From: Nigel Hay -MILWEB (Nigel@milweb.net)
Date: Tue Nov 23 2004 - 01:31:55 PST
A fascinating TV programme on UK Tv called Empire Warriors showed the
British Army in Aden in the 1960's and in particular the Crater operations
with The Argyll and Southerland Highlanders. Previously unseen action
footage of Saracens, Saladins and fully equipped Landrovers that reminded me
of the raw style of the classic 1960's French film "The Battle for Algiers"
( now avaialbe on DVD and its a stunning work) which also had a "take no
prisoners" theme. A curious element was that the Saracens were ( by decree
of the politicians) not allowed to use their guns against the terrorists
just small arms.
When the politicians interferred the Argyll and Southerland Highlanders
got pretty irate about it, and carried on against such interferrence with
their push into the city. No political correctness for Col Mitchell and his
tough regiment. Overnight he became a household name in the 1960's. Young,
aristocratic officer class who led from the front and took no crap from
anyone above or below him.
What was really interesting though was the obvious vulnerability of the
Landrovers to enemy fire, petrol bombs or missiles, it was in the days
before any protection was applied to any non armoured vehicles.
And curiously no embedded journalists around to give opinions, just a very
fearless camera crew.
NIGE
-----Original Message-----
From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org]On
Behalf Of Darrell Ramsell
Sent: 23 November 2004 09:56
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
Subject: Re: [MV] M113's in Iraq/Stryker
Ah yes, very true Steve. It did cross my mind that he might be bias toward
the Brady. In fact when the Bradley first came out I know a lot of people
were bitching and moaning about it.
Anyway, I just wanted to share with the list of what I was told from someone
who is on the front lines.
Darrell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Grammont" <islander@midmaine.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] M113's in Iraq/Stryker
> 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
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:37:43 PDT