel parts.

Ma Duece is a fattie.

If it meant losing one guy inside the vehicle for extra ammunition stowage, would you be down with a 20mm gyro-gunned stryker shek?

I sure would. The friggin' thing would be really bad assed then.

Wraith601

Bradleys/LAV-25s can't clear and hold buildings though, that comes down to the troops inside, the Stryker gives more and gets them there faster in most cases. I won't restart the Stryker vs. M113 debate because I've fought that war too many times already.

TopHatter

I hope this doesn't get me blasted because I'd hate be 3 for 3 on one thread. However:

IMHO, you are also using a bit of a trick argument here.
The Strykers were deployed to Iraq via sea-lift instead of airlift for one very simple reason: Because in this particular case, they could.

While the Army wanted to get them into action as soon as possible, there was no immediate crisis that demanded their presence within days or even hours.
Why tie up your airlift assets (which as you've quite correctly pointed out are under-equipped) if you don't have to?

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

Officer of Engineers

Pfftt,

It's cheaper to ship a brigade by sea than by air.

TopHatter

Well, that too.

Wraith601

The 101st Airborne shipped it's gear to Kuwait via ship before the war, that don't mean they can't deploy by air does it?