Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

FORT LEWIS, Wash. (AP) - A whisper of cool, mountain air slips through an open window in Col. Michael Rounds' office at this quiet Army post in the shadow of the Cascades. The setting could hardly be more unlike what Rounds' soldiers will face shortly in hot and chaotic Iraq.

Rounds commands a newly formed Stryker brigade combat team - the first of its kind, intended as a model for the Army of the future, and scheduled to make its combat debut in Iraq within two months.

``The brigade is ready to go,'' Rounds said in an interview.

Rounds' unit, formed from the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, has trained intensively this year in anticipation of being certified combat ready by October. It was not until July 23, however, that the soldiers learned they will be going to Iraq as part of a troop rotation plan.

Although President Bush declared on May 1 that major combat was over, military commanders in Iraq have said repeatedly that they still are in a war zone, one in which the tool they prize most - timely information about the enemy - is the very one that Rounds' soldiers are equipped to provide.

``One of the greatest advantages we have is that we can share information very quickly, and by sharing information very quickly we feel we are less vulnerable'' to surprise attack, Rounds said Friday.

The Iraq mission is a milestone for the Stryker Brigade, which itself represents a first step in the Army's effort to become a force more relevant to 21st-century missions.

It may one day be recognized as the most telling legacy of Gen. Eric Shinseki, who retired this summer after four years as the Army's chief of staff, the top uniformed officer. In October 1999, Shinseki outlined a plan for remaking the Army by 2010 into a more versatile force that can move quickly onto distant battlefields, armed with unparalleled ability to dictate the pace of fighting.

Coincidentally, it was the Army's experience in the Persian Gulf in 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait and seemed poised to grab the oil fields of eastern Saudi Arabia, that led to the Stryker model.

Shinseki often recalls that the Army's only answer to Iraq's threat to those Saudi oil fields was to send the 82nd Airborne Division. It is quick to respond but was too lightly armed to sustain an effective defense had the Iraqi army crossed the Saudi border and raced for the oil fields.

It was that gap between light and heavy forces that Shinseki and others realized must be closed.

Lt. Gen. Edward Soriano, commanding general of Fort Lewis and the Army's 1st Corps, said in a separate interview Friday that he has no doubt that Rounds has prepared his soldiers for the challenges of Iraq.

``It's going to be difficult,'' he said. ``But I have all the confidence in the world that these soldiers will do just fine. They are pumped up. They are psyched up.''

The Stryker is the Army's first new combat vehicle in two decades, although it actually is intended as a stepping stone to the ultimate goal: a high-tech family of fighting systems known as the Future Combat System, which still is on the drawing board and is expected to include unmanned ground and aerial vehicles.

One Stryker can be flown aboard an Air Force C-130 cargo plane, which is designed to land on short, substandard airfields in remote areas. Thus the Stryker Brigade is capable of reaching areas, including the deserts of western Iraq, that units built around tanks could not reach by air.

Gen. John Keane, the acting Army chief of staff, announced on July 23 a plan to maintain the current troop strength in Iraq while allowing those who have been there longest to go home. To do that, the Army is calling on the National Guard as well as active duty units such as the Stryker Brigade.

Asked what gave him confidence that the first Stryker Brigade is ready for real-world combat, Keane pointed to the Fort Irwin, Calif., and Fort Polk, La., training sessions the Strykers conducted last spring.

``We put it through its paces against the toughest opponent our forces have ever faced'' - the training center competition, he said. ``They are ready to go.''

The Stryker is a 19-ton, eight-wheeled armored vehicle built in the United States and Canada. It comes in two variants: an infantry carrier and a mobile gun system. The infantry carrier, in turn, has eight configurations, including a reconnaissance vehicle, a mortar carrier and a vehicle for the brigade commander.

It is named for two Medal of Honor winners: Pfc. Stuart S. Stryker, killed in action in Germany on March 24, 1945; and Spec. 4 Robert F. Stryker, killed in Vietnam on Nov. 7, 1967. They were not related.

On the Net:

Stryker Brigade Combat Team: http://www.lewis.army.mil/transformation/



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2ndid; fortlewis; iraq; rebuildingiraq; stryker; strykerbrigade; strykerbtrigade; wheeledarmor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

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.

83 posted on 08/06/2003 5:31:48 PM PDT by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
LOL! Good one.
84 posted on 08/06/2003 5:43:23 PM PDT by colorado tanker (Iron Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Pros and Cons of Tracked Light Armored Vehicles
85 posted on 08/06/2003 5:45:19 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 ("Fahr na HO!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Michael121
Wheeled Light Armoured Vehicles — Pros and Cons
86 posted on 08/06/2003 5:59:26 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 ("Fahr na HO!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

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?

87 posted on 08/06/2003 6:45:32 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 ("Fahr na HO!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
Aaaargh!

But, pirates in the Army?

88 posted on 08/06/2003 6:52:43 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 ("Fahr na HO!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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?
95 posted on 08/07/2003 4:40:33 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Pretty close!
97 posted on 08/07/2003 3:47:29 PM PDT by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

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

98 posted on 08/07/2003 6:50:42 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 ("Fahr na HO!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: All

TONIGHT ON
UNSPUN with ANNAZ
and guest hostess twinkee Diotima

the topic: PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN- What exactly does it mean?

Guest for the evening is Bill Murray of the Family Research Council

PLUS – A call from McClintock Campaign Headquarters!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!
HIFI broadband feed HERE! (when available)

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Miss a show?

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

99 posted on 08/07/2003 6:51:11 PM PDT by Bob J (Freerepublic.net...where it's always a happening....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson