Is the US Armored Forces' future being jeopardized???

Question

US Army vehicle philosophy in recent years seems to be shifting from heavily armoured vehicles like the M1 tanks to woefully underarmoured vehicles like the Stryker 8x8 series and soon the Future Combat Systems manned vehicles. Both systems are supposed to rely on speed and surprise rather than armour (of which they have little) to survive, yet events in Iraq and elsewhere prove the exact opposite, that there will still be a need for heavy armour. Yet the US Army (or rather the Defense Department) seems to be pressing on with ordering more Strykers (without any improvement other than the less-than-effective slat screens), and in all likelihood the current plans for the FCS manned vehicles (which are incapable of surviving their own 105mm cannons) will be frozen as they are.

Is the shift away from heavy armour a good thing...or will we just be seeing more bodybags in future conflicts as a result of this change in vehicle philosophy?

To StaffSergeant C...I know the supposed advantage of being faster and more agile. Speed factors well in open terrain combat, but remember that many people predict the next wars will likely be urban/jungle-type battlefields. In these battles you can't dodge what you can't see...namely IEDs and close-in RPG strikes...and in cities and forests there is little room for dodging, even for vehicles like the Stryker. Thus you can say that you're likely gonna get hit even more in urban/forest battlefields than in your traditional desert field battles...with the kind of armour they put in the Strykers and the FCS...well I wouldnt wanna be the poor guys driving those vehicles (like Jeepdriver's son).

To gregory_dittman, yeah I heard about the Trophy system. Its supposed to be a sort of CIWS system for tanks. And yeah it sucks that these bastards in the Department of Defense are bogged in big business rather than giving the best for the Yank troopers.

Answer 1

We have the most powerful tank in the world. Even shells from other Abrahms just bounce off the armor. At this point, we have no need to develop new tanks. Adding more armor is not just pointless at this time, but actually detremental to the vehicals effectiveness. More armor means more weight, more fuel, more money, and slower response time, all with no added protection. Currently we don't have the ability to further our heavy armor. The Stykers are very underarmored, and they should not be used as a replacement to the M1. Think of them more like paratroopers compared to infantry. They are meant to be a quick penetrating force, but it is not meant to sustain heavy combat for extended periods of time. If we are moving away from heavy armor, that is a mistake. But currently, upgrading our armor serves no purpose and adding more Styker brigades is not a bad idea.

Heavy armor is still necessary, but we don't need it as much as when the US' top concern was stopping the Soviets from taking the Rhein. There won't be any massive armor on armor battles in the near future and the US is trying to move towards a more agile, reactionary force. Armor is still necessary, just not as much as it was in years past.

Answer 2

The stryker is being pushed by rummy that dummy. there is no advantage to speed in war it has been proven time and time again. The battlecruisers big thing was speed is armor the battle of Jutland buried that bunk along with 4,000+ men. Sherman's taking on tigers, the Sherman's always turned in high casualties for it's crews despite it's higher speed and agility. The stryker can be salvaged by adding explosive armor to defeat rpg's. However this defeats the strykers reason for being a light weight stand in for the bradley as it will gain almost as much weight as a bradley. As for the fcs it's more proto-type than weapon it's own gun reeks havoc on it's computer system due to recoil effects. I don't expect this vehicle to hit the streets of Baghdad soon. What is needed a true APC for our troops not these stupid half breed vehicles.

Answer 3

The new advancement might be a thing (called Trophy) the Israelis have invented (although not put into major service) is an anti-RPG system that mounts on APCs and Tanks. It's a 360 degree sensing gun that will spot and kill a RPG round before it hits. The U.S. test was 30 for 30 hits against the RPG round so it works. Unfortunately it's bogged down in a U.S. military committee because an American firm might come out with one five or six years down the road at a much higher cost (Trophy costs $300,000-$400,000 each and the American company is already over budget on many of their projects) with probably a lower kill rate (you can't get better with a 100% kill rate).

This might be political revenge when the U.S. accused the Israeli military of misusing the Patriot missile batteries to achieve less than optimum results against the Scud attacks in order to give a better track record for their own anti-missile system that they are selling around the world. That's right, the U.S. is accusing the Isrealis of allowing Scuds to hit thier cities in orther to sell a military system. Some of the accusations include everything from not manning the anti-missle batteries to using the manual override system so they could play it like a video game and then complain the Patriot missle system was failing.

Answer 4

The problem with heavy armour is that it comes with a heavy price in aquisition dollars, maintenance costs, and logistics. At the same time, every development in manufacturing superior armour to defeat the anti armour weapons of the enemy is met with equal developments by the enemy in anti armour weaponry. Of course we must continue to develop heavier and more effective armour because the enemy will continue to develop more effective anti armour weapons and we must have a viable heavy armour force.

However, armour has it's limitations. It's large and heavy which makes it difficult to take to a combat theater quickly. This was learned by a very embarrassed US Army in the first Gulf War when the European armoured forces were moved to Saudi but the men were there for quite a long time without their armoured vehicles because the logistics of moving the vehicles was more than the system could handle while also moving all of the other units and materiel into the theater.

The US Marines had their tanks in country though. They had pioneered the Roll On Roll Off (RORO) Logistics "squadron" of prepositioned maritime shipping. I believe there were 3 squadrons and 2 were deployed while a third was in port being refitted at any given time. The Army has since taken over the prepositioning system so that they will have their materiel available as the Marines did in GW 1.

Back to the armour question though.

No matter how good the armour is, the enemy will devise ways to defeat it. No matter how fast, hard, or powerful the armour is, you still need infantry on the ground to support them and to actually take and occupy the ground taken by the armour.

Light armoured vehicles rely on their speed and agility while providing light armour to protect the occupants from small arms fire. In light armoured vehicles the infantry can be moved faster and safer across potentially hostile ground. While more armour would provide more protection from heavier weapons, it would also slow down the vehicle as well as decrease its range and agility. It is a tradeoff which is a difficult decision to make as to how much weight you give one factor or another.

There will, for the near future, be a place for heavy armour on the ground. Taking well defended ground, holding areas under heavy pressure from the enemy, etc. However, todays highly mobile battlefield with multiple envelopment techniques calls for a much faster, more mobile, and very responsive infantry unit.

The light armour vehicles are here for some time to come but heavy armour is not yet threatened. They will be, when enemy technology makes them ineffective weapons systems as our technology has already done to the enemy's heavy armour with our Apache helicopters, Maverick missiles, and such. Woe be to the enemy armour crew of any force opposing ours. On the bright side, they are unlikely to even know what happened to put them standing at the pearly gates....or more likely, satans doorstep.

Answer 5

My son just got back from striker training and yes, they are fast but, they are also armoured. They DO need MORE armour, I agree! I think the D.O.D. is using them as more of a scare tactic than anything else. If they see we can get many troops to a place on land, really fast and in great numbers, it would make them think twice??!! I sure wish that they were very well armoured to protect our troups and my son!

Answer 6

Three 155 mm artillery shells taped together and fired by long distant triggers can do a job on anything, fast, slow, armored or model T Ford.

Any solution we have to work at is something that will set off the bomb a long distant ahead of the vehicle, then our quickie cars can get around to do their job.

Answer 7

We need a light fast replacement for the M-113 , a 40 yr old design.
The Marines have the LAV-7 and have gotten excellent use out of it .