Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
82nd Airborne adds Light Armor
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Pruitt View PostWill it fit into a C-130? That was an issue with the Stryker.
Pruitt
I'm not sure why a LAV is air-droppable while a Stryker is not, but that is supposed to be the reasoning behind the choice. It may be something as simple as the necessary testing has already been completed. The 82nd had a few LAVs, in the scout platoon of 3-73 AR, around 1990-91, they went to Desert Storm with them. They were already certified for air drop.
Comment
-
The Stryker is heavier (18 to 20 tons), which may have been a factor. The Buford before also had issues getting inside a C-130. The finals strikes against the Buford was the issue of adding on extra armor after landing and I believe there was an issue with a rangefinder on top of the turret. If the vehicle is taller than the roof of the cargo bay, you can't get it in. I am pretty sure the LAV (12 to 14 tons) fits in a C-130, as I have seen pictures of it in a C-130.
You could compare it to the C-17 carrying 2 M-1 Abrams. There is lots of space left over but the weight is high. I guess we will continue to see pre-positioned Brigade parks for a while. I would expect all these Armor types to go by ship. The days of hauling Sheridans by air and unloading them behind closed hangar doors in Panama were too good to last.
I wonder if both STRYKER and LAV can be sled mounted to land on airfields?
PruittPruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06
Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?
by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"
Comment
-
This is needed. So is a squad vehicle. It looks like a squad vehicle is going to become reality, albeit slowly:
http://soldiersystems.net/2018/09/25...squad-vehicle/
The Russian airborne has been motorized for a long time. In addition to a battalion of LAVs, there is no reason why the US can't afford to equip every rifle squad in the 82nd with a squad vehicle. They can be left behind if the mission is in closed terrain. If the mission is in more open terrain the vehicles will be worth their weight in gold to a light fighting force.
The SAS figured this out in WWII and other Special Operations Forces have since followed suit and operate with light vehicles when it is advantageous to do so. And yet SOF still maintains dismounted skills. Am I to believe that airborne infantry can't do this?
However, there is still the crowd that will say that light vehicles will automatically mean a dismounted capability loss. Horsecrap. Or that at least that light vehicles will be a liability because they can be easily destroyed. More easily destroyed than a dismounted force weighed down with "one hundred pounds of lightweight equipment?"
I find the idea that just because an airborne force is motorized that it will automatically lack dismount skills, or that it will somehow be more vulnerable to a heavy force than it already is to be absurd.Last edited by KRJ; 10 Nov 18, 01:28."Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan
Comment
-
I recall something I have read about Mechanized Infantry, "Death Before Dismount!". Some of these guys really like riding instead of walking.
PruittPruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06
Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?
by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pruitt View PostI recall something I have read about Mechanized Infantry, "Death Before Dismount!". Some of these guys really like riding instead of walking.
Pruitt
But it all comes down to leadership. Look at Bedford Forrest. He once (at least once) told his horse holders to tie the horses to a tree and get on the skirmish line because if the line didn't hold they wouldn't need the horses anyway. That's just one example. There are many examples of effective mounted infantry forces.
I might add, and maybe I'm kidding myself here but I'm a former paratrooper and we've been known to kid ourselves, that an airborne force starts with a different tactical outlook and orientation. Jumping in and linking up with a light squad vehicle that has been heavy dropped is a bit different than crossing the line of departure as part of an armored task force in battle formation. It sort of goes back to the LGOP thing: little groups of paratroopers. I stand by my belief that if modern SOF can effectively use light vehicles on the modern battlefield then so can airborne infantry."Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pruitt View PostAren't SOF personnel a bit older than the usual Airborne Trooper?
Pruitt
Leadership, leadership, and leadership. Did I mention leadership?"Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Read BG(R) Huba Was de Czege's articles about three kinds of infantry, published in Infantry ("3 Kinds of Infantry," Jul-Aug 1985, and "More on Infantry," Sep-Oct 1986).
A squad carrier is an idea that is desperately needed in the current US Army IBCTs, which are an overly lightened form of line infantry that end up doing neither role well by trying to be a bastardized form of both light and line infantry.
Googling those two articles will bring up a large number of studies and papers about the issues with light infantry and with mech infantry, most from the mid/late-80s when the US fielded Bradley and lost its line infantry.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pruitt View PostI recall something I have read about Mechanized Infantry, "Death Before Dismount!". Some of these guys really like riding instead of walking.
Pruitt
I know I was..."Why is the Rum gone?"
-Captain Jack
Comment
-
I read both of the articles noted by 82nd Redleg. I think I had photocopies put away somewhere. Was it in Infantry?
PruittPruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06
Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?
by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"
Comment
-
Ok, we have light "armor" for the paratroopers, but this begs the question; do we really need paratroopers this day and age? I would argue that they are an obsolete anachronism with no useful role except some special tasks (like taking airfields, but isn't that the Rangers' mission). We have some five brigades of paratroopers. Why? Modern AAA, SAMs, and MANPADs and helicopters have made mass aerial jumps unnecessary. It seems to me they are kept around for the KEWLness factor alone. I think we should keep the 173rd Airborne Brigade (but in the U.S. not Italy), maybe one battalion in the Pacific, perhaps convert one to another regiment of Rangers (which are of more use), and the others to air assault.
I also think we can get rid of divisions. I would go to six or so corps with five maneuver brigades, an aviation brigade, two field artillery brigades, plus supporting units. The remaining aviation would be assigned to brigade aviation battalions.
Tuebor
Comment
HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II
ACG Gaming
ACG Network
Latest Topics
Collapse
-
by Massenahttps://www.cnn.com/2019/12/06/polit...ntv/index.html
Two former Republican lawmakers urged their...-
Channel: North America
Today, 07:48 -
Comment