From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Sun Nov 21 2004 - 07:57:40 PST
Hi Darrell,
>My friend who's driving a M-2 in Iraq doesn't like them.
Not surprising, really. The whole problem within the Army before and
currently is this "treads vs. wheels" mentality. The "treadheads"
feared/loathed the possibility of losing their tracked vehicles so much
they wanted the Stryker program killed before it even began. It is no
different than the old "cavalry vs. tanks" or the navy's reluctance to
give up battleships long after their need had passed. Change is always
opposed by someone, usually the ones that will have to be doing the changing.
Also, consider that soldiers often swear by and swear at the same weapons
depending on their personal bias, experience, or comfortability. In
researching the popularity of certain weapons during WWII it was easy to
find one officer who said "this weapon is the best thing in the whole
world" and another that said "we thought it was useless so we
'accidentally' misplaced it every time we were issued one". Same weapon,
completely different reaction. It is possible that both are correct
depending on the terrain, style of leadership, etc.
> According to him,
>the armor is not capable of stopping .50 cal. rounds.
I'm not sure this is true anymore with the upgraded armor kit. I'll
check on that. Anyway, not a big issue since the enemy doesn't have .50
cal small arms available to them in any quantity (i.e. they would have to
be swiped from us). Kinda like saying "this vehicle can be destroyed by
a nuke" when the enemy isn't using nukes ;-)
>The other issue he
>had with them is that they can only mount one weapon system with no
>secondary weapon such as a tow with a M-240. Most he said are armed with a
>.50 cal. on remote mount.
Correct. The Bradley wins hands down in the firepower department.
However, as with all weapons systems you can not simply pick and choose
one or two things to compare. Every vehicle is a series of compromises
designed to fit a particular design goal. For example, while the Bradley
might have superior firepower it is also larger and heavier than the
Stryker with its smaller weapon. Which is better? Depends on the
scenario, but neither are perfect for all situations.
Having said that, the Army is dissatisfied with the current remote .50
system and is experimenting with a replacement. I'm not sure the
proposed solution is common knowledge so I'm going to keep my yap shut :-)
>Apparently the army was considering giving some
>to his cavalry unit but they didn't want them.
I don't buy this :-) Strykers are not being penny packeted out to units.
They are kept in organic Brigades. It could be his unit was possibly
selected to convert to Stryker, but that program has been nailed down for
so many years I don't think that is the case either.
> They rather have the Bradley's.
Soldiers are always reluctant to change their weapons or mounts. Don't
take any stock in that attitude. For one thing, your friend hasn't been
trained in or fought in a Stryker, so in some respects his opinion is
"uninformed" (at least when compared to someone who has). Kinda like
asking someone if they like the taste of squid based on looking at it :-)
The interesting thing is the Cav units that were converted to Stryker
used to say the same things as your friend after they lost their Bradleys
when they were Stateside. Now they seem to feel the exact opposite since
going to Iraq. I have to wonder if your friend would change his tune if
he switched as well.
Lastly, the commanders apparently love the Stryker Brigades. They move
quickly, quietly, and with minimal issues compared to tracked units.
Readiness levels are often in the high 90% range from what I gather. A
ground pounding grunt can't be expected to know about or care about this
stuff. He is more concerned with himself and the soldiers around him.
Therefore his focus is quite understandably narrowly focused.
Just some thoughts to keep in mind :-)
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:37:43 PDT