And once again we’re aruging whether or not to use a particular bit of equipment rather than discussing WHAT THE HELL ARE WE STILL DOING IN AFGOATISTAN 8 YEARS LATER?!

The Namer would not work with the Abrams rear-engine and a tank-sized IFVs would simply double the gas-guzzling of the battlefield’s worst offender. Israel can easily supply its heavy forces and never sea– or air-deploys it. Seem to recall Israel running over buildings in Gaza to avoid IEDs because crews remain very vulnerable and much more money is lost when a tank or Namer gets hit than when a M-ATV gets hit (and crew survives).

Believe a lot of the Stryker and M-ATV armor shortcomings could be overcome in Afghanistan through creation of three-sided HESCO battle-positions within COPs and OPs. Position them and their platoons/squads every few kilometers along key roads and in troublesome populated areas to reduce patrolling distance and maintain a continuous surveillance screen the rest of the time. Just my 2 cents.

2. Motorized formations are NOT a combat enabler for infantry. Mechanized formations provide the combined arms task force that is missing from these motorized units. There is a reason why the Israeli’s chose to procure the Namera instead of the Stryker. Same with the German Army and the excellent Puma IFV.

This entire exercise of obtaining the Stryker for Army Units was in response to the time right after the 1st Gulf War where everyone thought that major combat would be fleeting and short affairs. General Shinseki wanted to make sure that the Army was part of the fight and RMA advocates were spouting the party line of being expeditionary. Many forward thinking critics warned that the Army was giving up too much in the way of staying power but the administration at the time was enamored with the idea of a high tech — light force.

MacGregor is right. Its a shame that the lessons learned from the fighting in Iraq are already starting to fade.

Oh and as far as the entire Army becoming Airborne, that would be a major money pit. You’d have to pay everyone jump pay, keep everyone jump certified and have a willing Air Force to help out.

The saddest part of all this is the C-130 capability. It just doesn’t make any sense unless the entire Army is about to become Airborne. Additionally the units that could make the best use (as the concept is laid out) don’t use the Stryker at all! The 82nd and Rangers would seem to be natural fits for the vehicle but they don’t use it because they emphasize Infantry skills above all.

I just don’t understand how a concept which was abandoned —has made such a big comeback and is on the verge of affecting the Army in the same way that the F-22 affected the Air Force…it will become the focus of the entire service at the detriment of the entire service. The replacement for the FCS can’t come quick enough. Lets hope that its more like the Israeli Namera or the German Puma rather than a reworked Stryker.

1) A former armored officer saying more tanks are the answer — does that not ring any bells here? No disrespect meant at all, just saying…

2) +100 to everyone saying “you need all sorts of tools in your belt”

There is no single vehicle type that is going to meet all of the needs in urban combat. There are going to be many times when the best vehicle for the job is a tank. There are going to be many other times when a Stryker type vehicle is not just adequate for the job, but actually better for the job. The key is having the assets you may need on hand and using the ones that are appropriate to the task.

Rumsfeld and his band got us into the fight and we are just now seeing the results of the Surge (that John McCain was a big supporter of) that is gonna get us out with some residual honor.

Still, I see our lessons as being that we need a variety of vehicles — some heavy and well armored, some light and fast, and some in the middle. If we only buy one type — we have a 33 percent chance of having the right one when we need it.