Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[daftandbarmy]

I'm going to betray my ignorance here, but the one thing I've always heard/read is that armour is for taking opposed ground, infantry for holding it.

As the Ukrainians and Russians are rediscovering to their extreme cost it's an all arms fight, most of the time, if you want to win.

 

[KevinB]

I'm going to betray my ignorance here, but the one thing I've always heard/read is that armour is for taking opposed ground, infantry for holding it.

Granted- A Stryker/ LAV Bde is not what you want for mounted maneuver warfare in a peer fight, but is that fully the same thing as not good for anything but OOTW? It's never going to be the hammer, but that infantry mass coupled with pretty good tactical and operational mobility, properly resourced with artillery and combat support (disproportion amount of heavy weapons enabled vice light infantry) seems like it would give you a pretty potent defensive / deterrent formation to be used as a mobile anvil.

I’m not saying that the Stryker are only useful in OOTW. They can use their road mobility for a lot of tasks moving personnel during Peer/Near Peer Conflict, but they aren’t the hammer or anvil, they are more a mobility asset for that. So can they exploit on a breach? I would say that depends on what the size of the breach is, the terrain and the enemy forces behind the breach.
So in some cases they definitely won’t be the tip of the spear, but maybe part of the shaft.
So a Stryker Bde in an Armor Division, isn’t necessary a terrible thing, as the 3 Armor Bde’s can do the heavy lifting. While the Stryker forces can do either rear area security or once a hole is punched exploited past in to enemy areas of viable.
My main point above was that you really can’t do that at Bde level, as you generally only have 3 maneuver units.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I’m not saying that the Stryker are only useful in OOTW. They can use their road mobility for a lot of tasks moving personnel during Peer/Near Peer Conflict, but they aren’t the hammer or anvil, they are more a mobility asset for that. So can they exploit on a breach? I would say that depends on what the size of the breach is, the terrain and the enemy forces behind the breach.
So in some cases they definitely won’t be the tip of the spear, but maybe part of the shaft.
So a Stryker Bde in an Armor Division, isn’t necessary a terrible thing, as the 3 Armor Bde’s can do the heavy lifting. While the Stryker forces can do either rear area security or once a hole is punched exploited past in to enemy areas of viable.
My main point above was that you really can’t do that at Bde level, as you generally only have 3 maneuver units.

So, IOW, about as useful as mounted cavalry 1914-18?

 

[FJAG]

So, IOW, about as useful as mounted cavalry 1914-18?

I think of Strykers in the sense of the original role of dragoons. Ride into battle and then dismount into skirmish lines with your carbines. Effectively they are mounted infantry.

The Stryker allows rapid and protected travel but the intent when first formed was always that the infantry would dismount and operate as regular light infantry for the fight.

Dragoon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KevinB]

I think of Strykers in the sense of the original role of dragoons. Ride into battle and then dismount into skirmish lines with your carbines. Effectively they are mounted infantry.

The Stryker allows rapid and protected travel but the intent when first formed was always that the infantry would dismount and operate as regular light infantry for the fight.

Pedantic point - I would not say as regular light infantry - but as Infantry -- the motorized nature allows them to bring many assets to bear that true LI cannot.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I think of Strykers in the sense of the original role of dragoons. Ride into battle and then dismount into skirmish lines with your carbines. Effectively they are mounted infantry.

The Stryker allows rapid and protected travel but the intent when first formed was always that the infantry would dismount and operate as regular light infantry for the fight.

But with vehicle mounted support weapons integral to the coy and Bn, some LOS, some NLOS, that light infantry can't field either at all or in the same numbers.

 

[KevinB]

I think it's important to realize that there are really three types of Infantry today:

Mechanized "Heavy" Infantry: Primary fighting the vehicle to the objective as part of a combined arms force with tanks. Dismounting on the objective - but effectively tied to their vehicle.

Motorized "Medium" Infantry: Primary Fighting dismounted but with vehicle support. One could make an argument that there are even two types of Motorized Infantry, as a LAV 6.0 for instance can support the fight significantly better than some sort of Armored Car, or an older APC like the M113.

Light Infantry: What you carry is what you got, these can be Airborne, AirMobile, Mountain etc type forces that realistically live out of their rucksack.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think it's important to realize that there are really three types of Infantry today:

Mechanized "Heavy" Infantry: Primary fighting the vehicle to the objective as part of a combined arms force with tanks. Dismounting on the objective - but effectively tied to their vehicle.

Motorized "Medium" Infantry: Primary Fighting dismounted but with vehicle support. One could make an argument that there are even two types of Motorized Infantry, as a LAV 6.0 for instance can support the fight significantly better than some sort of Armored Car, or an older APC like the M113.

Light Infantry: What you carry is what you got, these can be Airborne, AirMobile, Mountain etc type forces that realistically live out of their rucksack.

What about ‘inclusive’ Infantry?

If you want your budget to pass this government’s scrutiny you’d better throw in an option like that

 

[KevinB]

What about ‘inclusive’ Infantry?

If you want your budget to pass this government’s scrutiny you’d better throw in an option like that

Infantry are very inclusive, they hate everyone

 

[daftandbarmy]

Infantry are very inclusive, they hate everyone equally

There, FTFY

 

[FJAG]

Pedantic point - I would not say as regular light infantry - but as Infantry -- the motorized nature allows them to bring many assets to bear that true LI cannot.

But with vehicle mounted support weapons integral to the coy and Bn, some LOS, some NLOS, that light infantry can't field either at all or in the same numbers.

Like you say, for the US, infantry comes in three flavours: Bradley borne; Stryker borne and light. They're all infantry but on the scale of things, dismounted Stryker infantry is more akin to light infantry because of the absence of the tanks and heavy Bradleys. The MGS has been withdrawn to the SBCT's Cavalry squadron.

Stryker infantry have the support of their vehicles if that is practical. Depending on the nature of the fight, the Strykers may have to withdraw if there is significant anti-armour resistance.

Even light infantry is not totally unsupported. They have mortars and a mounted weapons company with a variety of weapons from 7.62 mm, .50s, 40mm grenade launchers, Javelins, and TOW using an armoured version of the HMMWV.

Strykers originally came only with remote weapon stations with a 7.62, .50, or 40mm grenade launcher like what is available in the light battalion's weapons company.

The addition of 30mm turrets are only a partial retrofit having started with armoured cavalry. To the best of my knowledge only 174 (originally 91 in roughly 2016 then another 83 in 2021) of the 4,000 some odd Strykers have the 30mm turret. I'm not sure if all of those have actually been delivered or whether more have been ordered. (There's nothing new in the open literature)

There continue to be modifications being made to the Strykers, but in general the Stryker is more a battlefield taxi, akin to a better armoured, wheeled version of the M113 TLAV than the LAV 6.0 and is very far removed from the Bradley.

 

[KevinB]

@FJAG agree to a point, but the Stryker troops still have a vehicle, so they aren’t planning on humping a rucksack, a day pack is about the extent of that dismount load.

The 82nd is effectively foot borne after a jump until an airfield is seized and some of the support vehicles can be moved in. Yes some vehicles and support weapons do get jumped in (and it’s Arty) but the Infantry fight is planned out of one’s rucksack — same with the Airmobile once they disembark the Bird.
I don’t see things like the ISV or GMV’s changing that calculus much other than for log moves.

AFAIK, there is a plan to add a bunch more 30mm to Stryker’s, the old RWS with M240 and either Mk19 or M2 was a good option for GWOT, but can’t do much to enemy LAV type vehicles outside 1km.
There were also plans to put an up gunned Bradley turret on it / though I don’t know what happened to that. I do now that the power pack, transmission etc have been upgraded due to issues with power for the networked systems and the DE C-UAS systems.

I probably should have broken Infantry down to 4 types, as the Motorized column doesn’t really fit items like the LAV 6.0, as it’s not really just a Battle Taxi due to the 25mm, but the wheels really don’t due it justice for fighting with tanks off road.

Then if one really wants to be pedantic you could say 5, as there is the Israeli NAMER which is really an Infanteer Assault Vehicle. Which isn’t really an IFV, but the HAPC title doesn’t really do it justice as it’s a tank in everything but lacking a main gun, and carrying troops.

 

[KevinB]

Meanwhile back in Poland

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684824938278973440

 

[FJAG]

I probably should have broken Infantry down to 4 types, as the Motorized column doesn’t really fit items like the LAV 6.0, as it’s not really just a Battle Taxi due to the 25mm, but the wheels really don’t due it justice for fighting with tanks off road.

I think the one thing to remember as well is that the vast bulk of the IBCTs aren't airborne or air mobile. In the Active army 5 are airborne, 3 are air assault and 6 are light. In the ARNG, of the 20 BCTs, 3 are ABCTs, 2 are SBCTs and 15 are straight, leg, IBCTs. That's a total of 21 IBCTs that move predominantly by ground (albeit there are divisional aviation brigades that provide some airmobile lift.) During the last unpleasantness most of the deployed IBCTs were provided with various armoured HMMWVs which again came with armament similar to that of the standard Stryker.

That's why I don't give the Stryker much of the way of an edge over lets say a turreted TLAV or HMMWV other than a bit better armour. I do see the LAV 6.0 as an increase over the Stryker due to its gun and better armour and consider it a better support vehicle in a fight. Give it an ATGM missile launcher and it starts to inch closer to the Bradley but doesn't get there.

IMHO you run on a continuum from the straight dismounted infantryman to the one borne in a Bradley. Along that line you creep upward with the amount of mobility, protection and fire support their various transports provide. That results in varying ways that you can employ the infantryman/vehicle combo.

Interestingly, Ukraine should finally give an answer as to how each of those theoretical employment models work in real life. The one lesson I've learned from videos of quadcopters dropping hand grenades is that you should always keep your top hatches closed.

 

[GR66]

IMHO you run on a continuum from the straight dismounted infantryman to the one borne in a Bradley. Along that line you creep upward with the amount of mobility, protection and fire support their various transports provide. That results in varying ways that you can employ the infantryman/vehicle combo.

Interestingly, Ukraine should finally give an answer as to how each of those theoretical employment models work in real life.

I would (again) caution against directly translating what is happening in Ukraine with what a US-led peer fight might look like.

The airpower that NATO could potentially bring to bear on the front lines (and against enemy artillery) could make a substantial difference to the effectiveness of Russia/others against allied armour compared to what the Russians have been able to achieve against the Ukrainians.

I've also read several reports commenting on the difficulties that the Ukrainians have had executing combined arms maneuver at anything above Platoon or Company level. The ability to successfully maneuver at the Battalion & Brigade levels could allow NATO forces to break through enemy lines and not have to face the same slogging, close combat type situations that the Ukrainians are forced to face.

Some other lessons I think definitely can be taken from this conflict including the ability to operate in an EW environment, the importance of UAV/Counter-UAV operations, AD and SEAD/DEAD, and mine warfare.

 

[FJAG]

I would (again) caution against directly translating what is happening in Ukraine with what a US-led peer fight might look like.

The airpower that NATO could potentially bring to bear on the front lines (and against enemy artillery) could make a substantial difference to the effectiveness of Russia/others against allied armour compared to what the Russians have been able to achieve against the Ukrainians.

True enough. I was focusing more on the inevitable ground fight.

I've also read several reports commenting on the difficulties that the Ukrainians have had executing combined arms maneuver at anything above Platoon or Company level. The ability to successfully maneuver at the Battalion & Brigade levels could allow NATO forces to break through enemy lines and not have to face the same slogging, close combat type situations that the Ukrainians are forced to face.

his has a lesson for the ARNG, I think. It certainly reinforces my belief that one needs trained (and experienced RegF officers and senior NCMs at the coy level and above. 10/90 should be viable but anything less than that is very risky.

Some other lessons I think definitely can be taken from this conflict including the ability to operate in an EW environment, the importance of UAV/Counter-UAV operations, AD and SEAD/DEAD, and mine warfare.

Agreed all around.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Hypothetical- Canada gets serious, and commits to having a tracked IFV by 2030, call it a competition between CV90 and Griffin III.

Would the current (6 mech, 3 light) Bn structure work, or would we now be faced with a "missing middle" where the IFV is too much / not feasible for certain missions, but the LIB's are not mobile/protected enough?

If so, which would be preferable, going 3 tracked IFV/ 3 Wheeled medium / 3 Light, or maintaining 6/3 with the 3 having some sort of vehicle pool to draw on for those missing middle missions? Some combination in between?

And in either case, what's your choice for the missing middle vehicle?

 

[Kirkhill]

Hypothetical- Canada gets serious, and commits to having a tracked IVF ....

A tracked In Vitro Fertilizer.... Sorry, couldn't resist.

Jocularity aside - your points are why I am inclined to assign a heavy tracked vehicle to the Arrmoured Corps and turn the armoured regiments into Combined Arms regiments.

That would give Canada 3 Combined Arms units, 6 LAV units and 3 Lt Units (which I would group with 1 Wing). All under 1,2 and 5 Brigade Groups and all under 1 Can Div.

That results in 12 deployable Battle Group options.

 

[daftandbarmy]

A tracked In Vitro Fertilizer.... Sorry, couldn't resist.

I saw that movie

 

[Brad Sallows]

Soviet-era structure makes sense if you expect to break through with tracks and exploit on wheels, although it's a bit of an underpants gnome doctrine if you're relying on a division being able to achieve both.