.jpg)
N0truescotsman made a comment on a post by American Mercenary (read it here) with regard to the Stryker Brigades that I just had to respond to.
US Army Stryker Brigades are not (in my opinion) motorized infantry as designated by the US military. I present as an example the 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) that was thoroughly tested during the 1980s.
The goal was to give light infantry forces tactical mobility that would allow them to easily defeat other light infantry, enough firepower to engage mechanized forces (using maneuver) successfully until heavy armor could arrive, while at the same time retaining the strategic mobility that is the hallmark of all light infantry.
The unit was stationed at Ft Lewis in the CRAZY state of Washington (only place in the world that has forests, jungle (you can call it rain forests...its a freaking jungle) and a gosh darn (no profanity...its Christmas) desert within a couple hundred miles of the beach.
The unit road in the dune buggies that the Navy SEALs and Force Recon later made famous in Gulf War 1 until switching over to HMMWVs later.
Much to the Army's credit, the concept was thoroughly tested and found wanting. Even semi-competent opponents (looking at you NTC) were able to demonstrate the vulnerability of the unit to artillery fires and the inability of the unit to survive combat against a fully mechanized force (if they were forced to stand and fight instead of using hit and run tactics).
Fast forward to today and do a simple TO&E and its readily apparent that the Stryker Brigades are a totally different breed of cat.
By any other forces standards the Stryker Brigades are HEAVY mechanized forces. Don't let the wheels fool you! A full strength Stryker Brigade brings a tremendous amount of combat power to the battlefield. The only thing that keeps it from mirroring an Armored Brigade Combat Team is the lack of tanks. If the Army ever gets serious about fixing the Mobile Gun System (MGS) my guess is that bean counters will be doing comparisons of the cost of a ABCT vs. SBCT to see which is cheaper to operate....and experiments will be done to see if an enhanced SBCT (if my guess is correct that they're cheaper) could replace the ABCT in a cost savings, not combat effectiveness move (Note: I'm not trying to imply that a SBCT is as combat effective as an ABCT but I'm betting someone will state that an enhanced version is JUST as capable).
So no. The Stryker Brigades are not re-named Motorized Infantry. At least not in the traditional sense.
As a sidenote, not even the Russian Motorized units are 'truly' motorized in the traditional sense of the word.
The ABCT remains the core of Army combat power. The SBCT is a "utility infielder."
ReplyDeleteI followed up with an explanation why Strykers make more sense for the Army than M113 based formations. You get all the strategic mobility minus the air drop capability, but half the logistical cost per mile on the ground. http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.de/2014/12/strykers-m113s-and-bradleys.html
When you take a look at the logistical cost of an ABCT, you'll understand why the SBCT option makes so much sense for the Army as a way to get into the fight.
Dang! That motorized Infantryman has a vehicle, a Grenade launcher and a machine gun!
ReplyDeleteHe is hostile a not so agile.
Now if he had a driver he could really kick some ast while being mobile!
Otherwise he's standing still.
What does the driver do while the GL is engaged?
If you see what the Army is looking at with the ULCV It looks like they want to turn the 82nd into Airborne Motorized Infantry
ReplyDeleteThe heaviest direct-fire weapons the SBCT have are the 105mm MGS and they are of limited usefulness due to low numbers and the fact they suck. I deliberately excluded TOW systems because all US BCT have TOW.
ReplyDeleteIf a Stryker BCT were to encounter an enemy mechanized formation equipped with tanks and auto-cannon armed IFVs, they'd get sliced and diced because the only thing the Strykers have are M2HB in RWS.
While they aren't "motorized" and have better armor than most light formations, they cannot stand toe-to-toe with real mechanized forces. ALSO, SBCT have towed ARTY systems just like the OTHER motorized light infantry battalions.
So, tracked or wheeled isn't really the only issue, it is also whether they have IFVs or just APCs.
well Paralus Your argument does have some marret. today a stryker brigade would take alot of damage Against a Conventional armored unit. but then Strykers were made more for Asymmetric conflicts, Also I feel the need to point out two more things. 1) Strykers were always meant for a interm mission until a more advanced system came online.
ReplyDelete2) There is infact a Stryker IFV prototype. using a unmanned Turret with a 30mm M230 cannon.
his argument is terrain specific. are we talking urban fighting? jungles? mountains? desert? the only place where a Stryker Brigade would be truly overwhelmed is in flat desert terrain ie a repeat of Gulf War 1 and 2. even there they would still be more mobile and provide at least comparable hitting power to a MAGTF minus fast air. If SBCT did go into combat in that environment and if they followed the Marine Corps example of simply attaching tanks when needed then they'd be unstoppable. just my two cents. i still think it isn't as cut and dry or simple as many think.
DeleteI agree. Strykers have there place so do ABCT's where the ABCT has it's tanks as organic Stryker is more of a as needed mission set. the aim the big aim is expeditionary, All US forces need to keep that aim. Because Unlike Russia who fights it's neighbors When the US is needed it needs to cross the oceans, We cannon expect prepositioned gear to be available every fight.especially if the nation we have to fight turns out to be the nation we stored gear with.
DeleteI think the idea of attaching M1 Abrams to Stryker BCTs is something that needs serious study and testing, but thus far, nobody is talking about it. It seem like a no-brainer for higher, more intense missions, but it would need practice for Armor/Stryker teams to get use to operating together.
DeleteYes, I have seen the IFV versions the Army has of Strykers, but there is no commitment by Big Army to actually introduce them into the force. I think it needs them. I think having a Stryker BCT with a company of M1's and one battalion of IFVs would make it a real force to contend with in more intense situations.
If it were a lighter mission, you could switch out the IFVs with all of the thousands of used MRAPs or the new JLTV.
the fact remain, though, that going up against any mechanized unit with IFVs/autocannon, it would be overmatched in any environment, not just open desert plains e.g. going against BMP2s in Ukraine, it would be a tall, armored bus waiting to get nailed with zero ability to punch back.
There are a couple of misconceptions here that I would like to clear up.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, there is a world's difference between "Motor-Rifle Brigades" as defined by Soviet doctrine and US Motorized Infantry. The terms are not interchangable.
For those that chose not to read the PDF (it is rather lengthy, but fascinating), the Soviets have two types of Motor-Rifle Regiments, BTR-based and BMP-based.
Far different than the strictly motorized 9th Infantry Division without armored APCs or IFVs. So, in conclusion: Motor-Rifle Regiment =/= Motorized Infantry.
Secondly, I disagree strongly that Strykers resemble anything that is "heavy".
Their armor protection is strictly 14.5mm rated, with a reliance on infantry, mortars, and anti-tank missiles as their core strength.
Motorised = road mobile trucks, unarmoured
ReplyDeleteMechanised = off road mobile enclosed vehicles, small arms armoured
Armoured = Off road mobile enclosed vehicles, very well armoured
Perhaps not the text book description, but works for me