Mediumweight Forces concepts, yey or nay?

[Britboy]

Well I was wasting a little time on Youtube when I see a clip of a Stryker MGS demolishing a building, leading me to google it and find a Wiki article about the 'Stryker vehicle controversy' as well...

I'm sure there have been enough Stryker vs M113 threads and suchlike, I do not want this to turn into one of those.

What I want to know is, What do you think of the concept of mediumweight forces? Regardless of whether you believe Stryker is a good or bad vehicle, what about the underlying concept?

As far as I can tell Armies have traditionally been split in two - Armoured and Light - no mater which branch, inf, cav, arty. Of course you have unusual units like Paras, Marines, Mountain Jaegers, Rangers etc etc who often make up some of the Light side, or who may be even lighter than the Light Inf for example, but broadly its split in two.

The way I see it, some terrains favour heavy and others light. If you're fighting conventional warfare in a desert or plain or other flattish environment, you want Armoured forces. If you're fighting in jungles, mountains, or want to use helicopters for your prelim moves you're probably best off with Light forces. Makes sense, right?

But what of the new Mediumweight/Interim forces concepts which advocate vehicles like Stryker, FRES, Patria, Piranha, LAVs, FCS etc?

Is this an attempt to make light forces more tactically mobile than on foot or with the odd softskinned veh? If so, wouldn't giving every section something like a longwheelbase Land Rover or a Jackal with a GMG fit the bill for motorised inf? Plus having an AFV around might tie the guys to the wagon too much, not really allowing for them to take off on their own on foot into the mountains or wherever for extended periods.

Is this an attempt to make light(ish) forces able to take on armoured formations? Or to do away with IFVs and MBTs in favour of these new vehicles only? Can't really work, can it? Does FCS really want to do this? I know that information superiority is meant to be key, but they'd still get a bloody nose to be sure? Esp as the enemy can put IT systems in existing IFVs and MBTs, thereby having both armour and information.

Are they intended largely for COIN, peacekeeping and operations other than war? I kinda get this, and I understand that STRYKER has proven handy in Iraq, but don't MRAPs/Protected patrols vehs fit the bill, cheaper, possibly better protected, and often still armed with an RWS?

Or are they intended as a firefighting, crisis management force? For when you want to send something FAST but need more protection than just guys on foot/in Landies/Jackals/Hummvees, and the ability to do a bit of conventional warfighting (hopefully not against armour) as well as OOTW?

I think the last one really, combined with a decent meaure of the third option (COIN). Its airmobile, and armoured. That means it gets there fast and reduces the number of casualties you might take. However, if this is a rapid reaction force, then surely it should be replaced by other more-suited follow-on forces when they arrive, either light/motorised or armoured/mech if its conventional warfare in close/open terrain, or in MRAPs/PPVs if its COIN?

Regardless of whether vehs like Stryker are transportable in C130 (can't really see how it matters much since we are getting A400M, US has C17s already, and Stryker will be replaced by FCS and FRES will be something different again), do you feel the idea of 'airmobile armour' is even worth doing?

Let me explain. Yes, you could fly those vehicles out there. But compared to the numbers of troops you could get on those planes, you are going to need A LOT of airlift. Then to keep them supplied with fuel as well as everything else, you are going to need A LOT of airlift. Maybe the vehicle is airmobile, but is the force feasible to be shifted by air and then sustained by air for any decent amount of time once it gets there? If not, why the interest in airmobile AFVs? May as well send light forces til your heavy forces can get there by ship.

Can mediumweight forces ever be a really airmobile/air-sustainable rapid reaction force, or is it all a bit optimistic?

As it stands at the moment, I can't see how these new class of forces/AFVs can really fight in close environments with say jungle terrain (why we still need light forces), can really fight in open environments against an armoured enemy (why we still need armoured forces), MRAPs kinda already have the niche on COIN/peacekeeping, and whilst they might be a nice idea for a big airmobile QRF, I don't see how actually moving and sustaining them would really be feasible?

Anyone here able to enlighten? Sorry for the monster post, and please lets not let this degenerate into a thread about 'Gavins', whatever they are meant to be...

Cheers p-)
BB

[Hellfish]

I think the South Africans ably demonstrated the capability of a medium-weight concept in the 70s and 80s in Angola. Their Ratel series are largely identical to the Strykers in many ways.

Of course, they didn't have the strategic deployment capability that the US or Russia has, but at an operational and tactical level, I think the concept was amply demonstrated.

[Britboy]

Interesting, regardless of the need for strategic deployment using air, wouldn't you say the Ratels were facing a threat not that far removed from forces in Iraq today?

I mean the emphasis on landmine/IED protection, that was also the cause of the Saffies developing their own early MRAPs really.

That and the fact it is mounting a 20mm, like an IFV, I think these were used instead of tracked IFVs, not augmenting them. Seems like a cross between an MRAP and an IFV, rather than an airmobile APC, which is what I think FCS/FRES/Stryker is meant to be?

[wilhelm]

Interesting, regardless of the need for strategic deployment using air, wouldn't you say the Ratels were facing a threat not that far removed from forces in Iraq today?

I mean the emphasis on landmine/IED protection, that was also the cause of the Saffies developing their own early MRAPs really.

That and the fact it is mounting a 20mm, like an IFV, I think these were used instead of tracked IFVs, not augmenting them. Seems like a cross between an MRAP and an IFV, rather than an airmobile APC, which is what I think FCS/FRES/Stryker is meant to be?

The Ratel was indeed developed as an IFV. The 360 cupola on the top of the turret is a clue as to the use of the vehicle. It was the first wheeled IFV and perhaps the first with a 360 degree cupola for the commander.

Wheels were chosen due their mobility over long distances. It was, as Hellfish mentioned, developed into a complete family of vehicles, including command, mortar, IFV, Fire support, and missile versions to equip a fast powerful medium weight flying force to rapidly bring the enemy to combat.

A very successful concept IMHO. There is an updated, completely revamped version of the vehicle now being marketed. This includes a modular roof assembly to facilitate a wide variety of different turret/weapon options. It is called the Iklwa Multi-Role Combat Vehicle.

Wiki has a good writeup about the Ratel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratel_IFV

[Britboy]

So you'd say that mediumweight forces can also have a niche in conventional warfare, even when you have the option of light forces or armoured forces?

I can see how they could be desirable as a sort of rapid response bde/div, with more protection than light but able to be flown unlike armoured, and I can see their role in COIN or low-intensity conflicts. But what form of conventional warfare, in what terrain, would they be suited to?

I can see how longrange is needed, but I'm just not getting what sort of terrain. Surely terrain is either close (jungles, mountains etc - get light forces) or open (plains, deserts - use armoured forces). What sort of terrain suits mediumweight forces - is veldtland somehow a mix between these two?

[Hellfish]

So you'd say that mediumweight forces can also have a niche in conventional warfare, even when you have the option of light forces or armoured forces?

I can see how they could be desirable as a sort of rapid response bde/div, with more protection than light but able to be flown unlike armoured, and I can see their role in COIN or low-intensity conflicts. But what form of conventional warfare, in what terrain, would they be suited to?

I can see how longrange is needed, but I'm just not getting what sort of terrain. Surely terrain is either close (jungles, mountains etc - get light forces) or open (plains, deserts - use armoured forces). What sort of terrain suits mediumweight forces - is veldtland somehow a mix between these two?

The best way to view the usefulness of medium infantry is to look at them as light infantry. They can, and do, operate without their vehicles.

Stryker brigades are basically light infantry brigades that has some armored vehicles added to them. At a tactical level, there isn't much of a difference between their capabilities. At an operational and strategic level, their mobility is what makes them unique.

As such, medium forces are probably best used in medium intensity warfare (like the kind seen during the invasion of Iraq, or Angola, where the enemy was not able to use armor in a widespread or coordinated fashion) where infantry is the primary type of unit utilized. They work well in urban and semi-urban terrain, dismounted they are equal to light infantry in difficult terrain (forests, swamps, hills, etc).

[paracrusader]

As such, medium forces are probably best used in medium intensity warfare (like the kind seen during the invasion of Iraq, or Angola, where the enemy was not able to use armor in a widespread or coordinated fashion) where infantry is the primary type of unit utilized. They work well in urban and semi-urban terrain, dismounted they are equal to light infantry in difficult terrain (forests, swamps, hills, etc).

Even in high-intensity, they have a role to fill. They're designed for mobility, first of all, and not just strategically. Working in conjunction with heavy forces, they could exploit breakthoughs in the enemy's front lines and rapidly move into the enemy's rear echelons, or for that matter move rapidly to exploit exposed enemy flanks. And, of course, they could always air-land after an airfield siezure in the enemy's rear areas and exploit the element of surprise before the enemy can react.

I'll admit, I was a sceptic of the concept, but having worked closely with them in Iraq, including participating in missions from their vehicles, I've got to say I'd take a stryker over a bradley anyday. FWIW, that's coming from a guy who came up almost exclusively in light units, and hates everything bigger than a rucksack.

[Hellfish]

True, and Stryker units especially have more AT firepower than traditional infantry units. IIRC there are four Javelin launchers per rifle platoon in a Stryker unit, whereas a light infantry company (at least in my day) had only something like six ATGMs for the whole company.

They can hold their own in a high intensity conflict, I think, but not to the extent heavier units could. I wouldn't want to put a Stryker brigade in on an offensive against a Soviet-style tank division, for example. Defending, on the other hand, might give the Strykers the advantage.

[paracrusader]

True, and Stryker units especially have more AT firepower than traditional infantry units. IIRC there are four Javelin launchers per rifle platoon in a Stryker unit, whereas a light infantry company (at least in my day) had only something like six ATGMs for the whole company.

It was my understanding that the authorized numbers of CLUs was actually the same, but I can't be certain- we left ours on the arms shack more often than not, and so did they. However, of course, they do have a MGS section per company, 3 each if I am not mistaken. And until the MGS is fully fielded, they still have the ATGM variant of the stryker.

Anyone know if the TOW Stryker is going to be completely replaced by the MGS? Seems like a good capability to have later on...

With that limited AT capability, they'd have a defensive capability, but their strength would not be in going toe-to-toe with armored formations, it would be in slipping in behind them and causing chaos. Working in coordination with heavy forces would ebt he key. There's potential for disaster in that, on the other hand.

[Hellfish]

Anyone know if the TOW Stryker is going to be completely replaced by the MGS? Seems like a good capability to have later on...

Last TO&E I saw put 12 TOW Strykers in a brigade level AT company.

[paracrusader]

Last TO&E I saw put 12 TOW Strykers in a brigade level AT company.

It was my understanding that those were an interim vehicle until the MGS was fielded, but of course I stand corrected. If they have an AT company, that's even better. The MGS seems to be more of an assault gun than a dedicated anti-tank system anyway.

Don't stryker companies have a dedicated sniper section in addition to the battalion level scout platoon?

From my experience, the stryker guys seem less tied to their vehicles, if you know what I mean. You were exactly right in comparing them to light infantry, as much as I hate to say it. The TC's, who were the squad leaders, as they called them, even dismounted on raids. I liked the way they rolled. I'll stick to walking when I can, but I have nothing bad to say about the guys I worked with.

[Hellfish]

It was my understanding that those were an interim vehicle until the MGS was fielded, but of course I stand corrected. If they have an AT company, that's even better. The MGS seems to be more of an assault gun than a dedicated anti-tank system anyway.

The TOW vehicle was used in lieu of the MGS in the infantry companies (IIRC they developed unguided rockets for it, and HE TOWs), but it was always going to be in the AT company. I think they're eventually supposed to replace the TOW launchers with next-gen hypervelocity kinetic energy missiles like the LOSAT.


Don't stryker companies have a dedicated sniper section in addition to the battalion level scout platoon?

Yes. The rifle company has a three-man sniper section with an M107, M110, and M4/203.


From my experience, the stryker guys seem less tied to their vehicles, if you know what I mean. You were exactly right in comparing them to light infantry, as much as I hate to say it. The TC's, who were the squad leaders, as they called them, even dismounted on raids. I liked the way they rolled. I'll stick to walking when I can, but I have nothing bad to say about the guys I worked with.

Most of the Stryker brigades (all but the first, in fact) were converted from light infantry brigades. They kept that lightfighter mentality.

Though they only came online a couple years after I left the Army, I've heard that they're very different from their Bradley counterparts, who are kind of glued to their vehicle.

[paracrusader]

The TOW vehicle was used in lieu of the MGS in the infantry companies (IIRC they developed unguided rockets for it, and HE TOWs), but it was always going to be in the AT company. I think they're eventually supposed to replace the TOW launchers with next-gen hypervelocity kinetic energy missiles like the LOSAT.

Most of the Stryker brigades (all but the first, in fact) were converted from light infantry brigades. They kept that lightfighter mentality.

Though they only came online a couple years after I left the Army, I've heard that they're very different from their Bradley counterparts, who are kind of glued to their vehicle.

I know some great mechanized guys, don't get me wrong here, but after they've been mounted for too long... well, we call them "tankers", and that's not a hit on actual tankers, but it's not the same mindset. They get tied to those vehicles, as if the dismounts are there to support them, but the Stryker guys have always maintained the mindset that the vehicles are a way to deliver their most deadly weapon- the dismounted infantryman (I might be a little biased there, but really everything in the army is to support the dismounted infantryman...). They even had a weapons squad, as opposed to the mech units, who don't. Definitely a different culture from the heavy guys, but light guys consider them something else.

As far as the TOW, I remember the proposal to design unguided rockets, but I think they went with, like you said, an HE variant or a thermobaric variant of the TOW-IIb, but I am not even certain that was fielded. Thanks for the info, BTW, I was not aware that they were going to have a permanent mounted ATGM in those units. Hopefully they maintain some kind of anti-personnel capability in the AT companies when they field the HVM (or whatever they end up calling it).

In the conventional fight, it seems that the Stryker units are more suited to the traditional cavalry missions of screening, reconnasaince, pursuing, and, as I said, rapid exploitation of breakthroughs. Their mobility really gives way to alot of creative uses for them.

[Hellfish]

As I understand it, the hypervelocity missiles don't even have warheads - they're like tungsten rods with mach 5 rocket motors on the back of them. Then again, the AT companies are probably farmed out the the battalions, anyways, so they'd always operate closely with the infantry.

[Britboy]

The MGS seems to be more of an assault gun than a dedicated anti-tank system anyway.

...From my experience, the stryker guys seem less tied to their vehicles, if you know what I mean. You were exactly right in comparing them to light infantry, as much as I hate to say it. The TC's, who were the squad leaders, as they called them, even dismounted on raids. I liked the way they rolled. I'll stick to walking when I can, but I have nothing bad to say about the guys I worked with.

The Israelis manufacture a gun-launched 105mm ATGM which could come in useful for allowing MGS to take on heavy armour.

Thanks for shedding some light on how these units operate. I thought the ICV was an APC that the troops operated closely with, kinda like an IFV but with less of an armament and wheels.

Now I see that I should think of Styker/medium units as more mobile, more protected light infantry. In a way, I suppose you could say making light units more flexible for modern warfare than on foot/on a truck/in light vehicles originally intended for logistic functions like Hummvees/Land Rovers.

Of course, there'll be a bit of a price to pay for that, in terms of POL req'd, logs support required, maint etc, and airlift requirements, but it is a useful balance to strike in the tradeoff between light and heavy. I can see that they can fulfil a certain role in major war, not just a 'rush there by air to deal with a crisis, whilst we are getting the ships with Armoured forces onboard to a nearby port and offloaded' role I thought they were for.

[paracrusader]

As I understand it, the hypervelocity missiles don't even have warheads - they're like tungsten rods with mach 5 rocket motors on the back of them. Then again, the AT companies are probably farmed out the the battalions, anyways, so they'd always operate closely with the infantry.

Right, just pure kinetic energy, like an APFSDS round. What I meant was a capability to engage personnel, maybe an unguided HE rocket fired from the same launcher. I've seen how useless AP and HEAT warheads are against personnel, and I'm sure a kinetic energy rocket would pretty much only hurt you if it hit you- albeit, in a very dramatic way! Anyways, hopefully they maintain something relevent for the kind of fight we're in now.

I don't remember very many of those where I was, but IIRC, they had a pintle-mounted M240B at the TC station (or whatever they call it). I wonder how they're utilized now? Do they have troop carrying capabilty, with added racks for missile reloads?