Stryker Infantry Carrier

[yanmacca]

Jan 22, 2016 3:32:31 GMT quincannon said:

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

Chuck if you compare my post with yours you will see that I am agreeing with you 100%. its just that I take the long route to get my point across, but you seem to say the same using less words.

Yan.

[yanmacca]

Jan 22, 2016 13:04:49 GMT deadwoodgultch said:

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

Tom when you mean the ABCs, just what data do you need, I am a little unclear on what you refer to.

Yan.

[quincannon]

Totally agree about in and out fast and reliable. I would add easy to fix, and all versions having a commonality of spare parts.

There are limits on how much you can streamline. Multiple individual capabilities are OK as long as they don't interfere with primary function. Too much streamlining may very well effect your ability to operate 24 hours a day - thus a danger lies there.

Another danger somewhat the opposite, is trying to stuff ten pounds of crap in a two pound bag. Here is what I mean.

The original design for the Heavy Brigade Combat Team had two maneuver battalions, each containing two tank companies and two mechanized infantry companies, and one engineer company for mobility enhancement. What was found out in practice was the engineer companies were both ineffective and underutilized. There was no engineer headquarters with a senior engineer and staff to plan for the employment of engineers. Big mistake. It has been corrected in the new design, but a close look at that design also reveals other like type areas such as MI and signal. There are times when capability can be pushed too low. We are trying to give BCT's all the capabilities of the division of past years, and making these type mistakes are OK in the process. luckily these organizations have been tested in combat, where the flaws become more apparent.

[deadwoodgultch]

Jan 22, 2016 14:23:30 GMT yanmacca said:

Jan 22, 2016 13:04:49 GMT deadwoodgultch said:

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

Tom when you mean the ABCs, just what data do you need, I am a little unclear on what you refer to.

Yan.

Numbers, combat structure, and general focus. Speak to your striker like units, maybe sappers, and how deployed.

Regards,

Tom 

[deadwoodgultch]

Talk about critical support personnel, I remember hearing about this.

www.historynet.com/tet-circling-the-wagons-in-saigon.htm

[yanmacca]

One series of US vehicles that I have been researching is the group of AFVs based on the chassis of the M24 Chaffee, these include the M19 (Duster) Twin 40mm AA Tank, M37 105mm HMC and M41 155mm HMC (Gorilla).

The plan was to create formations using all of the four AFVs named above and these units were called “Light Combat Teams”, by the looks of it you have a mixture of light tanks (M24), light and medium self-propelled artillery (M37 & M41) and mobile anti-aircraft defence (M19). The formation in my eyes is lacking one component and that is an APC built on the M24 chassis.

This sounds like a good idea as the amount of spares and maintenance would be cut because all of the vehicles are designed using the same chassis and engine.

Now did any of these Light Combat Teams see action or even the light of day? And what year are we talking about here.

Yan.

[quincannon]

We developed an open top personnel carrier based on the M18 TD, and it saw limited use in Korea. Don't know about the later stages of WWII but don't think so. If a personnel carrier cannot offer any protection from small arms and air bursting artillery it is worthless. The M39 would not even put the fear of God into the Brownies (pre-Girl Scouts Ian). It was useless for its designed purpose.

Light combat teams are a new one on me. Sound like a force designers pipe dream.

[yanmacca]

Chuck, I too cannot find jack s*** on the organization of these light combat teams, they must be regimental strength to incorporate medium artillery as I cannot see the US army issuing 105mm and 155mm howitzers to support a company sized light tank unit and a company of mobile infantry. So if these teams existed then we must be looking at a light tank battalion, armoured infantry battalion, artillery battalion containing two or three batteries of 105s and one heavy battery of 155s and a Light AA company, obviously they would have support services too with engineers, medical and supply units.

Here is some data I found online to support the theory that these teams did exists, or were in the planning and never saw action.

Wikipedia

At the same time, the chassis was expected to be a standard used for other vehicles, such as self-propelled guns, and specialist vehicles; known together as the "Light Combat Team".

The Tank Museum


New design of American light tank to replace M3 and M5 light tanks. The suspension is of torsion bar type, steel tanks have rubber surrounds and the transmission is hydromantic type. Basis of a light combat team, the chassis serving as a universal mount for various functions, e.g. self-propelled guns, cargo carriers and recovery vehicles - simplifying maintenance and production.

History of War

The M24 was used as the basis for a number of self-propelled guns, sometimes known as the Light Combat Team. They used a modified M24 chassis with the engine in the middle and the fighting platform at the rear These included the M19 40mm Motor Gun Carriage, M41 155mm Howitzer Motor Carriage and a number of more experimental designs. It was also the basis for the T77 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage and the M37 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage, both of which used a more standard M24 chassis.

Russian web site

It should be noted since 1943 in the United States to implement the program Light Combat Team, whose aim was to create several types of light armored vehicles for different purposes based on the tank chassis M24. Thus, self-propelled anti-aircraft perspective with a gun T22, in the case of successful completion of the project, could add to the list of samples of this family, surviving troops.

The time period we are looking at would be around the end of WW2, as that was when all of these vehicles were in service.

Yan.

[quincannon]

Ian: At the end of WWII the Cavalry came under study as to its future design and employment. As you know cavalry squadrons were very lightly equipped in WWII. This, from the sound of it, looks like it might be a cavalry improvement program. the whole thing became moot in 1949 when the cavalry as a branch was eliminated. The Armored Cavalry Regiments that eventually came from that study were much heavier in construct.

The other possibility is a study generated from Johns Hopkins University in 1952, calling for combined arms maneuver battalions of two Infantry, and one tank company, along with a howitzer battery. 1952 is a little late for development of the M24, for by then the M41, its replacement was in production. I have never been able to get my hands on that study. Back in the day not even the Pentagon library had a copy, so I just don't know what they proposed beyond the basic organization.

This though does not sound like post war Army mainstream thinking. Don't suppose there is a US source document that outlines this is there. Sometimes things get lost in translation, applying names and concepts that were not intended.

Let me check Gavin's immediate post war book. It contained a lot of post war screwy ideas that we finally incorporated and made routine for fast deployment forces fifty years later. I will let you know.

[yanmacca]

That would be nice Chuck, as I can find nothing only;

A desire to produce a standard chassis as a basis of what was known as the “Light Combat Team” – a complete series of tanks, SP guns and special purpose tanks.

Yan.