Am I opening a can of worms here? I think I am...M113...

[dragoon500ly]

*twitch-twitch* ... must not get started on ... *twitch*



Ok, I will admit that the Stryker is a hell of lot quiter than any tracked vehicle - even the M1. which means I have found one good thing about it as a combat vehicle- kinda like a broken clock being right twice a day....

LOL!

There is another good thing about a Stryker...on a modern battlefield it will absorb rounds meant for Abrams and Bradleys!

[Panther Al]

ROWS with 2 Axis stabilization is kind sweet. Blue Force Tracker. FBCB2.

8x8 morning commute goodness.

Stab's, got that.
Blufer, got that.
FBCB2, got that too.

But yeah, those wheels do have to make the ride easier.

I am still not a fan of the Stryker as a vehicle. The concept I have nothing against at all, I just think we are going overboard in how many units we are converting over to that force structure. Strikers have a place on the battlefield: as battalion sized rapid reaction force, I think the concept is spot on. I just think the vehicle itself has it's issues.

[Webstral]

The idea that the Stryker is better-suited for one type of operation than another goes to the heart of one of the US Armys biggest problems: we try to do a one-size-fits-all force instead of dividing the force into specialty units that can be retrained for other missions in a pinch. Ive pitched the idea of greater specialization before, but Ill keep doing it for the practice.

There need to be several US Army variants. There needs to be an Old Guard that looks great in parades and worries about whether the general is getting enough fiber. This job has been filled the US Army. There needs to be an Army that kills folks and breaks things and does nothing else. Killing folks and breaking things are skills. As the destructive potential of conventional weapons continues to rise, the need for skilled and motivated small unit leaders grows ever greater. Moreover, the men who volunteer for the combat arms signed up to kill folks and break things. Using them for other things like peacekeeping is downright wasteful of their motivation and the time they need to continue to grow their ability to kill folks and break things efficiently and effectively. The initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 demonstrates that a small effective force can move the required distance and get the conventional job done. When were talking about fuel hogs like the M1 Abrams, numbers dont always equal security or rapid mission accomplishment. High quality tankers, artillery crews, combat engineers, and light infantry need a lot of practice executing a relative handful of battle drills.

Then there needs to be an Army that does the bulk of the peacekeeping. These guys do things like man the checkpoints and generally police the place after the steely-eyed killers have done their bit. The peacekeepers have at least as much in common with police as they do with the throat slashers. The peacekeepers need a whole different set of skills than the war fighters. More importantly, the peacekeepers need a whole different mindset and set of expectations of their role than the war fighters. Tank crews and light infantry sign on to be in combat. Peacekeepers sign on to keep the peace. There is some common ground, but the common ground is less than the ground that is not in common.

The majority of the peacekeepers should be reservists. Reservists tend to be older than their Regular Army counterparts. My experience in Iraq indicates that older men are less eager to press the trigger. Older men are married and have children at higher rates. Perhaps those of us with wives and children have an easier time imagining what happens when undisciplined fire goes through the walls of residential areas. In any event, older reservists (who generally are less physically fit for the demands of combat) have more of the mindset needed for peacekeeping. Perhaps most importantly, peacekeeping is more forgiving than combat.

[Panther Al]

The idea that the Stryker is better-suited for one type of operation than another goes to the heart of one of the US Armys biggest problems: we try to do a one-size-fits-all force instead of dividing the force into specialty units that can be retrained for other missions in a pinch. Ive pitched the idea of greater specialization before, but Ill keep doing it for the practice.

There need to be several US Army variants. There needs to be an Old Guard that looks great in parades and worries about whether the general is getting enough fiber. This job has been filled the US Army. There needs to be an Army that kills folks and breaks things and does nothing else. Killing folks and breaking things are skills. As the destructive potential of conventional weapons continues to rise, the need for skilled and motivated small unit leaders grows ever greater. Moreover, the men who volunteer for the combat arms signed up to kill folks and break things. Using them for other things like peacekeeping is downright wasteful of their motivation and the time they need to continue to grow their ability to kill folks and break things efficiently and effectively. The initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 demonstrates that a small effective force can move the required distance and get the conventional job done. When were talking about fuel hogs like the M1 Abrams, numbers dont always equal security or rapid mission accomplishment. High quality tankers, artillery crews, combat engineers, and light infantry need a lot of practice executing a relative handful of battle drills.

Then there needs to be an Army that does the bulk of the peacekeeping. These guys do things like man the checkpoints and generally police the place after the steely-eyed killers have done their bit. The peacekeepers have at least as much in common with police as they do with the throat slashers. The peacekeepers need a whole different set of skills than the war fighters. More importantly, the peacekeepers need a whole different mindset and set of expectations of their role than the war fighters. Tank crews and light infantry sign on to be in combat. Peacekeepers sign on to keep the peace. There is some common ground, but the common ground is less than the ground that is not in common.

The majority of the peacekeepers should be reservists. Reservists tend to be older than their Regular Army counterparts. My experience in Iraq indicates that older men are less eager to press the trigger. Older men are married and have children at higher rates. Perhaps those of us with wives and children have an easier time imagining what happens when undisciplined fire goes through the walls of residential areas. In any event, older reservists (who generally are less physically fit for the demands of combat) have more of the mindset needed for peacekeeping. Perhaps most importantly, peacekeeping is more forgiving than combat.

Heh... was gonna post a reply to this, but figured its best to move it to Fiddle's Green so as not to drive this thread any further off topic than it already is!

[ArmySGT.]

Heh... was gonna post a reply to this, but figured its best to move it to Fiddle's Green so as not to drive this thread any further off topic than it already is!

Should be split off and make a Stryker thread.

[Panther Al]

I think half of Fiddle's Green is about the Stryker to be fair... so I've been using it as the semi-official Stryker thread.

[ArmySGT.]

Should I post the photo from the Stryker manual of the one being railloaded with Cav markings

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60779562/Osprey-New-Vanguard-121-Stryker-Combat-Vehicles

[Panther Al]

*laughs*


Only if you want to hear wailing and crying from us Cavalrymen who hate the things!



But, yes... please. I'll take any and all imagery of Military equipment.

[bobcat]

*laughs*


Only if you want to hear wailing and crying from us Cavalrymen who hate the things!



But, yes... please. I'll take any and all imagery of Military equipment.

what about us cavalrymen that actually like the damned things

[ArmySGT.]

Should I post the photo from the Stryker manual of the one being railloaded with Cav markings

*laughs*


Only if you want to hear wailing and crying from us Cavalrymen who hate the things!



But, yes... please. I'll take any and all imagery of Military equipment.

[Panther Al]

Thank you!


As much as I bash the thing, I have to admit it looks damned good.

[Adm.Lee]

I'm actually thinking of using the Gavin name in my campaign for the replacemet of the M113... the American lisence built version of the Weisel AWC.

I just can't figure out wht the 'M' number would be.

Go low, like under 20. The numbers seemed to be reset during/after the Vietnam War. Or the MacNamara reign at DoD, much the same thing.

[natehale1971]

Go low, like under 20. The numbers seemed to be reset during/after the Vietnam War. Or the MacNamara reign at DoD, much the same thing.

I'll use the number M13 then

[Ronin]

All the love and bashing of the M113, and Stryker. Make me think about one thing. At least theirs not someone talking up the values of the M551 Sheridan.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

All the love and bashing of the M113, and Stryker. Make me think about one thing. At least theirs not someone talking up the values of the M551 Sheridan.

Oh come on it was a great little ta-

NOT IN THE FACE! NOT IN THE FACE!!!