From GlobalSecurity.org:
The [Strykers] are not a replacement for the M1 Abrams tank or the M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The IAVs will be used in places, such as urban areas, where the heavy armored vehicles are not suitable for the mission.
True. But I object to the concept that heavy armored vehicles are not suitable for urban areas. In direct support of infantry units, tanks are very appropriate for urban areas. I don't think we've lost a single tanker to hostile fire since major combat operations ended, save perhaps that one tank where the crew failed to follow SOP and were driving across a bridge with the driver unbuttoned. Driver got shot, tank went into the water, rest of crew drowned. SOP says driver is never unbuttoned. Gee, I wonder why.
But imagine Mogadishu if we had dispatched a Mech Infantry task force with 2 Mech platoons and 1 tank platoon the moment that first Blackhawk went down. If I recall correctly, with the distances involved the heavy guys could have been there within 2 hours. Now imagine Somali reaction to an M-1 engaging them with direct, short range, main gun fire and Bradleys firing lots of HE 25mm instead of having nothing but our guys firing small arms at them. I don't think we would have lost 18 guys. And the Somalis would have lost either a lot more or a lot less than the 500-1000 they did - less if they reacted in the typical fashion when tanks show up spitting smoke and fire and death ("shock effect") and ran like hell, more if they obligingly hunkered down and tried to shoot at tanks with their small arms and RPGs.
And one other point - when I asked about the ultimate destination of the 6 Stryker brigades, Thunder 6 told us:
6 Brigades: Two currently at Ft. Lewis (one before too much longer), one in Alaska, one in Hawaii, one at Ft. Polk, and one in Pennsylvania. The ones in Alaska and Louisiana are separate BDE's. The other two belong to existing Divisions, one light, one mech.
Note that last division is a Mech division. I seriously doubt we're going to augment that division with a fourth brigade. So one brigade is going to turn in its M-1s and M-3s and transition to Strykers. That sounds like replacing M-1s and M-3s with Strykers. Iraq proved (again) that we need our heavy forces. I hope they're at least smart enough to choose the "light" brigade! Since we're deploying forces everywhere, my opinion is that we shouldn't replace any M-1s or M-3s with Strykers, but bring Fort Carson back up to full divisional strength and increase the number of maneuver battalions in the Army. And, again, I feel strongly the Stryker is a mistake when juxtaposed with the many other choices
For those who don't know, in a Mechanized Infantry division the "light" brigade is the one that has two Mech battalions and one Tank battalion. One brigade has two Tank and one Mech battalions, while the remaining brigade has four battalions, two of each. The only difference in an Armored division is it doesn't have a light brigade - both of the brigade with three battalions have two Tank battalions and one Mech.
Of course, my knowledge of division compositions could be out of date.
The problem is that some bad guys in "urban areas" have been known to have RPG's and ATGM's. Tanks were "suitable" in Baghdad. And has been pointed out in detail, we had our lunch eaten in Mog when we had no M-1's or Bradleys. So where is this "suitable" area for deployment? Liberia?