Today's US Army (or any Army really) - Musings & Questions

[Hellraiser]

Ok, so I've been out for so long today's Army doesn't look like what I knew in it's organization, but I had a thought & I'm wondering something.

Since I left they created Stryker units all to themselves, & went w/ a heavier mix of Infantry v/s Armor from what I knew in the Non-Stryker units.

IIRC this has to do w/ deployment speed & how/where the units get used.

My question is.

Do they ever mix Strykers an Abrams?   (I don't think they do)  But if there is, I'd like to know.

For those w/ more up to date knowledge... Do you see an issue with mixing the 2?

This could be applied to any nation really,  but I'm wondering about mixing these "Wheeled" chassis w/ traditional "Tracked/Tanks".

Is there a downside "tactically"?  (outside of how you ship them)

I'm wondering about mixing up the dynamic of Abrams+Bradley  or  Stryker+MGS?  into something that mixes Abrams+Stryker.

[Prospernia]

I believe Strykers were intended to be part of a light-strike force, and M1 Abrams were too heavy to be deployed along with them.

I used Strykers in Steel-Panthers: MBT against a Yemen rebel-group in an Computer vs. Computer match-up. I even gave the Americans lots of drones and opportunity for intel.  The rebels had 85mm ATGs and that pretty much stopped the  Strykers in their tracks.

[Hellraiser]

The rebels had 85mm ATGs and that pretty much stopped the  Strykers in their tracks.

I can see that,  but,  wouldn't that also wreck a Bradley as well?

[worktroll]

Wasn't the whole point of the Bradley to be an IFV which could keep up with the MBTs? Whereas wheeled vehicles had more constraints on cross-country speed?

[Daryk]

You might be interested in F16's latest Fringe thread: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=85133.0

And the Battle Order channel has several videos on various militaries: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwb1pjLd3hpKBzCwOOIV3RiYCikV5EMRP

[Hellraiser]

Wasn't the whole point of the Bradley to be an IFV which could keep up with the MBTs? Whereas wheeled vehicles had more constraints on cross-country speed?

Yes.
Though IIRC, at the time they didn't use Wheeled Vehicles in that role at all, it was the M-113.  But yes, they needed Faster & specifically, More Armored.

The Stryker was designed to operate alone w/o tanks at all.  AFAIK.

I'm just wondering if anyone out there knows of them using that sort of combo.

[Hellraiser]

You might be interested in F16's latest Fringe thread: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=85133.0

And the Battle Order channel has several videos on various militaries: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwb1pjLd3hpKBzCwOOIV3RiYCikV5EMRP

Thanks Daryk,  I got some stuff to read/watch when I have time :)

[The Brant]

Does this Stryker brigade combat team table of organization help? Otherwise I can forward you the Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 3-21.21 which provides doctrinal framework for techniques for the Stryker brigade combat team (SBCT) Infantry battalion. Don't worry it's approved for public release with unlimited distribution.

[Daryk]

You're more than welcome Hellraiser!  I've been following both for some time now... ;)

[Gorgon]

AFAIK the French army has completely switched to wheeled chassis for most combat vehicles, safe MBTs of course, engineering vehicles and some Cold War SPA, although their current SPA are wheeled, too. So that may be something to look into.

[Hellraiser]

Does this Stryker brigade combat team table of organization help? 

Thank you I had this as part of my initial research actually :)

It and the Light Infantry & Combined Arms (Armor/MekInfantry) tables that the US uses is a large part of what got my mind thinking about this whole thing.

The US doesn't mix the way I'm imaging but I'm not sure if other countries do.  I know why the US doesn't but the US is a nation (Military) where deployment across the planet is very often.

I'm now wondering about smaller nations & does anyone mix Wheeled APC/IFV next to MBTs

[Hellraiser]

AFAIK the French army has completely switched to wheeled chassis for most combat vehicles, safe MBTs of course, engineering vehicles and some Cold War SPA, although their current SPA are wheeled, too. So that may be something to look into.

I've only seen 1 video that I had time to watch that Daryk linked earlier, coincidently, it was the French one.
Their Jaguar is pretty cool.

[Daryk]

Make sure you're not drinking anything when you watch the shenanigans the global south are up to... ;)

[Prospernia]

Strykers come in all sorts of different configurations; yeah, a replacement for the M113 is accurate.

French military-vehicles are nice, but they're too light and against Soviet-era vehicles they get slaughtered.  The AMX is very mobile, but one hit from any thing knocks it out, so I can't get behind enemy-lines and wreck their artillery and air-defense batteries; or even hunt down their command & control units.

I can see that,  but,  wouldn't that also wreck a Bradley as well?

Never tried; I should think the Bradley has a little-bit better survival-chance considering it has more armor.

[Hellraiser]

I now have a tangential question  (another mixing units thing)

As I research Brigade Combat Teams & Field Artillery Battalions...

It appears we use mixes of 105/155 Towed (Infantry),   155 Towed (Stryker),   155 (SP-Paladins)  (Armor/Mechanized).

Do we ever mix Towed & Paladins in a FAB?

Was Charlie 6 was our resident Arti expert?

[Daryk]

I can only answer the last question: Charlie 6 is indeed our resident artillery expert! :)

[chanman]

You might be interested in F16's latest Fringe thread: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=85133.0

And the Battle Order channel has several videos on various militaries: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwb1pjLd3hpKBzCwOOIV3RiYCikV5EMRP

We also discussed a lot of force composition and unit stuff in ANS Kamas P81's fictional country threads
Part 1: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=71112.0
Part 2: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=80729.0

[chanman]

Ok, so I've been out for so long today's Army doesn't look like what I knew in it's organization, but I had a thought & I'm wondering something.

Since I left they created Stryker units all to themselves, & went w/ a heavier mix of Infantry v/s Armor from what I knew in the Non-Stryker units.

IIRC this has to do w/ deployment speed & how/where the units get used.

My question is.

Do they ever mix Strykers an Abrams?   (I don't think they do)  But if there is, I'd like to know.

For those w/ more up to date knowledge... Do you see an issue with mixing the 2?

This could be applied to any nation really,  but I'm wondering about mixing these "Wheeled" chassis w/ traditional "Tracked/Tanks".

Is there a downside "tactically"?  (outside of how you ship them)

I'm wondering about mixing up the dynamic of Abrams+Bradley  or  Stryker+MGS?  into something that mixes Abrams+Stryker.

Many countries operate without tracked IFVs, so only have MBT/wheeled IFVs. Canada, for instance, operates a handful of Leopard 2s and a lot of LAV III/VI (think Stryker with a LAV-25 turret on it).

I think it's generally a question of doctrine. For example, the French seem to operate combined-arms/mixed composition units down to the company/platoon levels, making them downright Com Guard Level II/IIIs, especially in cavalry formations.

[Hellraiser]

Thanks Chanman.


The US Military operates in a way that frankly no other military in the world does.
They are "OVERLY" deployable.
Stuff like the Strykers are designed to fast deploy (Like the Light Infantry BCTs) but have a bit more mobility/firepower once they get there.

It's an odd "need" if one is looking at things from a smaller nation's perspective.

I get why they do it & I get why the Bradleys are still w/ the Abrams in the Heavy/Mechanized BCTs

But w/ all that is going on in the Ukraine in the news combined w/ the way we often talk about logistics of merc units in the BT game, or "how to make a militia", well, my mind wandered to the idea of "Streamlining" a Military for something that a smaller nation would need.

Call it Ukraine, or call it Chechia/Paraguay for something w/ no Sea to need a Navy,  or call it the Peoples Independent Republic of Arizona (to use my home state & make this fictional if people don't like using a real map, call them the ZDF, Zoner Defense Force).

I'm more just wondering about positives/negatives of mixing Tracked/Wheeled if your NOT looking to be deployable & have a network of roads to use but would still have to go off road in combat ops.

Then I started looking at Fire Support, and saw how we have basically 3 different Artillery & 3 different mortars for ammunition types.
And I was like, hmm, could that be dropped from 3+3 down to say 2+1 w/o a major loss of ability?  IDK, I got lost down the wiki rabbit whole researching but was curious about a few of them.

Like does the 105mm Arti & the 60mm Mortar provide you anything really other than both are "lighter" for transport/carry so they are easier to "move".
But is that really needed if this small nation isn't trying to travel half way around the world?

Could you get away with 155mm + GMLRS + 81mm Mortars?

Thanks for mentioning the Canadians & French.
I had found about the Canadians while researching Lav-II v/s Stryker......... or as I called it...... Amphibious v/s REAL Gun Turret v/s Infantry Capacity, and was looking around at various countries.
Then I saw the French from the first of the Videos that Daryk linked.

I found the Spanish "Mortar on a Humvee" IIRC Dual-Epias, or something spelled like that.
Seemed cool, no armor on a jeep obviously, but small & fast so great for maneuvering.

I also saw some sort of towed/fold out of a Ford truckbed type of Mortar that Ukraine was looking into.
Again, crap for armor, but got to be plenty fast I'm thinking.

I see the Stryker Mortar Carrier has a mortar mounted internal & another dismounted but they are different sizes, so I was like, for logistics, wouldn't it make sense to have them be the same mortar?

Anyway Thanks again for pointing out that there are countries that do mix Wheeled/Tracked chassis directly.
I figured there had to be someone out there that was "mixing" them, but as I searched a lot of bigger countries did use tracked IFVs while many smaller just didn't have a big enough tank force to "mix" them really.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Japan mixes stuff too, Type 96 APCs and Type 16 MCVs alongside Type 73 APCs, Type 89 IFVs, and Type 90/Type 10 tanks.

[Garrand]

The reason why you might not want to dump out 61mm mortars & 105mm cannons is exactly for transportability. 61mm mortars can be humped by light infantry squads, & 105mm cannons can be airlifted by even more modest helicopters. The latter becomes really important when dealing with terrain. When dealing with a country like Paraguay, FREX, or like Bolivia (even better example), when part of the land you need to defend incorporates the Andes mountain ranges, having an artillery piece that can be heli-slung in is a big advantage, & your country might not be able to afford or support rotary wing aircraft big enough, or powerful enough, to sling 155mm howitzers. Yet having bigger 155mm cannons might still be useful in areas where you CAN deploy them.

Having lived in Ecuador, the mountains were never very far away. I have never seen terrain like that in the US, where the land is heavily folded. There's no way you're going to tow larger artillery pieces in some of these places, just as an example, so having smaller equipment that can be easier to move might be of critical strategic importance.

Damon.

[Daryk]

Check Google Earth for parts of the Rockies, Cascades, or any range in Alaska... ;)

[Hellraiser]

When dealing with a country like Paraguay, FREX, or like Bolivia (even better example), when part of the land you need to defend incorporates the Andes mountain ranges,

Check Google Earth for parts of the Rockies, Cascades, or any range in Alaska... ;)

Excellent points.

I mentioned Paraguay just because it was land locked, but, actual restricted terrain is a major thing.

Daryk, yes, very true, hence why I started wondering about a smaller nation/state type thing.

Land Locked so no need for Navy.
Non-Deployable so no need for "Light" v/s "Heavy" in terms of deploying.

But yes, regardless of the size, if it is a mountain range there will be major issues.

I really hadn't thought about it since there was no specific country, it's not a real world thing, more just a thought triggered by both watching the news & reading BT threads that got my mind wandering to "what ifs?"


Speaking of sling loading Howitzers..... and Helo availability....... I had a further what if.......

What Helos do you use based on the size/availability of your helo force?

0-"Helo Frame Force" = I don't know, a Castle Guard?  Literally no need for a Helo
1-"HFF" =  Say the Mayor of a City needing to outfit Cops, National Guard, Search & Rescue, Fire/Medical, etc etc, along w/ local Military unit.
2-"HFF" =  State sized Military
3-5"HFF" = Medium Sized Nation
6+ "HFF" = USA


So if I got 1 helo I can't imagine NOT choosing a U-Series model for all around "Utility".   IE - Blackhawk

If on the other hand you have funding for 2 different frames, then an Attack & a Cargo seem like solid options.   IE - Apache + Chinook

3-5?   Adding a Scout/Recon chopper & adding a Utility back in are obvious choices.  Finally, maybe a super-cargo like the "Sky Crane" or something wonky like the Osprey.

6+ - Whatever you want, sky is the limit

[Cannonshop]

Excellent points.

I mentioned Paraguay just because it was land locked, but, actual restricted terrain is a major thing.

Daryk, yes, very true, hence why I started wondering about a smaller nation/state type thing.

Land Locked so no need for Navy.
Non-Deployable so no need for "Light" v/s "Heavy" in terms of deploying.

But yes, regardless of the size, if it is a mountain range there will be major issues.

I really hadn't thought about it since there was no specific country, it's not a real world thing, more just a thought triggered by both watching the news & reading BT threads that got my mind wandering to "what ifs?"


Speaking of sling loading Howitzers..... and Helo availability....... I had a further what if.......

What Helos do you use based on the size/availability of your helo force?

0-"Helo Frame Force" = I don't know, a Castle Guard?  Literally no need for a Helo
1-"HFF" =  Say the Mayor of a City needing to outfit Cops, National Guard, Search & Rescue, Fire/Medical, etc etc, along w/ local Military unit.
2-"HFF" =  State sized Military
3-5"HFF" = Medium Sized Nation
6+ "HFF" = USA


So if I got 1 helo I can't imagine NOT choosing a U-Series model for all around "Utility".   IE - Blackhawk

If on the other hand you have funding for 2 different frames, then an Attack & a Cargo seem like solid options.   IE - Apache + Chinook

3-5?   Adding a Scout/Recon chopper & adding a Utility back in are obvious choices.  Finally, maybe a super-cargo like the "Sky Crane" or something wonky like the Osprey.

6+ - Whatever you want, sky is the limit

1. OH-6 or OH-58.  Police roles need some utility, but the biggest job is surveillance and quick response, the '58 maybe because you can also use it as a lifeflight.

2. 'State sized' would cover a LOT of roles, I mean national guards being national guards, you're going to need everything from observation aircraft to heavy lift, and some combat capability.  UH-1 or UH-60 for your most common 'baseline' aircraft with an observer bird for every three or four seems reasonable.

past that it's more a matter of budgets and needs than anything else.  You're more likely to need dedicated attack designs at level 4 or 5 than at Level 3, and kinky things like tiltrotors are more sensible for equipping nations whose defense budgets have lots of room for mistakes like the U.S.A.

[Hellraiser]

1. OH-6 or OH-58.

2. 'State sized' would cover a LOT of roles, I mean national guards being national guards, you're going to need everything from observation aircraft to heavy lift, and some combat capability.  UH-1 or UH-60 for your most common 'baseline' aircraft with an observer bird for every three or four seems reasonable.

past that it's more a matter of budgets and needs than anything else.  You're more likely to need dedicated attack designs at level 4 or 5 than at Level 3, and kinky things like tiltrotors are more sensible for equipping nations whose defense budgets have lots of room for mistakes like the U.S.A.

1.  Love them both, but didn't pick since I couldn't decide.

2.  I was really unsure about going w/ a Gunship as early as I did.  Armed Utility really does get a LOT of stuff done.  Your right it could be further down.

3.  Ditto the Tiltrotor.  I was trying to avoid taking 2 of something before grabbing a new category.  But your right, its an extravagance.

4.  What do you think would be better for a "Small Country (State Sized)" as a 2nd option after the Blackhawk?   Recon v/s Cargo?
  Primary purpose is Military but, use by civilians too is a plus.

[Colt Ward]

I now have a tangential question  (another mixing units thing)

As I research Brigade Combat Teams & Field Artillery Battalions...

It appears we use mixes of 105/155 Towed (Infantry),   155 Towed (Stryker),   155 (SP-Paladins)  (Armor/Mechanized).

Do we ever mix Towed & Paladins in a FAB?

Was Charlie 6 was our resident Arti expert?

You mix systems at for Fire Brigades, not Battalions.

[Colt Ward]

Check Google Earth for parts of the Rockies, Cascades, or any range in Alaska... ;)

Having been in the Rockies & Cascades and driven the Pan-American highway in Ecuador . . . no, they do not match the Andes around Quito.

[Hellraiser]

You mix systems at for Fire Brigades, not Battalions.

Ah, Gracias.

I started out w/ the 3 Line BCTs & have only just started reading up on the "special" ones.
Hadn't gotten to that yet.

The Infantry BCT does mix 105/155 at the Battalion level, but that is the only one, and not what I was curious about which was mixing the 155's together.

[chanman]

Ah, Gracias.

I started out w/ the 3 Line BCTs & have only just started reading up on the "special" ones.
Hadn't gotten to that yet.

The Infantry BCT does mix 105/155 at the Battalion level, but that is the only one, and not what I was curious about which was mixing the 155's together.

At some point, it also depends on whether your force is actually buying enough systems to fill out the org chart. For example, I don't think the Aussies have ever had self-propelled guns (possibly WW2?), and Canada no longer does. Specialized assets like that might be held at the division level and attached to brigades on an as-needed basis.

The https://www.youtube.com/@BattleOrder channel has some artillery-specific videos. Where available, it does seem like medium-calibre stuff like 122mm SPGs and 120mm gun-mortars are what smaller units get as organic fire support.

[Ice Hellion]

For example, the French seem to operate combined-arms/mixed composition units down to the company/platoon levels, making them downright Com Guard Level II/IIIs, especially in cavalry formations.

Nowadays, the French Army uses GTIA or Combined Arms Tactical Groups (battalion) and SGTIA or Combined Arms Tactical Subgroups (company), each made around a HQ element, 4 combat elements (companies for the GTIA and platoons for the SGTIA) with engineering support and specific support detachments as needed.
The 4 combat elements are according to the textbook 3-1 (3 tanks and 1 Infantry or the other way around).

I read they did it at the platoon level too but I couldn't track the reference.