dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 19, 2016 17:18:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 19, 2016 19:01:59 GMT
Dave, 30mm used to be a pretty rare calibre, but many countries have adopted it since WW2, the US army have had two that I am aware of and they are the 30mm Mk.44 Bushmaster II (30x173mm) and the 30mm M230 (30x113mm), both of these are chain guns, I don’t know if the one going to be mounted on the Stryker is a derivative of one of these or a new design.
Apparently the call had come from the 2nd US cavalry who requested more firepower for their vehicles based in Germany, they said that they needed more than just a .50 cal as they were out gunned by their Russian friends.
Yan.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 19, 2016 19:39:13 GMT
Yan I know the A-10 carries a 30 mm cannon so is this the same for the Stryker? If so will it carry and shoot both armor piercing and high explosive? I know the Stryker is not design nor expected to deal with tanks but wouldn't they need a few ap rounds in case they run into the big boys? Glad you are with us to explain these AFMs. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 19, 2016 19:56:04 GMT
Dave I think the A10 has a seven barreled 30mm, which in combat would trained to fire at the turret and hull top of a tank, now in the past tanks usually carried their thinnest armour on the top, so to keep the weight down, that's why some WW2 ground attack aircraft were mounted with 20mm canon, or in the case of the Stuka, a 37mm canon, as smaller calibres could rip tanks apart when they hit the tank either on the hull or turret top.
I don't know if these days that most of the British and US tanks have Chobhan armour all over, Chobham armour was invented here in Britain and as far as I am aware off, is still top secret as to how it is built.
Yan.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 19, 2016 19:57:51 GMT
Yan Thank you for the info. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 20, 2016 15:58:14 GMT
The first thing to do is read paragraph four of the linked article/ That is what a Stryker is designed to do, and you will notice it says nothing about duking it out with enemy armor.
Strykers are designed to protect the Infantryman as they move forward toward the PLD (Probable Line of Deployment). It is a wheeled armored personnel carrier and not a fighting vehicle. The present M2 50 Cal is there for close in protection and to add automatic firepower to a dismounted Infantry assault. THAT'S ALL
I am not in favor of this AT ALL. The temptation to misuse the vehicle mounting a 30 mike-mike is far to great, and that gets good people killed real dead.
BAD Idea in my estimation.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 20, 2016 17:51:20 GMT
So adding a more powerful weapon might compel some to foolishly take on bigger game than they can handle. Sounds about right for most American boys I know and true very true. I have read many accounts of GI's making decisions and acting without permission from superiors that were very successful. But shouldn't they have a better chance for survival if they do run into a bigger and stronger vehicle? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 20, 2016 20:11:43 GMT
Chuck in a way I agree you, most APCs or similar AFVs have local defense weapons which can cover their infantry cargo as well as defend themselves against enemy infantry. If they are faced with enemy tanks then they should scoot rather than stand toe to toe, to me mobile infantry should be supported by armour as tanks need infantry support. So any enemy tanks should be engaged by your own armour and not APCs. But what I was saying was that this was a request by the 2nd cavalry to up-arm to 30mm; linkI am not sure if they thought that they would be out gunned Soviet equivalents, now I am not that hot on modern armour but the Russians used to use the BTR-90 as their standard APC and low and behold it has a 30mm canon, it also carries a TOW missile launcher too. I would guess though that most Soviet APCs have a 12.7mm HMG. Just had a quick shuftie and they are concerned about the Soviet BMP-3 which carries a 100mm gun, so what difference a 30mm would do when this 100mm could knock you at a far greater range is beyond me. Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 20, 2016 20:53:26 GMT
When originally organized each Stryker Infantry company, of which there were nine in a brigade had three platoons of Infantry, and a platoon of Stryker mobile guns (105mm) along with a section (2) of 120mm mortars, making each of them a self contained combined arms team.
There is a movement underway to reduce the number of Stryker mobile guns in each brigade, and I do not know how they intend to do it. The payback evidently is to rearm the Stryker carriers with the 30mm and the Javelin (F&F) missile.
I have seen the trouble a lot of our units have gotten into with the 25mm auto cannon on the Brad, and do not want to see it repeated on the Stryker.
The 50 Cal with AP can give light armor opposition a tough time and I do not believe the 30mm will give anyone that much more capability, and I still believe the risk of misuse outweighs any potential reward.
I just want to wait and see what these changes are, and how they may effect the doctrine developed for the Stryker brigade. If they are doing what I think they might be though it is in my opinion a mistake of the first order.
By the way, incase anyone wonders the 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Regiments are Stryker brigades except in name, and are identical to all of the others labeled Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. Same mission, same organization, different name.
The 2nd Cavalry Regiment (Stryker) is the only BCT we currently have in Germany, and only one of two we now have in Europe, the other being the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy. If the 2nd goes up against the Russian Armor, they will have one hell of a lot more to worry about that the size of the gun on their vehicle. Stryker brigades are not designed to go duke it out with a Russian armored division. They are meant to be highly mobile light Infantry that rides in a vehicle that protects them while mobile. They were meant to be100 percent deployable overseas by air in days rather than weeks for a heavy brigade, and bring more punch than regular light Infantry, but not enough punch that they can stand against heavy armor for extended periods.
Somehow I think this might all be a play by the Neanderthal Armor-Cavalry community to gain a bit more relevance in a world that is fast leaving them behind.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 20, 2016 22:35:28 GMT
John Donne once wrote "No Man is an Island".
I have come to believe that his meaning a thousand years after he wrote it referred to a well trained soldier equipped with a reliable means of communication. That soldier can literally bring down the thunder from the heavens upon his adversary, for that soldier is part of a completely integrated combined arms team, It is a team of teams, where all the parts bring something different into play.
We, all of us including me, tend to look at the size (primarily) of the weapon, and compare it against what the adversary has, believing that size alone matters, and all of yours had better be bigger and more capable than all of theirs. That type of thinking leads down the road to becoming nationally bankrupt, and is reminiscent of the Dreadnought races of the early twentieth century.
Success in battle depends upon a variety of forces, totally connected by communications, and I am speaking here of a joint force, not just Army. Brother William, I am sure, will tell you that an SFOD-A (12 men) properly led can take on a battalion, or perhaps even a brigade, and have a reasonable chance of inflicting great harm and survive the process. Don't feel so smug in that knowledge, because the other side also has that capability.
It is not the size of the force, or the force with the most, biggest, and best goodies that wins. It is the size of the fight in the force that wins.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 21, 2016 13:39:38 GMT
Chuck, the boys in the 2nd cavalry should add as many smoke dischargers as possible to their Stryker’s, they will give them more protection then up-gunning to 30mm as they can smoke the area to their front and reverse out of harm’s way, probably to the nearest cover.
I have noticed how compact units have become since the Second World War, the Germans led the way with the “Sturm Squad” which were found in Volksgrenadier battalions, the strength of the squad was eight men compared to ten in a standard rifle section. This squad had no LMG and all eight were to be armed with the new StG-44 assault rifle, but this was not always possible and many were equipped with a mix of MP40s and StG-44s. The squad was led by an NCO, two squads made up a platoon along with the a third squad that was armed with one MG42 to provide a base of fire to cover the advance of the other two squads.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 21, 2016 17:49:36 GMT
Ian: In western armies the general organizational trend is to smaller units at battalion and company level.
What will not be a surprise I expect is that I think this trend is ill advised. More robust battalions absorb losses without too much loss of combat efficiency and capability. Put a five hundred man battalion in heavy combat on the other hand and they get down to around three hundred real fast. Again, and not another surprise I favor the organizational construct of the Marine battalion which keep the numbers up to between 800 and a thousand.
Increased amounts of firepower are good, but you need the trigger pullers in sufficient quantity to keep that firepower going, and keep your units operational despite losses incurred.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 21, 2016 20:09:44 GMT
I see what you mean Chuck, if a unit suffers 30% losses then a 500 strong battalion would be down to 350 all ranks, and what makes it worse is that the troops most at risk are the infantry men, especially if you take out all the support personnel, because around a quarter of your 500 would be people who serve the radios, man support weapons and act as orderlies and the like, so if you suffer 30% casualties among your fire teams then you are looking at around 105 killed and wounded, which would leave you with around 240-250 riflemen left to man your fire teams.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 22, 2016 3:32:31 GMT
Ian, in a light Infantry battalion there are 243 men who could accurately be called riflemen, in that is their only job, rifle trigger pullers. If you suffer 30 percent casualties among those, you are down to 170 riflemen. Assuming a relatively even number of casualties per company and you have reduced your rifle strength from 81 per company, down to 56, and the combat effectiveness of the battalion drops off dramatically.
In a Marine Infantry battalion there are 417 riflemen (primary job). That is 139 per company. If you sustain that same 30 percent casualty rate, you are down to 292 riflemen per battalion and an average of 97 per company. That 97 per company is still 16 riflemen higher than an Army Light Infantry battalion started with. The Marine battalion is still combat effective, while the Army battalion is at best marginal.
See my point
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 22, 2016 13:04:49 GMT
Two things; One, the vehicle needs to get these trigger pullers in and out. It needs to be fast and reliable, it should not be over armed for its mission. As Kenny Rodgers once sang you need to know when to hold them and when to fold them. If you get in too deep, that is when you need to call in support, Air or armor. Number two, speaking of support we need to streamline support personnel functions. We need to be able to do more with less, more functions per person. Under ideal situations, at a state side base I had at most 2 jobs, in the field I had 4. Number 4 was being a trigger puller, and that was USAF. We were cross trained PRIME BEEF and PRIME RIBS teams. Would you believe a primary AFSC cook knows how to perform rapid runway deployment, I still hate those grates. We are getting better with fully integrated forces, but we need to do much better, the proprietary and monetary battles between branches need to become secondary, for the overall betterment of the combined force.
Marines, Army teams, and Navy teams are the most self sufficient and efficient. Ian and the Welsh gentleman should give us the ABC's of the Brit's teams, as they have for a very long time, done more with less.
Regards, Tom
|
|