Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 10/12/2005 View Tue 10/11/2005 View Mon 10/10/2005 View Sun 10/09/2005 View Sat 10/08/2005 View Fri 10/07/2005 View Thu 10/06/2005
1
2005-10-12 Iraq
Why Stryker Succeeded
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve 2005-10-12 09:29|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 "In other news today, we turn to the controversy over the Army's newest boondogle, the Stryker, which performed just too well in combat. We'll get differing opinions from our military experts, on the right Patrick J. Buchanan and on the left, Donna Brazile. We'll ask them why the Stryker performed so well, and what the U.S. Congress should do to fix it." [Courtesy CNN - 2005]
Posted by Covert Floridian 2005-10-12 10:49||   2005-10-12 10:49|| Front Page Top

#2 They missed some major points, here. The biggest thing the Stryker has going for it is coordinated fires. Strykers are optimized when several of them are working together, like the way a well-trained basketball team can get the ball past its opponents quickly. They are *aware* of what each other is doing.

That is why a Stryker unit can be superior to a heavy armored unit. In its "light cavalry" approach it can move and maneuver more quickly, avoid unwanted target redundancy, and move into and out of an objective quickly.

A few days ago, I noted to two big requests the Stryker pilots had: laser range finding and a bigger gun. This speaks volumes as a performance critique.

My only reservation is that the Stryker is only a single weapons system. The battlefield needs complementary systems, acting much like chess pieces do in chess. And while it is a superb light cavalry-type weapon, it needs to be complemented with a superb heavy cavalry-type weapon.

Something a generation beyond the Abrams.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-12 12:57||   2005-10-12 12:57|| Front Page Top

#3 Something a generation beyond the Abrams.

Something along the lines of a Bolo, Mark XX/B?
Posted by Steve">Steve  2005-10-12 15:34||   2005-10-12 15:34|| Front Page Top

#4 Geez, those things look like late 1930's Soviet jobs.
Posted by Shipman 2005-10-12 16:58||   2005-10-12 16:58|| Front Page Top

#5 Anonymoose, wait for the Future Combat Systems vehicles. Much more coordinated than the Strykers and with lots of other systems that can be added / swapped .... and that's only the manned ground vehicles in FCS. Lots more goodness in the other systems ....
Posted by lotp 2005-10-12 17:04||   2005-10-12 17:04|| Front Page Top

#6 Steve: Actually, that raises a really good question. The current heavy tank, type Abrams/Merkava/Leopard class, all have a similar design because they all have the same basic parameters: they have to have thick steel armor, have to travel fast, and have to have an effective anti-tank gun. But what if those parameters change?

High tech armor can be much thinner, and might even be very radiation resistant. This means the vehicle could go faster, but that is not a heavy cavalry/heavy armor role. The alternative is that it can carry more weapons and ammunition. But that in turn means that it has to be larger.

Assuming that you have the technology for it to be auto-piloted, you get all that crew space for weapons and ammo, too. In essence, you start to approach the size of a small ship before physical limitations start to set in.

A problem that comes with the "big tank" is getting it over obstacles. But that is not a great a limitation as all that, just keeping it to the same regions an ordinary tank could visit. The one alternative would be if the tank could be split up into smaller, independent module vehicles to travel difficult terrain, re-forming into a greater whole, later.

Now the big question: what do you use it for? Tank on tank battles have probably seen their last, so if you noticed the "radiation" mention, above, that is probably the biggest hint. They would be used as sealed artillery batteries, capable of operating in a nuclear environment.

The tactical nuclear battlefield is an odd place, and not entirely what you would expect. Blasts would not happen at the same time, and each blast would have a "clock ticking". After a period of time, armored vehicles could pass through the blast area, then after a longer time, lighter vehicles, and finally infantry could safely pass through. So a detonation has three immediate effects: the blast, the temporary obstacle, and the small permanent obstacle of the hole.

This means that unit maneuver becomes very odd indeed. And the most important point is that just because tactical nukes have been used, other weapons can still be used. So tactical nukes fit into the conventional war flux--they don't dramatically end it. (This was Soviet war doctrine, BTW, so it is not a new idea.)

So let's put this in the only realistic scenario, a land war in Asia. For example, India and China have been engaged in a drawn-out tactical nuclear conflict that is stalemated. The US and maybe Russia have these large style tanks that can move into the hot battlefield to be used, ironically as all hell, as peacekeeping weapons.

Unmanned, they use conventional artillery to split apart the two entrenched enemies and force the creation and maintenance of an enormous no-man's zone. As mobile, but not fast, heavy artillery guns, say four 8-inch howitzers, moving at a max speed of 35 mph, they could bust up a fight in record time.

Of course, they could also carry tactical nuclear weapons themselves, in case anyone pitched one in their direction or decided to overwhelm them.

Again, a crude example of a possibility.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-12 17:43||   2005-10-12 17:43|| Front Page Top

#7 I think you're on to something with your idea of a tank that blurs the distinction between an indirect fire weapon and a direct fire weapon. One of the Swedish vehicles being considered as a basis for the FCS contains an automatic mortar with a direct-fire mode.

There's also this LAV-III variant that has a howitzer attached:

link.

The LAV-III is, AFAIK, a slightly smaller "ancestor" of the Stryker vehicle; I think the marines use one with a 25mm chain gun as a scouting vehicle.

NOW... continuing, read about this guy's idea for a cavalry scouting vehicle he calls a "tankita". In specific, note the historical notes he makes about the 75mm ARES gun. I don't necessarily think all of his ideas are going to work (I've seen criticism of the "75mm/120mm round" idea he came up with, for instance) but it provides decent background and food for thought.

And a little background about big gun variants of the Stryker: one of the planned Stryker variants was supposed to be a 105mm direct-fire version, to fulfill the same role as the late lamented XM-8 tank (about which you can read here; it was cancelled to pay for one of the Yugoslavian campaigns :-( )... Some recent news about the "direct-fire" version can be found here.

Now... remember when I said the Stryker was a little larger than the LAV-III? Well, if not, please keep it in mind.

They were also supposed to take the prototype M-8's that were built and deploy them, but I think that got tied up in red tape.

There have been some attempts at building a next-generation XM-8, with hybrid electric drive, 120 mm cannon instead of 105mm cannon, etc...

How about this for an armored vehicle: a wheeled or tracked armored vehicle, with a 105 mm cannon, capable of elevating like the "Ares" gun mentioned before, with all the comm gear organic to current Strykers, with enough stabilization in the gun system to shoot in direct fire mode on the move, or maybe even indirect fire mode on the move. It could engage enemy forces directly or call in indirect fire from the other vehicles in its unit.

I imagine that the Stryker variant might have slightly larger firing arcs than the LAV-based one.

If they could actually make a laser-guided 105mm shell then things would get really interesting.

Here's some more on the proposed howitzer variant at Murdoc Online.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-10-12 18:31||   2005-10-12 18:31|| Front Page Top

#8 In an urban environment w/paved roads the Stryker will excell. What happens when it needs to operate in typical back-of-beyond mud-soaked areas the Army also needs to operate in?

The Army will see the Armored generals and colonels who fought in Kuwait and Iraq start filling top positions and future planning boards,replacing the Vietnam era infantry generation. They will not give up their tanks-in fact we will probably after all see an M-1 replacement after all.
Posted by Stephen 2005-10-12 22:33||   2005-10-12 22:33|| Front Page Top

00:01 JosephMendiola
23:58 Bardo
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:48 DMFD
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:36 DMFD
23:20 DMFD
23:17 JosephMendiola
22:51 Alaska Paul
22:46 AzCat
22:33 Stephen
22:30 AzCat
21:59 Frank G
21:46 Ernest Brown
21:44 Alaska Paul
21:30 Frank G
21:28 closedanger
21:27 Redneck Jim
21:27 closedanger
21:24 Redneck Jim
21:21 phil_b
21:18 Darrell
21:18 closedanger
21:16 Suha Arafat









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com