Fiddle's Green

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah it is the one things I don't understand with the 2nd ACR now being Stryker Brigade and plans of changing the 3rd ARC into one. They have increase manpower, but they exchange the increase of manpower with the lost of combat punch.

I find it ironic that the new Heavy Brigades are similar to Armor Combat Commands of World War II. With similar irony that when these Brigades and the new Infantry Brigades were deployed they usually had third combat battalion attached to the Brigades. Rarely when they did deployed a Heavy and Infantry Brigade would also cross-attach a Battalion to give the lighter armed Infantry Brigade some punch and Heavy Brigade more manpower on the ground.

So yeah having a Company with up to 5 combat platoons seems to unwieldy. Yet, like I said the one platoon parsed out to the other platoons. Having 3 mounted infantry platoons companies would serve as the Mechanized companies/troops while the other company with 2 Infantry and 2 Tank platoons would served 'ideal' mix to give armor punch, but still have plenty of boots on the ground.

[Legbreaker]

What's the cost of an M2 or M3 compared to a Stryker
What's the cost of maintenance

Which one looks better on the annual budget papers

In other words, which one can the politicians point to and say, "yes, we have more armoured vehicles on the ground at a reduced cost"

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah only if the Stryker and it family of vehicle had been able to do what they were suppose to do, but that is another story.

Reason they weren't adopted before 2000, was that at the same time when the Army had been testing the LAV-25 with Marine Corps, the plans were in motion to buy the M2/M3 family for the Mechanized forces. I have always felt that the Wheeled Mechanized Brigade would fit in the US Army, especially like say the second Mechanized Brigade of the Mechanized Divisions and with the 2nd Infantry Division. Many other nations had done this with many of their Mechanized Division with one Brigade/Regiment being track and rest wheeled.

Yet, the M2/M3 was too new and they didn't want to dilute the supply chain with another vehicle since the older M113 and it variants would still be soldiering on for many years to come. What I find ironic is the Stryker Brigades are the only Brigades still established with 3 Stryker Infantry Battalions while the Heavy and Infantry Battalion have 2 Heavy Task Forces or Infantry Battalion(Light).

It sad that even the last true ACR is being converted to Stryker Brigade, had hoped that at least one decent Brigade size unit would survive intact...*ugh*

On side note if they took a Stryker Battalion from every two Stryker Brigades and move things around they would still be able to raise the 5th Brigade the Army had planned on being Infantry Brigades but cancelled in early 2010....Oh Well.

[Panther Al]

As mentioned in another thread, the Iraqi army has spent over two billion dollars on US equipment over the past few years, including such things as ODS Brads and M1A1SA's. Just enough of both to equip an "elite" division extremely well, while the rest will be getting rebuilt WarPac grade (The high end granted) equipment. So far, the universal opinion is that now the Iraqi's really have a good grasp at just how game changing the M1 is when it comes to armoured warfare in the region, and how much training makes a difference. At any rate, even though they have not received them all yet, nor have the finished training all the personnel that will field this largesse of stuff, they are already looking at their most likely threats (Iran and Turkey) and seeing something they might change. Was talking with a buddy is part of the US troops training them and he says their officers are already pointing out that M1's, and in particular this division, is not equipped nor trained for urban combat, but for open field. And since they don't have to worry about trees and such blocking turret traverse, how hard will it be to install a longer calibre gun tube in the Abrams, if not a 140 Seems that they accept the fact that they won't get their hands on DU ammo, so are looking for ways to maximize what they do have.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah it is grand we are re-arming their elite unit with our ancient materials of war while the rest of their army is still Pact armed.

[Legbreaker]

Still, experience has shown that 20+ year old western cast-offs appear to be better quality than the best they already had. You would expect a tank should be able to withstand a shot or two from it's enemy counterpart and be able to return effective fire. From what we know the T-72's etc popped like a pricked balloon, even before they knew the M1s and Challengers were there.

[Panther Al]

Actually, the M1's are not cast offs: They are fresh off the refurbishment line at Lima. Damn near brand spanking new - newest ones around actually, and will all have the latest goodies save for Battlefield Management. From what I understand, the Brads are also being rebuilt to new condition as well. I hear A3, but most places I have read all say ODS, so, I'm leaning to the majority on this one.

[pmulcahy11b]

From what I understand, most armies are replacing their DU-based penetrators with tungsten-based penetrators due to fears (possibly unfounded) of hazmat problems on battlefields and ranges. Anyone have current experience or knowledge on this

[Legbreaker]

Actually, the M1's are not cast offs:

Cast offs, downgrades, whatever - they're not the absolute best available anyway.

[Panther Al]

No idea, we was issued DU when we rolled into Iraq, even got to shoot a few off at live targets, but never heard word one on if it was bad for us or not. And with the e-kick the military was on, if there was any hard evidence to that, they would have said something. So my money is on none to negligible negative impact. In honesty the environmental impact from using tanks is worse than any effect DU has in my opinion. After all, the D stands for Depleted. IE: Safe, Non Radioactive, not bad for you 'less you get hit with it, and so on and so forth. As to the spalling, anything will cause that, hell WP is worse.

[Panther Al]

Cast offs, downgrades, whatever - they're not the absolute best available anyway.

Of course not, no one has gotten any of the full up SEP's except for the US. Thats fairly obvious. Even you all only got the M1A1SA's... which come to think of, so did the Iraqi's.

Granted, the SA isn't a bad tank, almost as good as a SEP, and just as good in all the ways that really count when its time to lay tube on target.

[Abbott Shaull]

Actually the T-72 we encounter in Iraqi as well as all Pact/Soviet/Russia vehicles were the actual top of the line models one would find say in the Russia or other Soviet Republics military arsenals. Even with their allies in the Warsaw Pact wouldn't get the same capabilities built in as their Soviet counterparts.

Still up until the the US M1 and other NATO tanks of that generation of AFVs started to come online, the Soviets T-62, T-64, and T-72 units probably would probably been able to carry the day easily due to sheer numbers. It one of the reasons it took over 10+ years and couple false starts for the US to come up with the replacement for the M60 MBT.

It still makes one wonder though for lot of the Pact units were still equipped with T-55 and T-62s. They were still in the process of updating the front line units in the Warsaw Pact even as the wall coming down with the major exception being the East German Army which seemed to be more heavily armed as their units were suppose to function as components of the Soviet Armies...*shrug*

[dragoon500ly]

One of the main reasons that the T-55 was kept in service in the Warsaw Pact countries is that, for its environment, it was a good tank. The perceived battle ground of West Germany has a lot of terrain that doesn't allow for long range tank sniping. One NATO study gives an average range of 900 meters, well within effective range of the 100mm main gun. The Soviets (and the WP) trained for short range engagements, where whoever gets the first round off, wins the fight. They also used an intresting gunnery technique that compensated for the poor fire control system.

You see, the Russians do not practise one-on-one engagements.

What they practise is platoon-on-one engagements. A typical four-tank platoon would start with the platoon leader's tank calling out his estimated range and firing. The second tank in the platoon, would call out their adjustment and fire, then the third and fourth tanks would repeat the process. With four tanks engaging, the assumption is that the NATO tank would find itself overwhelmed by targets and forced into breaking off its engagement by firing its smoke grenades or abandoning its fighting position, thus allowing the Soviet platoon to close the range and negate the superior NATO fire control systems.

It was only with the issue of the new generation of laser-rangefinders and digital computers that NATO was able to come with a counter to this technique.

As for a lot of the T-55s poor rep...it has a lot to do with the Middle East Wars of 1967 and 1973...the T-55 was used in an environment that allowed for long range sniping by tanks as well as terrain that features dunes and sharper hills than those found in the Central Russian steppes. Here the numerous design flaws of the T-5s were brought into view and ruthlessly exploited by the IDF.

[Abbott Shaull]

That and the pure numbers of T-55s produced. Yeah, it always been the Soviets goal attempt to overwhelm an enemy tank with the numbers games.

[dragoon500ly]

And why not...it worked in the World War II and the Russians have also been big fans of don't mess with a working method.