Skip to comments.
Pioneering Army Unit to Debut in Iraq
AP
| 8/02/03
| ROBERT BURNS
Posted on 08/02/2003 1:42:16 PM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 next last
To: Cannoneer No. 4
I still remember getting stuck in Fort Drum sand watching tracked vehicles running by us.
The downside to reactive armor is that any dismounted infantry will be cut to ribbons by the fragments of the metal plates that the reactive armor uses. Kinetic energy penetrators aren't effected much by reactive armor, unless you thicken the metal plates on the reactive armor, which reduces it's effectiveness against shaped charge HEAT rounds. I do NOT envy the designers their job for that!
They have to balance out the threats that are likely to come against it, offer the best protection available, and not be too much of a threat to your own dismounted infantry.
But it does work.
81
posted on
08/06/2003 5:23:10 PM PDT
by
Darksheare
("Liberals, fodder for the Dogs of War.")
To: Cannoneer No. 4
I LIKE the idea of cancelling black berets. That idea stunk to high heaven. Not to mention stupid and insulting to those who had earned the beret through hard work.
82
posted on
08/06/2003 5:26:02 PM PDT
by
Darksheare
("Liberals, fodder for the Dogs of War.")
To: colorado tanker
Well, of course you have to line up "square" to get assured pene . . . . Oh, you're talking about tanks. :) Well, in every mission, you first you have to conduct a careful reconnaissance to pin-point the objective--many an operation has failed by aiming for the wrong target! Prepping the objective is important as well--unless you soften the objective area up a little, you may never even get close--nowhere near the range of your organic weapon! Even then, unless you use everything you have to set the conditions in and around the objective area, a veteran adversary will see through your every move and have a counter-measure ready.
It normally takes lots of patience and a heavy commitment of resources to win through to the objective. Sometimes the only way to achive success on your mission is to make the ultimate sacrifice--which I was required to do 24 years ago.
To: mark502inf
LOL! Good one.
To: SauronOfMordor
To: Michael121
To: Conservative84
What I haven't seen discussed yet so far on this thread is what this
Stryker vehicle is going to do to the attitude and mind-set of the people who have to go to war in it.
Several varieties of Infantry soldier exist in the US Army today:
Rangers
Parachute Infantry (82nd Airborne Div; 173rd ABN BDE
Airmobile Infantry (101st Airborne Div [Air Assault])
Mountain Infantry (10th Mountain Div)
Light Infantry (172nd Separate Infantry Brigade)
Mechanized Infantry (3ID, 4ID, 1AD)
With the introduction of the Stryker we have re-introduced to the US Army yet another variety of Infantry soldier, Motorized Infantry. What the various type of Infantrymen call themselves is important, because it explains how they see themselves, and their role.
Is the Motorized Infantryman a Stryker crewman, or a passenger? Is the Stryker a new Infantry Fighting Vehicle or a battle taxi? Are those guys going to live in that pig and dismount only when forced to or are they just going to ride in it until they get wherever they are going and go break things and kill people afoot?
To: R. Scott
Aaaargh!
But, pirates in the Army?
To: colorado tanker
The problem is that some bad guys in "urban areas" have been known to have RPG's and ATGM's. Hey, I just repeated what the article said. I don't agree with it much either. Yes, a wheeled vehicle will get good gas milage along urban streets, but will not do as well when people pile up barricades and such, and there are lots of places for RPG-ists to hide and fire from.
89
posted on
08/06/2003 7:15:02 PM PDT
by
SauronOfMordor
(Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer === needs a job at the moment)
To: Cannoneer No. 4; R. Scott
>>But, pirates in the Army?
Riverine guys in Nam in the Delta?
90
posted on
08/06/2003 7:17:26 PM PDT
by
FreedomPoster
(this space intentionally blank)
To: Cannoneer No. 4
In responce to your post #5, this Stryker is what the officers in charge of procurment called for. This is a cooperative development from the ground up.
We at General Dynamics have watched as army and marine officers have monitered and given input in all stages of development.
In other words, they asked for it.
91
posted on
08/07/2003 2:01:51 AM PDT
by
exnavy
To: FreedomPoster
Most of my time was in the Delta and War Zone D with the 329th Transportation Company (Heavy Boat). The last few months were on the Perfume and Cua Viet Rivers in I Corps during the 68 Tet festivities.
92
posted on
08/07/2003 3:35:38 AM PDT
by
R. Scott
To: R. Scott
So I guess I hit it pretty close.
Dad flew Caribou out of Can Tho in '66.
93
posted on
08/07/2003 4:13:31 AM PDT
by
FreedomPoster
(this space intentionally blank)
To: Reeses
Let's hope these much criticized vehicles can withstand RPG rounds.
94
posted on
08/07/2003 4:32:27 AM PDT
by
txzman
(Jer 23:29)
To: kattracks
Are we overlooking something here? Third Brigade, Second Infantry Division. The rest of the division is in Korea and I would think that this unit would be needed to bring that unit up to strength if the balloon goes up over there. Yet we're sending it to Iraq. Also, the mention in passing of the calling up of National Guard units for rotation to Iraq. That's National Guard combat brigades, not support units, and place an even greater burden on those forces than they already have. All this article is showing is that our forces, already stretched to the limit, are being stretched even farther. Yet I hear nothing of any plans to actually increase the size of the military to take on all these additional obligations, as well as the future obligations - Liberia, et. al., that Bush will be getting us in to. What gives?
To: Cannoneer No. 4
There is no substitute for a tank, and the Stryker is just another case of the Army designing a square peg to fit a round hole. Plus, Strykers are sure to shot up by our own guys mis-identifying them as BTR's.
The solution of the whole problem is not waste time and money trying to develope IFVs. We need to develope fast, drive-on, drive-off sealift that can load and deliver a heavy armored division to any coast in the world at the same speed a carrier task force can deploy. Our big deployment problem isn't that our tanks are too damn big, it's that we don't have adequate sea-lift, and the Navy doesn't like spending money on transportation/non-combat ships.
96
posted on
08/07/2003 9:31:36 AM PDT
by
PsyOp
To: FreedomPoster
Pretty close!
97
posted on
08/07/2003 3:47:29 PM PDT
by
R. Scott
To: PsyOp
We need to develop fast, drive-on, drive-off sealift that can load and deliver a heavy armored division to any coast in the world at the same speed a carrier task force can deploy.We already have Fast Sealift Ships. The ships can travel at speeds of up to 30 knots and are capable of sailing from the U.S. East Coast to Europe in just six days, and to the Persian Gulf via the Suez Canal in 18 days, thus ensuring rapid delivery of military equipment in a crisis. Combined, all eight Fast Sealift Ships can carry nearly all the equipment needed to outfit a full Army mechanized division. The Fast Sealift Ships are roll-on/roll-off ships equipped with on-board cranes and self-contained ramps which enable the ships to off-load onto lighterage while anchored at sea or in ports where shore facilities for unloading equipment are unavailable. The vessels are specially suited to transport heavy or bulky unit equipment such as tanks, large wheeled vehicles and helicopters.
With speeds up to 33 knots, they are the fastest cargo ships ever built.
Pics of USNS Algol
We have plenty of sealift, but ships are slow and vulnerable and nobody has the patience to wait while the sealift is activated, manned, loaded and in transit.
Seems like 2 or 3 of these Fast Sealift Ships could haul an M1 & Bradley-mounted Armored Cavalry Regiment. Park an embarked Armored Expeditionary Force in Perth and another in Djibouti and they could bring down hellfire and scunnion on whoever deserved it in less than a week
To: All
99
posted on
08/07/2003 6:51:11 PM PDT
by
Bob J
(Freerepublic.net...where it's always a happening....)
To: Cannoneer No. 4
"We already have Fast Sealift Ships."
Good. I hadn't realized they had finally gotten around to building them. I do remember that when I was stationed in Germany in the early 80s these things were barely on the drawing board. As was the C-17.
As for the "too slow" part, even if every bit of our airlift were put into action they can't lift enough "light" armor anywhere to make much of a difference against a heavy mech threat. They would require just as much time. Furthermore, cargo aircraft are infinitely more vulnerable than a cargo ship protected by a naval battle group.
On further examination of the Algol, its big design flaw is that it lacks a well deck that can accomodat LCACs for drive-off beach delivery. The Algol may be able to get anywhere in 6 days, but the LSTs it needs to off-load equipment on a beach can't.
What makes more sense to me, for rapid deployment, is to equipe a "rapid deployment" weapons brigade out-fitted with HUMVEEs toting heavy weapons platforms like TOW's, stingers, Mark-19s, 50 cals. Every company would have a mix of each type of HUMVEE platform (everybody rides, each squad would consist of 2 vehicles). Fast, mobile, and hard-hitting enough to keep things under control till the heavies arrive. A c-130 can carry two HUMVEEs with crews, ammo and suplies for a week or two of operations. But only one stryker, dry.
Makers of light armor systems always say that the key their survivability is the ability to move fast. Nothing on the battle field is as fast and mobile as the HUMVEE and it is no more or less vulnerable than a Stryker. Better to put more trigger-pullers with x-tra firepower on the ground with your airlift than waste lift capacity trying haul a behemoth like the Stryker. And certainly cheaper. IMHO.
100
posted on
08/07/2003 8:05:41 PM PDT
by
PsyOp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson