Defense Tech: Mech Infantry's Next Step


	Subscribe via RSS


	Archives by Date
		June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 See all Archives


	Archives by Category
		'Canes Afghan Update Ammo and Munitions Armor Around the Globe Av Week Extra Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere) Bizarro Blimps Blog Bidness Body Armor Blues Bomb Squad Brownshoes in Action Bubbleheads, etc. Cammo Green Catch the "Buzz" Chem-Bio Civilian Apps Cloak and Dagger Commandos Comms Contingency Ops Cops and Robbers Cyber-warfare Data Diving Defense Tech Poll Defense Tech Radio Dissent Tech Door Kickers Drones DT Administrivia Eat DT's Dust Extra! Extra! Eye on China Fast Movers FCS Watch Fire for Effect FOS Files Friday Funnies Gadgets and Gear Going Green Grand Ole Osprey Ground Vehicles Guns Homeland Security In the Weeds with Eric Info War Iraq Diary Jarhead Jazz JSF Watch Just War Theories Lasers and Ray Guns Less-lethal Logistics Los Alamos and Labs M4 Monopoly Medic! Mercs Missiles Money Money Money Most Wanted MRAP Edge Net-Centric Nukes Old Skool Our Shrinking Planet Planes, Copters, Blimps Podcast Politricks Polmar's Perspective Popular Mechanics Rapid Fire Raptor Watch Red Team Retro-Futuro Robots Roll Your Own Sabra Tech Ships and Subs Snipertech Soldier Systems Space Special Ops Star Wars Strategery Stray Trons Tactical Development Terror Tech The Deadlies The Defense Biz The Peoples' Site The Sunday Paper The Tanker Tango The View from Av Week Those Nutty Norks Training and Sims Trimble on the Case Video Lounge War Update Ward'z Wonderz You can run... See all Archives


	Newsletters


Edited by Christian Lowe \| Contact

Mech Infantry's Next Step

Jimmy Wu is an MIT grad in mechanical engineering, and a missile defense systems engineer at Boeing -- and a 1st Lieutenant in the Alabama National Guard, currently deployed in Iraq.

Back in the day, armored personnel carriers had a carefully-defined mission: As the battalion task force would roll forward, the APCs and other mechanized infantry would dismount and clear out an enemy position, allowing the tanks to exploit the breakthrough. To handle the job, APCs needed enough armor to survive that approach march -- and a whole lot of guns, to survive that dismounted attack. By the end of the Cold War, APCs had bulked up so big that they had evolved into Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicles (AIFVs) like the Bradley: carrying almost an entire squad, with enough weapons to take on tanks, and the armor to back it up.

But Iraq has shown that all that muscle doesn't necessarily work on the modern, non-linear battlefield. While everyone appreciates the Bradley's armor and its the chaingun in the firefight, the thing is expensive to operate. (Witness the broken Bradleys in the depots that the Army does not have the money to fix.) Moreover, the Bradley usually are not carrying its full complement of dismounts these days; infantrymen are driving the Humvees to add more guns on the convoys, instead. When the APC is no longer carrying its infantry, it loses its raison d'etre. We might as well get a cavalry vehicle that can do the job better.

In fact, as OIF shows, on the modern non-linear battlefield, the mech infantry does not work as mech infantry anymore. The legs are more akin to the light cavalry of old, patrolling the lines of communication, establishing presence, and looking for the enemy. In this context, the infantry does not operate in the battalion attack, it works in a section/squad attack perspective. The shift in the mech infantry paradigm requires a new APC: One that works well as a light cavalry vehicle and can carry a good load of infantry.

The American experience with Humvees and other armored vehicles are indicative: When they roll out the gate, the infantry squad normally splits itself into two vehicle or more. This is because 1) more vehicles means more gunners on top to fight the crucial first few minutes of an ambush, 2) an IED or RPG would not take out the whole squad, and 3) the squad will have space for passengers or survivors. A rough civilian analogy would be a police squad car: A squad car normally does not have officers in the back seat.

What we have, in fact, is a small APC/liason vehicle, in the vein of the Italian 4x4 Puma or the American ASV. Such a small APC seats about 5 soldiers, including the gunner. The small APC allows the squad to spread itself out on the distributed battlefield. The small APC allows the mech squad to fire and maneuver on the march, restoring the offensive capability to the mech squad. The small APC, by virtue of its size, automatically limits its weapon load to infantry support weapons (50 cal, rockets) instead of engaging in the AIFV arms race. As fire control/weapon system is a major component of the vehicle cost, the less sophisticated small APC acts as a natural limit against the cost growth of a program like Future Combat Systems.

To outfit an infantry squad with small APCs may be slightly more expensive than with a single AIFV. However, if you add in the up-armored Humvees with electronic countermeasures to the AIFV squad, the cost projection would be a wash. And we are not arguing against a full-sized APC such as the M-113 Gavin. The Gavin, or a Stryker, can be useful when we need to bring more dismounts. The modern mechanized company team should have a mix of small APCs, full-sized APCs, and tanks to carry out its new cavalry missions on the non-linear battlefield. And as we start looking for Humvee replacements, let's keep in mind a small APC, instead of a better jeep.

-- Jimmy Wu

Comments

弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批发 http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产品 http://www.xqt007.cn
成人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪板机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
卷板机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三面翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混合机 http://www.85399888.cn
搅拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼吸阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻火器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批发 http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产品 http://www.xqt007.cn
成人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪板机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
卷板机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三面翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混合机 http://www.85399888.cn
搅拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼吸阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻火器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批发 http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产品 http://www.xqt007.cn
成人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪板机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
卷板机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三面翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混合机 http://www.85399888.cn
搅拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼吸阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻火器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批发 http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产品 http://www.xqt007.cn
成人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪板机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
卷板机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三面翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混合机 http://www.85399888.cn
搅拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼吸阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻火器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批发 http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产品 http://www.xqt007.cn
成人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪板机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
卷板机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三面翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混合机 http://www.85399888.cn
搅拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼吸阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻火器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批发 http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产品 http://www.xqt007.cn
成人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪板机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
卷板机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三面翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混合机 http://www.85399888.cn
搅拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼吸阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻火器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html

Posted by: 弩 at November 14, 2008 07:46 AM

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

Add a new name to the list of confirmed Mike Sparks YouTube personae:

In addition to
nomorenarcissism
nomorenarcissism101
dynmipara
dynmicpara2
dynmicpara3
BlacktailFA

You can now add AxelofBavaria

This was confirmed today through Mike's own admission. After being contacted by Axel through comments on a tank ammunition video, I noticed very tell tale speech patterns. When initially confronted, Mike denied vehemently that it was him. Today, he "unveiled the truth" on me.

Wow, was I surprised.

What an ass clown.

Posted by: Tankguy at August 13, 2008 10:04 AM

Sparks you are one sick puppy.

Posted by: We know the truth about sparks at May 21, 2008 08:31 PM

Mr Sparks

One last thing I almost forgot.

Why would a U.S. Army Reserve OFFICER refer to a soldier serving a combat tour in Iraq as "whoppertanktard", "wheeled fucktard" or "gay guy" (among others).

I am not now and have never served in the military but it does seem to me there must be some sort of code of conduct this violates - conduct unbecoming and all that.

How do you believe the use of petty name-calling impacts on the credibility of someone who claims to be a serving officer?

Posted by: genericdad at May 21, 2008 07:27 PM

Mr Sparks

This goes to the credibility of you and your arguments so I emplore you, for once, to provide some direct answers to direct questions.

You have variously stated your are a currently serving INFANTRY officer in the USAR and that you left the USAR a long time ago.

Which is it?

If you are currently serving, with what unit and at what rank? You claimed to be a 1LT back as far as 1995. You can't possibly have remained at that rank for 13 years!

What is your combat experience? Are you currently in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why not? Just about every other reservist and guardsman has managed to make it over for a tour, why not you? Did you serve in ODS? Panama?

M113's are certainly in use in Iraq, this is a fact - as ambulancees, mortar carriers, engineer vehicles, command vehicles, cargo carriers, etc. But with which mechanized infantry units are they deployed as squad-carrying combat vehicles on patrol duties? What units have traded in their Bradley's for M113's? Where are the testimonials of soldiers who have/are using M113's for patrol in Iraq?

In which area's of Iraq and Afghanistan are M113's employed in active patrolling and with which units?

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Posted by: genericdad at May 21, 2008 07:22 PM

Mike,

You haven't answered anything. There are M113s in Iraq. They do not patrol. They may have been used in the initial invasion, but they are not being used on a large scale in the counter-insurgency fight.

I am in Iraq, right now. On the ground in East Baghdad. I have not seen one M113 outside the wire since my arrival. That is a fact. That points to the heart of your massaged data. One thing that you conveniently leave out whenever you post your numbers. Mike, M113 aren't patrolling, so of course they aren't getting hit. That would be like me saying that the John Deere Gator has the best track record in Iraq. Sure they are here, they are used by contractors as utility vehicles on FOBs, but they don't patrol. Your argument is completly asinine and very telling of your complete and utter ignorance of the situation on the ground in Iraq.

You have, as always, ducked the question of your record of combat service, Mike. Very telling as well. You pop in, sling an insult similar to a school aged child and -poof- you are gone. Nothing of substance. Just like most of your published works. Nothing of substance there either.

Enjoy sitting on the side lines while those braver and more willing than yourself carry out the mission that you too have sworn to do.

Again, until you have served here, patrolled the streets of Iraq and seen what's going on, you can not possibly offer anything of substance. It is simply a case of put up or shut up. I think you know which way I am leaning on that equation.

Let me know when you become a Soldier that shoulders some of the burden and I may entertain future exposure to your ranting and incomprehensible conclusions. Until then Mike, continue to be a good little cheerleader, just try to remember which team you are on. You seem to have a tendency to root for the other side quite a bit.

Posted by: Tankguy at May 17, 2008 07:01 AM

The liar is TANKGAY, eh guy.

Over 1, 700 x M113 Gavins are in Iraq and have been on operations ever since they were used to take Baghdad in the first place in 2003.

Photos and videos are posted documenting this:

www.geocities.com/armorhistory

Sorry, whoppertanktard and wheeled fucktard gay guy, the FACTS are apparent for everyone to see so you can keep on posting your lies and I'll stop in every once in a while and get a chuckle and pop your sophistry bubble.

=o)

Posted by: Mike Sparks at May 15, 2008 04:03 PM

Mike,

I reread some of your vitriol below and have a question. What are the lies that you claim I am posting?

You, yourself stated on your YouTube site that you have been out of the Reserve since the early 1990s. So, how is that currently serving?

Second, you claim to be an Infantry officer in the Army Reserve. There are VERY few infantry units in the Reserve, and they are not where you are located, so how is this possible?

Third, as asked by many here, and every other site that you have contaminated with your presence, what is your combat tour record? Which unit(s) have you deployed with? Which theaters? Iraq, Afghanistan?

Just a simple question that strikes to the heart of your accusations of lying. Mr. Sparks, the simple fact of the matter is that once again, you have painted yourself into a corner. You are once again confronted by fact, and you once again resort to name calling and insults like a petulant child. I am in Iraq, right now. There are no M-113s routinely patrolling Baghdad. There are Strykers out there though. If you underdstood the situation on the ground in Iraq, and stopped trying to interpret every shred of information through your "I hate Stryker" lenses, you would see what is happening here.

So, I am once again, standing by waiting for you to back up your claims of combat experience, your explanation of your inside knowledge of what's happening on the ground in Iraq and how in the world you are an infantry officer in the USAR.

It is not me that is lying. I am on the ground in Iraq, you are in your living in Georgia or North Carolina. Here is a suggestion to get you involved in the fight. Since most of the boys live out on Combat Outposts now, a care package for Soldiers could get you involved in the effort. Guys like things like baby wipes, books, DVDs, magazines, tobacco products, beef jerkey, foot powder and non-melting snacks.

I think the time is overdue for you to come clean on your claims of experience Mr. Sparks. Neither I, nor anyone else on this forum cares how many books you have written, or how many websites you run. What have you done to serve your country and honor your fellow Soldiers? What have you done to gain inside knowledge of the fight on the ground in Iraq? Unless you can answer those simple question, I fear it is your credibilt that is suspect, not mine.

Reply to this post for an "Any Soldier" address for the two main Forward Operating Bases that my unit mail comes through and I will provide it.

Posted by: Tankguy at April 15, 2008 02:13 AM

If you were unable to tell from my last post, I am currently in Baghdad.

Now, a question to ascertain some fact. Where are you right now Mr. Sparks?

The FACT, the honest truth is that I am on the ground in Baghdad, and you are in the States. I am here, again for 15 months. You are there, as always.

Where is the lie in that?

Posted by: Tankguy at April 13, 2008 03:59 AM

Mike,

I too have experience on CH-47s, but mine is vastly different from yours. While you like play dress up and pretend way in the hulk parked outside the business park, I actually flew into Baghdad in one. I know this is so far removed from your experiences that it defies your ability to grasp. I base my facts on cold, hard observations made on the ground in Iraq. Not things that I pontificate upon sitting in a recliner in my living room. So to refute your patriot vs. dependent insult, I would recommend that you sir, pick up a gun and get in the fight. Until you do, your opinions and views mean absolutely zero to me. Less than zero, they don't even register. I think the majority of people exposed to your school of thought have been able to identify that your claims and stories are pure fiction. When you have ground combat experience in Iraq, then you are qualified to present facts regarding what is happening on the ground.

You can continue to hurl insults and pound your chest and pretend that anyone care about what you think. I most cetainly don't. I am more concerned with the 25 target to my front that what an armchair soldier has to say.

Now for FACTS:

1. Number of M-113s I have seen on patrol since arriving in the OE: Zero
2. Number of Strykers I have seen in high conflict areas: loads, I know you won't stoop to claiming that the Sadr City area is not a hot area at the mintute, right?

Your claims of M113 superiorty continue to be your downfall, Mike. Have you patrolled though the Nuhallas of urbarn Baghdad? Do you know what the terrain is like? Do you know the composition of the road networks? Do you understand the latest TTPs of the enemy? I would venture to say the answer to all of the above questions is no. I am not lying, I am stating fact.

Again, either pick up a rifle and get in the fight, or sit on the sideline and stay the hell out of the way. Your choice.

Posted by: Tankguy at April 13, 2008 03:46 AM

Oh, one more thing. Anyone wondering whether Mike Sparks has completely lost it should check out what his 2nd Tactical Studies Group does:

http://www.geocities.com/roswell.geo/

Whoa.

Posted by: James Hasik at April 2, 2008 12:52 AM

I found Lieutenant Wu's editorial interesting, and given his experience with the Alabama Guard in Iraq, I must consider his perspective with some seriousness. I do think that some of what he wants has arrived in vehicles like the RG-31 and the Cougar, and that more may yet be available in the forthcoming (and somewhat smaller) JLTV.

It's also nice to see that Mike Sparks is still out there having fun. I do wish that he'd finally just tell us with which unit he serves.

More to the point, I'd definitely like to know about this study that Army Times cited regarding combat casualties. I studied this issue in 2006, and briefed OSD/PA&E on my findings, but my dataset suffered from suppositions introduced by my interpretations of the Army's sometimes laconic fatality reports. Still, if anyone is interested, it's available on my website: www.jameshasik.com.

Posted by: James Hasik at April 2, 2008 12:05 AM

Oh, yeah one more thing.

The M113A3 Super Gavin that is up-armored has a PERFECT protection record in Iraq. Don't believe crap feed into the open by the corrupt Army brass bent on lying about Stryker trucks to further their racket. There is an actual factual database that's not open to the public. The Stryker truck has a horrific record of losses. Demand Congress hold hearings which can be behind closed doors--what the Army Stryker-o-philes FEAR MOST---that despite all the $$BILLIONS wasted on 309 Stryker trucks in Iraq, 1, 775 (good number, huh?) of mostly VANILLA M113A3 Gavins have done a far better job of protecting our men and the Super Gavins have done a flawless job--better than even v-hulled MRAPs....which if Strykers were so greaaatttt why are we buying MRAPs?

Strykers are road-bound, poorly armored crap obviously, that's why and buying new MRAP trucks saves face over up-armoring, v-shaping M113 Gavins which is actually the BEST choice.

Posted by: Mike Sparks at March 21, 2008 05:36 AM

What I find most offensive about TankGuy is that HE IS A LIAR.

I don't like him or his factless opinions---but I DON'T LIE ABOUT HIM.

I'm a commissioned officer in the Army Reserves NOW and he knows that yet he LIES on message boards like this.

I regularly publish articles in real military journals like Military Review and can post anything I want on internet boards if I chose to; just google and you'll see I do it freely if I see the need to.

Why should I waste my time on chaotic bulletin boards when liars like TankGuy post lies out of their envy? They are not willing to "do" the DUE DILIGENCE to study the facts of any situation to make for a meaningful discussion that achieves any progress; so they create lies pulled out from their asses and narrow-minded stupdity based on their extreme fear of failing to conform to their mommy/daddy organization they are co-dependent to; they cannot fathom LEADING. Taking the initiative is foreign to them because they are not officers. I pity enlistedmen who live down to their expected social role as losers unable to think; TankGuy is a poster child for why snobby officers tell me to not even bother trying to inform them.

Question for the TankGuy fucktard, just where Mr. Lemming do you think we got our CH-47 from? And why do you think we have it? Not the BS envious hate BS that emanates from your loser mouth.

Posted by: Mike Sparks at March 21, 2008 05:23 AM

Tankguy is a envious loser.

When confronted with FACTS he runs back to what he thinks the mommy/daddy Army want him to do, he does not examine anything on its own merits. He's a Tory fascist; if he were around back in 1776 he'd not have been a patriot fighting for INDEPENDENCE because he's a lemming who longs for DEPENDENCE.

Posted by: Mike Sparks at March 21, 2008 05:10 AM

Take a look at the videos Sparks has posted links to below. In particular, find the Operation: Ghost Ship clips. These particular clips illustrate the level to which Mr. Sparks is out of touch with the current military community.

On the photo essay of the Operation Ghost Ship luncheon you can find the following:

1. Mr. Sparks violating several of his own key points of criticizm. Firstly, he is wearing DCUs with a woodland pattern LBV. To illustrate the comedy of errors it is important to note that the Army no longer uses DCU. Secondly, one of Mr. Sparks key points of critique with the current ACU pattern is that he finds ineffective in a desert environment. A woodland load bearing vest is much worse than the current ACU pattern. Third, Mr. Sparks is incorrectly wearing the uniform. There are several points here. First, his LBV is not fastened correctly and is seen swinging open. Secondly, his uniform is pure fantasy. If you look closely, the patch on the left side of his DCUs states "AIR-MECH". This would normally state U.S. Army. Points to be drawn from these pictures are the fact that he is no longer associated with the U.S. Army or Army Reserve in any professional capacity, yet he still dons a uniform to attempt to lend credibility to his ramblings.

Other issues with this particular photo shoot are the fact that he and his associate have purchased a scapped CH-47 airframe and are trying to pass it off as a flight sim. If you look at the photos, you will notice that this "flight sim" is nothing more than a gutted cockpit with cardboard over the windscreens. A laptop and a projector are being used to project a movie on the windscreen.

The conclusion of this particular Sparks campaign is that he desperately wants to be associated with the military. So much so that he dresses up and "plays Army". Most of us did this as kids. Mr. Sparks is an adult. This is not a re-enactment, it is a misguided mission. You will also notice that any time he and his group get their hands on a real serviceman, they a quick to post that persons name and rank all over the site. In Mr. Sparks' misguided way of thinking, this is an attempt to lend an air of credibility to his hobby.

Mr. Sparks is extremely quick to critisize anything that the Army does. Almost every new acquisition the Army has made since the decision to purchase the Stryker family of vehicles is met with the wrath of Sparks. He uses multiple YouTube personae to propogate his misguided and uniformed suggestions to the general public. He is currently using at least six seperate user IDs to gather the faithful. His tactics there are much the same as here. The main difference being that he attempts to support his own video ideas with his other user IDs. He posts a video with one user name, then reviews and comments on it with the other five.

He has been banned from every single military discussion forum he has joined. All of them. This is because real soldiers will not tolerate his vitriol and hatred of Soldiers. He constantly claims to be making all of his hateful comments because he cares about Soldiers and their welfare. He claims to have their best interests at heart and wants them to have the best equipment available. That is until one of them disagrees with him. Then the name calling and the talk of dying for stupidity start.

Mr. Sparks is ridiculous. He is desperately trying to maintain some form of contact with the military that he claims to hate so much. He is still running around playing Army. This is the Mike Sparks army where he is the Commander in Chief, where he can right his perceived wrongs of the past decade.

My suggestion, leave the soldiering to the Soldiers, Mr. Sparks. You do what you do best and sit on the sidelines and watch. Then when the dangerous work is done, when the dust settles and the smoke clears, you can run in and offer your advice. Just don't take it personally if no one takes any of your advice seriously. Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. If you do lead, lead from the front, not the sidelines.

Posted by: Tankguy at February 10, 2008 11:51 PM

Sparks,

You must live a very sad life. Never in my 58 years on this planet have i ever seen someone with such an unhealthy obsession like you have.

I would like to point out that you represent yourself to be a commisioned officer in the US Army Reserve. You refuse to provide proof of this. One can assume that you at least profess to know what the term officer and gentleman means...from your actions you are neither. You have done the following.

1. You have disparaged and cursed fellow officers and enlisted personnel from all branches.

2. You have disparaged and cursed Combat Veterans that have served in past and current conflicts.

3. You have launched a one man campaign against the USMC and you daily spread lies and vitriol about them. Your videos on Youtube are a prime example of this.

4. Anyone who does not agree with you on your ludicrous naming of the M-113 Armored Personnel Carrier is cursed and mail spammed. Believe me you are the ONLY person who does this... (except perhaps your various other personalities on the internet...you know what i am talking about. I dont want to embarass you)

This is just a small sample of your gross misconduct as a supposedly commisioned officer in the US Army Reserve.

Please get help.

Posted by: MRTanknet at February 5, 2008 08:21 PM

Here are some facts, Mike. In a report available to the public from the Army Times and several other sources, the combat losses for M-113s and Stryker are identical. The same number. How does this give the edge to the M-113? Now, to further investigate this statistic, it is important to note that the M-113s that are on the ground in Iraq are not front line platforms. This means that they do not lead in engagements with the enemy. They are kept behind tanks, IFVs and Strykers as per doctrine. That is some important information you always seem to miss in your "fact" based arguments.

What it boils down to is the fact that the M-113 is not in the same high threat environment as are tanks, IFVs (Bradleys) and Strykers. This is because the M-113 does not lead on combat missions.

Lead from the front.

Posted by: Tankguy at February 5, 2008 10:49 AM

Mike,

Where are all the "facts" that you keep harping on about to support your claims that the M113A3 is the best protected vehicle in Iraq? Do you have combat damage reports? Do you have numbers of platforms deployed by type versus number NMC due to enemy action? Do the numbers take into account the fact that the M113 is not an offensive combat weapon system, it is a support system. M113s are not being used on offensive missions in Iraq as tanks, IFVs and Strykers are. If they are used outside the wire, it is BEHIND the tanks in a support role. If you don't take an M113 outside the wire, of course it will not be damaged. This just further highlights your complete and total ignorance of the mounted fight and the situation on the ground in Iraq. You can rant, rave and froth at the mouth with nothing but insults but that does not replace the facts that you yourself call into question.

Posted by: Tankguy at February 5, 2008 08:49 AM

Here's some VIDEOS to illustrate why TRACKS are far superior to wheeled trucks and why LIGHT M113 Gavin tracks are what's needed for a CLOSED TERRAIN 3D CAVALRY:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=ECC22F67FB62B985

Posted by: Mike Sparks at February 4, 2008 10:54 PM

Here's some VIDEOS to illustrate why TRACKS are far superior to wheeled trucks and why LIGHT M113 Gavin tracks are what's needed for a CLOSED TERRAIN 3D CAVALRY:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=ECC22F67FB62B985

Posted by: Mike Sparks at February 4, 2008 10:53 PM

More on Armored Vehicle Design:

http://www.geocities.com/armorhistory
http://www.geocities.com/armorhistory/infantrytanks.htm

More on LTG Gavin's Creation of the M113

http://www.geocities.com/gavinpetition

Posted by: Mike Sparks at February 4, 2008 10:49 PM

THE FACTS are that the BEST PROTECTIVE RECORD in Iraq is by the up-armored M113A3 Super Gavin.

All the trucktard and whoppertanktard whining in the world isn't going to make Stryker trucks less road-bound or 70-ton Abrams tanks any lighter.

All the petty jealousy envy back-biting by the 'tards isn't going to make their hot-air verbage WITHOUT FACTS be anything more than the prejudiced hot air it is. What we saw we back by FACTS that are referenced.

Want to know more about 3D Airborne Maneuver Warfare?

Our book, "Air-Mech-Strike: Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare for the 21st Century" is ONLINE for FREE skyjacked by Google!

http://books.google.com/books?id=RCWtHnYZ0LMC&pg

Posted by: Mike Sparks at February 4, 2008 10:47 PM

THE FACTS are that the BEST PROTECTIVE RECORD in Iraq is by the up-armored M113A3 Super Gavin.

All the trucktard and whoppertanktard whining in the world isn't going to make Stryker trucks less road-bound or 70-ton Abrams tanks any lighter.

Want to know more about 3D Airborne Maneuver Warfare?

Our book, "Air-Mech-Strike: Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare for the 21st Century" is ONLINE for FREE skyjacked by Google!

http://books.google.com/books?id=RCWtHnYZ0LMC&pg

Posted by: Mike Sparks at February 4, 2008 10:46 PM

THE FACTS are that the BEST PROTECTIVE RECORD in Iraq is by the up-armored M113A3 Super Gavin.

All the trucktard and whoppertanktard whining in the world isn't going to make Stryker trucks less road-bound or 70-ton Abrams tanks any lighter.

Want to know more about 3D Airborne Maneuver Warfare?

Our book, "Air-Mech-Strike: Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare for the 21st Century" is ONLINE for FREE skyjacked by Google!

http://books.google.com/books?id=RCWtHnYZ0LMC&pg

Posted by: Mike Sparks at February 4, 2008 10:46 PM

THE FACTS are that the BEST PROTECTIVE RECORD in Iraq is by the up-armored M113A3 Super Gavin.

All the trucktard and whoppertanktard whining in the world isn't going to make Stryker trucks less road-bound or 70-ton Abrams tanks any lighter.

Want to know more about 3D Airborne Maneuver Warfare?

Our book, "Air-Mech-Strike: Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare for the 21st Century" is ONLINE for FREE skyjacked by Google!

http://books.google.com/books?id=RCWtHnYZ0LMC&pg

Posted by: Mike Sparks at February 4, 2008 10:45 PM

THE FACTS are that the BEST PROTECTIVE RECORD in Iraq is by the up-armored M113A3 Super Gavin.

All the trucktard and whoppertanktard whining in the world isn't going to make Stryker trucks less road-bound or 70-ton Abrams tanks any lighter.

Want to know more about 3D Airborne Maneuver Warfare?

Our book, "Air-Mech-Strike: Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare for the 21st Century" is ONLINE for FREE skyjacked by Google!

http://books.google.com/books?id=RCWtHnYZ0LMC&pg

Posted by: Mike Sparks at February 4, 2008 10:44 PM

Well Mike (I won't call you 1LT, an officer and gentleman doesn't behave like you), your hatred for the Marines is almost legendary. Makes me wonder why you hate them so much. A little branch rivalry is fine, but such outright hatred displayed by an officer. No, that's extremely bad behavior.

Now, bringing in this argument about Arnhem... Oh dear. You do realize that the British at Arnhem faced... an SS tank division? That meant: heavy tanks incoming, together with highly motivated and well trained/equipped infantry. Surely you believe that Tetrachs/Locusts light tanks perform well against... Tigers or Panthers, or even StuGs or Pzkw 3s...

The M113 is outdated, face it. I'd rather ride on an Austrian Pandur than on an M113 on today's battlefield. The M113 is from when? The 1960s? Oh dear sweet penguins! Why not ride a Tiger into a modern battle?

Or maybe, we should scrap our Type 89s and replace them with M113s? Sorry, that won't happen. We like to use decent, up-to-date equipment. That said, we use LAVs as well. The Komatsu LAV is very well liked by the 1st airborne brigade and it performed as expected at Camp Samawa.

To Miss Murphy... may I suggest the latest Batmobile? The one from Batman Begins, yes. Flying cars only exist in movies, Ms Murphy. If you try to jump with a regular vehicle like you see it in movies, you can usually scrap it afterwards. That goes for tanks as well. Not to mention... how are you going to reach the necessary speed for such a jump with a vehicle of the mass of a tank? It's nice that a "mini M113" (stop calling it Gavin, that's not it's designation) can roll out of a CH-47, but... the CH-47 is taller than a LAV and thus an even easier target. It's huge, loud and can be seen easily. The enemy will know you're unloading something and prepare ambush points. One RPG into the tracks and your "great" M113 is stuck. What then? Climb out and push? With a LAV I can, at least flee faster than with an M113. And well, I take it you've never driven a decent car cross country... It's very well possible. And a tank can fail due to mechanical problems just as easily as a regular car.

Oh and, before I forget it, the M113 has never been named "Gavin". I don't know where you get that info from, because... it's simply made up.

And, finally, the only person with a real technohubris here is you Mike. Tankers know about their role in combat, at least professional ones do (may I suggest working with those for once?). Tankers know their part, they work with the flyboys and the infantry, because that's the only way it works. That said, you're the one who wants to airdrop M113s and have the airborne will it all by itself (which is NOT possible anyway). Reality chech for Mike please. Thank you.

Posted by: AKM at January 16, 2008 08:06 PM

The moniker "GAV!N" was given to the M-113 by one man. Mike Sparks. He wants to rename the 113 in honor of General Gavin, who in his mind was the creator of the 113.

No branch of the U.S. military officially or unofficially calls the M-113 the "GAV!N". No foreign military service refers to it as the GAV!N either. Only 1LT Sparks and his notional "think tank".

One of 1LT Sparks other points I take issue with is his "road/trail bound" mentality regarding Stryker and other wheeled platforms. In his uninformed opinion, if it isn't tracked it must be stuck on roads. This is pure ignorance for two reasons. First, in Iraq, in urban areas, all vehicles are confined to roads in built up areas. Even tanks. Second, the Stryker can perform just as well off road as the M-113. It can even perform better in the majority of situations. This is due in large part to the CTIS system. The air pressure of all tire can be controlled from inside the driver's station to match the terrain conditions. The driver can also select up to 8 wheel drive and high and low range gear ratios. These features coupled with a self-recovery winch not present on the M-113 gave the Stryker the edge in most situations for maneuverability.

Armor protection is another issue. Is the Stryker the best option accross the spectrum of conflict? No, of course not. It was not meant to be. The Stryker should not be employed against heavy armor, that is where MBTs and IFVs come into play. The M-113 is no match for the same level on conflict either.

One point that could be taken from foreign conflicts with regard to the next step for infantry is a balance of force. Israel has developed both heavy and light APC/IFV platforms. There is no one ideally suited platform that can do it all. A case in point is the Achzarit APC. It is a modified tank chassis with clam shell doors in the rear that allow infantry to dismount under cover. Great for HIC, lousy for COIN. To heavy, no speed.

Posted by: tankguy at January 4, 2008 09:43 AM

Just a point, the M-113 is not know as the "Gavin" by anyone but model builders and those unaware of its real designation. If you are in the military, its just called a "113". Calling it anything else just confuses people.

Its a decent platform, but not a superweapon. Does the Brad suck? Sure, in many ways. Its huge, expensive, smoky, loud, has too small a troop compartment, and lacks a roof hatch that allows the infantrymen to fight mounted. Is it better than the 113 for most types of close combat operations? Yep. Its firepower, armor, and mobility make it pretty useful.

Posted by: Scott Cunningham at January 1, 2008 11:48 AM

Tankguy, I've been trying to find info on this nomorenarcissism on youtube - thats why I'm here. I've already reported him for raping some videos that I know for fact aren't his. If you have any information from the net on this guy, contact me on youtube - username: mattphillips83

Thanks,
CPL/USMC

Posted by: OPERATOR at December 28, 2007 02:17 AM

1LT Sparks,

After reading through the pages that you linked to in you previous reply I am stunned. You are seriously arguing that 1960s era technology can outperform modern day weapon and platforms. I am shocked at your utter lack of even a basic understanding of what is going on operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some points. First, you continually harp on about road/trail bound wheeled vehicles. In an urban battle space, everything is road or trail bound. In much of the area around Bahgdad, there are extensive areas of marsh and canals that restrict cross country movement. This does not apply to only wheels, it also applies to M-113s, Brads and Tanks.

Secondly, in many of the videos you post on YouTube as "nomorenarcissism" and "dynmicpara" you make wildly inaccurate assumptions and just plain lie in other. You most recent post of the Stryker crew being injured is a case in point. You showed a 15 second video of a Stryker negotiating a driver's training course. The clip showed the Stryker hitting some ruts and then pulling up to the end point of the course. Where were the injuries? Are you going to make another false claim that you once again stealthily entered Fort Lewis without being seen by anyone and captured the video covertly but forgot to include the part showing injured crewmen? Sort of like your claim that you were present during the MAV-CE exercise. If you are going to present something as fact, at least be able to prove it.

Finally, for the benefit of the unidoctrinated, please explain the basis of your vast knowledge and experince on armored platforms. How much time have you spent deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan to gain this inside information?

Posted by: Tankguy at December 8, 2007 12:13 PM

I rest my case on Sparky and his Gavinmania. How can anyone take him and is uniquely bizarre tactical and historical analysis seriously after reading a rant like that.

Someone prepare the rubber room.

Posted by: genericdad at December 7, 2007 11:02 PM

1LT Sparks,

Again your logic and blind devotion to an outdated and outmoded platform cloud your judgement.

First, the M-113 is not, and has never been named, listed, referred to or classified as a Gavin by and branch of the U.S. military or any other country. This is your personal idea and not one adopted by any branch of service. Secondly, your platform suggestions are wildly inaccurate. The COE is not WW II. There have been huge technological advances that are saving lives every day on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There are a diverse number of weapon systems available to cover the full spectrum of operations. Your notion that one platform can do it all is uniformed to say the least. Your undying devotion to airborne is admirable, but again clouds your judgement. You cannot fight every battle by droppinig in paratroops and equipment. Sometimes you need guys one the ground in both tracked and wheeled platforms. Your suggestion of airborne mountain bike is a case in point. What possible advantage does a mountain bike provide? How do you do CASEVAC on a 10 speed? How do you conduct logistics ops on a Specialized or a Stump Jumper? If you are so opposed to lightly armored, under gunned wheeled platforms, your own suggestion flies in the face of your anti-Stryker arguments.

Finally, I find it telling that when confronted with fact you resort to insults. Genericdad makes a good point with regard to Ms. Murphy. For an assistant, it is amazing that she shares the exact same penchant for CAPS lock and the same thesaurus of rhetoric.

Posted by: Tankguy at December 7, 2007 08:11 AM

1LT Wu makes a good case for a smaller tracked APC/AFV that could be air-transportable in organic Army CH-47-C-27J aircraft with machine guns/autocannon (small HE effects)---essentially a "female" tank that suppresses.

However, we must not forget that we need "male" tanks to accompany them to blast through enemy opposition with large high explosive effects as the female tanks and mounted/dismounted infantry suppres and/or maneuver.

Mike

Infantry, Don't Forget to Heavy Weaponize your Tracked Armored Personnel Carriers

www.combatreform.com/brenguncarrierpassesbyhorsaglideronLZN.jpg

Not having a heavy-caliber, high explosive delivering weapon but having the tracked armored fighting vehicles to mobilize such weapons is the tragic mistake of the "A Bridge Too Far" fight for Arnhem bridge over the Rhine river in 1944.

Thanks to Keith Flint's book, Airborne Armour we now know what went wrong on the way to Arnhem bridge: unlike the British 6th Airborne Division that took both Tetrarch/Locust light tanks with turreted 37mm-40mm-3 inch guns and Bren gun armored personnel carriers into D-Day and the later Operation Varsity---the 1st Airborne Division only Hamilcar glider-landed 18 x Bren gun carriers to move SUPPLIES for the infantry---but without the light tanks did not even have a single "Universal Carrier" outfitted with a large caliber gun in a ready-to-fire mode when they bumped into a mere pair of German armored cars. While the walking infantry fanned out and hit-the-dirt, the Germans blasted their 1st Reconnaissance Squadron's unarmored jeeps towing 20mm Polsten anti-aircraft cannon before they could unlimber and fire.

www.combatreform2.com/brentankettewith25poundergun.jpg
www.combatreform.com/brentankettewith2pounderATgun
www.combatreform.com/brentankettewithgunshielded2pounderATgun

Had just a few of these Bren gun carriers been carrying a fixed mount 20mm, 37mm, 40mm, 57mm, 76mm antitank or 75mm pack howitzer gun as the photos below show were actually tested and proved functional---they would have enabled the men inside to save the day on "Tiger Route" to Arnhem, reinforcing LTC Frost's men there so they could have held on a few more days until XXX Corps link-up. The pay-off?

WW2 would have ended 1 year sooner, Berlin would have been entirely in Allied instead of half communist hands. Untold deaths, sufferings and atrocities would have been prevented...no Battle of the Bulge debacle....you get the point. A technotactical failure had STRATEGIC consequences for the entire world resulting in millions of people suffering. It wasn't one bridge "too far", it was a case of NOT BRINGING ENOUGH.

So why didn't Brens have big guns?

Because the egotistical infantry has and continues to refuse to admit it needs high explosive (HE) building/bunker/dug-in enemy blasting firepower help from a VEHICLE because it smacks of a "tank". Well, they are correct. Anything that is tracked and armored is indeed, a TANK, and a Bren gun carrier with a BIG gun would be a tank---which is too fucking bad. That's what they needed on the dusty road to Arnhem when they chose to glider-land 6-8 miles to avoid anti-aircraft fire that would decimate a daylight drop of airborne or glider infantry directly on to the bridge. Paradoxically, infantry will tolerate HE firepower if its coming from a fellow narcissist on foot--but just barely. They don't like it and don't embrace HE firepower with lots of RPG gunners and yearn for kinetic energy bullet gun-slinging to carry the day. Any HE weapons carried by infantry have to be low-key and not grab the limelight from the rifleman. When the 82nd Airborne kicks German ass in WW2 they don't let us know it was greatly assisted by captured German panzerfaust disposable rocket launchers because its bad for their Superman image. You have to read carefully into LTG James Gavin's writings to learn this secret. So if Western infantry in love with bullet garden hosing the enemy is reluctant to employ HE rocket launchers from their own shoulders, how do you think they'll look upon HE from one of their tracked infantry carriers making it into a defacto tank obvious for everyone to see?

They will not like it nor want it.

This is why you can see APC/AFVs all over the world armed with only machine guns and weak cannons when they can clearly have a large HE weapon fitted--because infantrymen are little penis egomaniacs who want all the glory to themselves via dismounted foot action--blasting an enemy position is "un-heroic". This is indeed true as an ignorant, corrupt and incompetent practice but its moreover tragic and battle-losing. History is filled with accounts where hand-carried firepower was not enough since the earth can easily absorb it if the enemy skillfully employs fortifications and denies the KE bullet shooter access to a line-of-sight (LOS) on him. The disastrous amphibious raid on Dieppe in 1942 was Eban Emael--but without the gliders 3D maneuvering infantry into LOS access---and the medium-heavy Churchill tanks stuck on the beach were unable to render vehicular fire support. Arnhem was APCs/AFVs being there with the infantry by virtue of their tracked, armored mobility but not having the meeting engagement and dug-in enemy defeating firepower to carry the day. The infantry rice bowl protector reader will remark, "but that's the job of the tankers to provide us shock action". Well, did Armor branch get this memo? They appear to be only interested in dueling other tanks in the heaviest tanks possible not risking themselves by being in a lighter tank to be there where infantry can walk to give YOU FIRE SUPPORT. Like the USAF, tankers want to win wars all by themselves by first "shooting down" the enemy's mirror image of themselves, and then when that's done, win wars ONLY by their mounted maneuver without ever dismounting anybody. They have the same technohubris as the fly boys---just bound to the earth. Both false narrow mentalities were born when we failed to fully understand and employ both the tank and the airplane at the dawn of the 20th Century. We still don't have it figured out going on now into the 21st Century! The facts are we need both mounted (remember the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division "Thunder Run" that took Baghad when the truck-centric USMC got pinned down?) and dismounted action, how can we get both without creating factions who only want to do one or the other?--is the dilemma. We have not even broached the subject of parachuting or airlanding in light tanks or to be a forward Cavalry for the open terrain, 2D maneuver force's medium-to-heavy tanks, THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT! Today's tankers have lost sight of what Cavalry is and in the process have by refusing to field light tanks like the M113 Gavin into Cav units in 1970/80s, the Rapid Deployment Force Light tank in the 1980s and the M8 Buford AGS in the 1990s, forfeited the torch of mobile warfare, air-delivered Cavalry to the infantry to their present day shame and branch digestion into the Army borg.

So its now up to infantry to save itself with their own tank fire support, but first infantry has to save itself from its own wheeled stupidity. Motorized infantry is dead infantry or soon-to-be-dead infantry along roads/trails/streets where land mines and increasingly sophisticated ambushes await. In infantry's vanity to not appear like the cursed tankers, they have chosen non-functional rubber tire trucks and damned themselves to reliving the Korean war debacle again and again in Iraq/Afghanistan. Infantry needs to practice what it preaches--"the easy way is mined" and employ M113 Gavin light tracked APCs/AFVs to go cross-country through and over by available C-130/CH-47 aircraft closed terrains where heavier 2D maneuver forces cannot traverse or fly in a timely manner. Next, infantry needs to get over who is going to get the glory and wake up that they will be damn well lucky just to WIN using everything they have got and can get to help them. This means some of their APCs/AFVs will need powerful HE weaponry to be there in an instant to render fire support in a meeting engagement and to bust through enemy strong points in the face of their fire so as to not get pinned down re: Arnhem. In the final analysis, infantry needs to learn to save itself with its own light tanks derived from their own infantry-carrying light tanks AKA APCs/AFVs. The only vehicular fire support the infantry can count on is the vehicles it takes with them that can go wherever they can walk, and this means light, low-ground pressure tracks not bloated, high ground pressure Humvee/Stryker/MRAP/JTVL wheels.

The good news is all of this is that infantry's M113 Gavins can easily take a drop-in turret for firepower up to 105mm. Its not as efficient weight-wise as a fixed-gun STUG nor as survivable and hard to hit but its easy to do as the South Korean AIFV with 90mm turret below shows.

www.combatreform.com/M113with90mmturret.jpg

However, a turret means a manual as thick as a telephone book to master and someone becoming a "pussy" (Gunner) perhaps even two (Commander/Gunner) "cowards" being created who are "getting over" compared to the dead men walking. It also means 360 degree traverse/firing in seconds and armor protection so the weapon isn't easily knocked out....

If this is too rich for infantry blood/ego since it would be...gulp...a TANK to even the morons who think such things only have turrets (look at WW1 "tanks", how many of them had turrets? I guess they were not tanks, huh?).

OK, fine, no turret, no STUG gun in the hull.

Then a simple exposed pedestal or ring mount of a recoilless rifle or a TOW ATGM launcher on the M113 Gavin gets the necessary HE blasting effect at $500 a round or $5, 000 a missile. Some gunners will die firing from exposed positions and shields should be fitted to help. There should be no qualms about this since light infantry already has Humvee trucks with TOW ATGMs on top for tank effects (remember how Saddam's sons died?) as long as the truck its mounted under doesn't get you incinerated first. Switching out the dead horse of the wheeled truck for a light armored track solves not only light infantry's lack of Armor branch showing up to the fight after parachute and airland insertion, but there's space in back for infantry to get mobility to perhaps get into position after crossing enemy fire to do an Eban Emael and M16 versus AK47 defeat the enemy that needs rooting out.

www.combatreform2.com/itmaneuversabattalion.htm

Its almost as if....the M113....was designed by infantryman General Gavin to do this all along....that its program name of Airborne Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Family implies it was supposed to be used as an air-transported armored mobility mount for multiple tasks such as....INFANTRY FIRE SUPPORT. That would mean our forebears actually knew what they were doing at times, and we could learn from them by studying military history for practical applications for today and the future, right?

The time is long overdue for infantry to start mounting heavy weaponry on its light tracked platforms and stop expecting someone else to save them.

Posted by: Mike Sparks at October 6, 2007 09:10 AM

Not so fast genericidiotdaddy!

Face the FACTS and spare us your prejudices.

1. General Gavin was Army R&D Chief when the Airborne Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Family prototypes were create in 1956 BEFORE he retired.
His department WROTE the AAM/PVF requirements before that:

www.geocities.com/gavinpetition

You can be "generic" as a dad all you want, but don't be "generic" with the facts, do you even own the Hunnicutt book? I do and you are lying--Hunnicutt says the lighter aluminum M113 prototype was selected over the thin steel for air-transportability reasons. Start reading on page 77 thru page 81 or go out and spend the money to buy the book so you don't have to make up lies. Do us all a favor, liar.

2. And do not--you prejudiced liar---call me or my assistant Carol Murphy any other falsehoods. You are so prejudiced you lack the integrity to even email Carol and ask her if she types things for me etc. I guess teamwork is as foreign to you are RESEARCH or being a gentleman is. I pity your wife, "dad".

3. I reject the USMC not vice-a-versa, again get the facts straight again. Its an outfit that breeds prejudiced egomaniacs who have no integrity to find facts nor work with the other services unless something egotistical is in it for THEM. America should ditch the USMC before we have thousands of dead heroes drown packed like sardines in an amphib ship wanting to relive Iwo Jima at taxpayer expense.

Have I made myself clear, "dad"?

Rounds complete.

Posted by: Mike Sparks at October 3, 2007 06:31 AM

The M113 is indeed not called the "Gavin" by anyone that matters. The name was coined by one Mike Sparks, a USMC reject and army reservist/militar philosiphizer who posted below under his transexual internet persona Carol Murphy.

Mr Sparks, or Sparky as he is infamously known is under the mistaken belief that Gen. Gavin "designed" the M113 (not true, in fact he retired 2 years before it was adopted) and intended it to be an "Airborne Infantry Fighting Vehicle" (according to Hunnicut that was a separate vehicle that was dropped without a prototype being built. Thus back around 1995 Sparky started his campaign to honor Gen Gavin by calling the M113 the Gavin under mistaken pretenses.

Posted by: genericdad at May 28, 2007 06:32 PM

as a Cav. scout i found the Humvee to be just right. you could mount a TOW system on 1, a .50 on another. you could mix it up. it had the speed to get out of danger too. it is not a good choice for urban warfare. we are fighting a guerilla war, in the midst of a civil war. I think having a Bradley there when the shooting starts is a real advantage. it can be used for recon, but you cannot remain stealthy with 2 or 3 in addition to ur Humvees. i heard nothing but good things about Stryker. when they deploy the MGS, and the one with the mini-gun, it should give the dismounts a good edge. i read the Army is buying a number of Cadillac-Gage APC's. a little late, but good for the urban environment. good for scouting too. its the APC the Saudi's used in masse during '91. dual .50's, some had TOW. put a mini on 1 of them, and watch the fireworks.

Posted by: RHYNO at April 6, 2007 11:06 AM

The M113 has never, nor will ever be called the "Gavin". I wish you fan boy wanna-be GI's would quit trying to make this crap up. One of you said, "If we shrunk the M113 into a "Mini-Gavin" ". It was done quite a few decades ago. It was a very quiet but under powered thing called the M114... Hell, let's make up a name and call it the M114 "Buck Rogers"...

Before you decide to deride my knowledge, I was an Army E-5 11B in M113's when I got my commission and a armor team commander with 3/35AR, 1AD in Desert Storm.

Posted by: Melangell at February 7, 2007 10:55 PM

I like Lt Wu's thoughts, however our military brass never quite seem to get a handle on what's needed for a certain locale, or intensity level fight. Perhaps, we just need more variety in our force mix.

There is a truism, that Armies march on roads and fight in fields. Wheeled vehicles should not be your fighting vehicles. There is no way these will perform as well in mud or snow or cross country as a tracked vehicle.

With the National Training Center, MOUT training,simulators,and super computers, how is it that we are behind on the learning curve all the time. Our potential enemies force capabilities and intentions predictions are horrid. The Viet Cong schooled us on jungle warfare, and now we're scrambling some 4 years on
on how to handle terrorists and IED's in an Urban fight.

We have lost the initiative in Iraq because of short sightedness and intransigence on the part of our military leadership.

Posted by: stee Cyrier at January 27, 2007 01:55 PM

A small fireteam-carrying APC is TRACKED not a wheeled truck so it can be cross-country mobile and AVOID roads/trails and landmines entirely. ASV, Pumas are not "small" either; because their thin armored boxes sit ON TOP OF their wheeled propulsion means they are 28% larger than a compact track like the M113. If we shrunk the M113 into a "Mini-Gavin" it would gain a new air-mobility to fly OVER closed terrain; it can roll-on/off from inside CH-47 heavy lift helicopters. Non-linear war means non-linear mobility; wheels are dependant upon man-made strips of open terrain also known as roads/trails--lines that enemies can easily be waiting for us to come by if we are physically weak in wheeled trucks.

The next point is to back up face physical reality; there are both open and closed terrain types on planet earth; the open terrain lacking cover that we need to maneuver in two dimensions is best done with infantry in medium and heavier tracked APCs. These are your "Bradley" mechanized infantry units. Closed terrain is now being handled by light infantry which has an ego and function disconnect; it tries to walk everywhere after being dropped off from a wheeled truck from a road/trail. Even if the light defacto motorized infantry gets to the dismount point, its lost surprise and can be killed by every enemy weapons effect even near misses by high explosives. What light infantry needs is to be light mechanized in M113 Gavin and Mini-Gavin type tracked APCs so it has MAXIMUM mobility in closed terrain to include swimming across water and a way to fly over it to effect three dimensional maneuver that encircles and blocks the enemy instead of just slamming into him or pushing him away so he cannot be killed/captured.

Posted by: Carol Murphy at October 13, 2006 08:33 AM

I'm going to get all sci-fi-ish when I say "powered body armor." All our soldiers would be walking tanks! Too bad the technology isn't there yet.

Posted by: Marty at October 7, 2006 08:46 AM

The writer may be an engineer from MIT and a Lt in NG but he doesn't seem to understand defense analysis!
Mech infantry has a role. Thsi role does not include police actions such as looking for suspects in urban areas while being restrained from causing structural damage or escorting convoys.
The BFV was not at any time of its 25 year development had the tachtical-engineering requirement to be used in either of these roles, so no wonder the Lt feels there is a need for something else! In fact numerous people from Cav pointed this out before BFV was accepted for service in the early 80s, but at the time no one conidered having to fight in the type of environment Iraq is today.
In any case, why is a new vehicle needed? Seems to me they could have just recommenced manufacturing of the Commandos used in Vietnam. MPs used them there for same missions.
Regards

Posted by: Greg at October 6, 2006 07:20 PM

As a follow up to my last comment, put a swivel in the middle of the vehicle like the old "Gama Goats" for manuverability.

Posted by: Lane Altenbaumer at October 6, 2006 08:50 AM

The Leiutenant has it right. If the army could break up the infantry squad into three wheeled armored platforms with a mix bag of firepower as lead elements in a movement to contact mission with heavy backup air and ground this would be a step in the right direction.

Lane Altenbaumer
LTC IN (ret)

Posted by: Lane Altenbaumer at October 6, 2006 08:49 AM

Two areas to look at here: The old British Army concepts of employing "armoured cars" for patrol and escort work of all kinds, and the German Army's early post-war half-section APCs.

Given that most modern "armoured cars" have become as complex and costly as tanks, there seems to be a place for a vehicle like the South African Mamba/RG-32M,RG-31 and similar vehicles from Australia and in the US to operate as both an armoured car (armed with MGs and AGLs) and a half-section APC. The good visibility from inside will also be useful.

That said, 8x8 or 6x6 layouts would be useful to enable a vehicle to pull back or be pulled back after a mine detonation. A tracked vehicle that hits a mine in a narrow urban street - or a mountain road - is not only a dead duck, it also blocks the road.

What price a small, 6x6 Mamba type vehicle?

Posted by: Helmoed Heitman at October 6, 2006 04:58 AM

RE: The primary purpose of an Army - to be ready to fight effectively at all times - seemed to have been forgotten....
The leadership I found in many instances was sadly lacking and I said so out loud. The unwillingness of the Army to forgo certain creature comforts, its timidity about getting off the scanty roads, its reluctance to move without radio and telephone contact, General Matthew B. Ridgway, U.S. Army Chief of Staff, U.N. Forces
Commander during Korea War, Airborne Commander in WWII

ARE YOU KIDDING ME !!!!!!
Where in the name of .., your biggest gun IS your radio, call for back up , med-evact and more – , in asymmetrical warfare environment you are dead without como PERIOD

Striker – over heats, you cannot turn it around in the urban warfare OR MOUNTAIN TERRAIN, quickly, turn radius too large, - deathtrap for ambushes, asymmetrical warfare - short high intense ambush points, maximum maneuverability a MUST

WHAT LAME DUCK – thinks you should dismount your vehicle to set up mortar fire support , in the middle of a fire fight, especial when you are going to have to continuity change positions , more quickly and more,
Infantry dismount and remount a MUST< maximum fire power displacement to surrounding areas, again asymmetrical warfare you will be fighting in a circular combat environments

Posted by: Stephen at October 6, 2006 04:03 AM

I was Tactical Commo Chief as part of 15 year service with Mech. Infantry Co. in Indiana Army National Guard. My duty was in HQ "track" as we called the M113s APCs. worked in them, lived in them, was frequently pressed in service to drive one or to TC"track commander". Drove in all types of terrain from wooded trails to German Autobahn,during Reforger Exercise. Quite an experience. 40MPH on Autobahn during Friday afternoon rush hour. 120MPH/XXXKPH sports cars zipping by. Didnt feel intimated. 13ton APC against a Porsche.
For getting troops to action quickly over varied terrain it was a good vehicle in my opinion. Not the most compfortable for sleeping accomodations. bench seats too narrow.
Ted B.

Posted by: SSG(Ret.) Ted Blevins at October 6, 2006 12:26 AM

While Im aware of the many attributes of the Stryker in fighting insurgencies.Silent,Quick and Deadly. The achilles heel is that wheeled vehicles will not go where or over what tracked vehicles can, without having to be towed or change flat tires.As a former Cavalry Scout M113/M3 I can attest to the fact that every mission is dictated by METT-T. Mission,Enemy,Terrain,Troops and Time.Scouts must traverse any terrain to perform reconnaisance, and can not always stay on hard packed dirt or dry roads.BLACKHORSE!

Posted by: J.P.McCrory at October 5, 2006 11:49 PM

Good Afternoon Folks,

As someone who has been in combat in an APC, (the M-113 ACAV, 11ACR Vietnam) I can see the point the Lt. made. The concept of an "Infantry Battlefield Taxi" is one of those Cold War ideas that just won't go away.

The day of the dismount in combat is going away very quickly and none to soon. The fighting style of the Calvary, mounted is the most productive on the insurgent battlefield. With current sensors and overheaad recon. the need for a manned CFV is no longer necessary.

With a reduced military risking Infantry in an APC in an enviroment that included IED's and modern RPG'sis just is not in the cards. Urban combat is down, dirty and dangerious and is the perfect place for unmanned platforms. Better to call in the M-88 recovery vehicle then an "Dust Off" anytime.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at October 5, 2006 07:26 PM

I honestly don't see the imperative for having a 'Cavalry' unit at all. I believe that the author is promoting it as a way of stretching the capability of an under-manned Army to maintain a 'presence' over a wider area.

At 2 infantry per vehicle, there's no way that these troops can be deployed in dismounted combat. Take one casualty and whatever their mission was; it would have to be aborted.

If you take the infantry out of the 'Cavalry', you have an armored scout or escort vehicle, capable of 'drawing fire' or providing rear area or convoy security. We don't need a vehicle/unit specifically intended to draw fire; and the armored Humvee can pull security detail just as well.

Posted by: AGBrina at October 5, 2006 10:32 AM

There must be a mix of combat vehicles in our mechanized infantry force. Battalion-sized task forces should be built around each type of Vehicle; with Bradleys accounting for the most, and the rest split between Strykers and M113A3s.

The Bradley is our best option for an Infantry Fighting vehicle for intense combat operations. The Stryker is the best we have for Urban fighting and for UN/NATO-sponsored "Peacekeeping" operations. The M113A3 is more easily air-transportable than the others. It is the only one can be air-dropped as part of an airborne operation; and is the only one that can "swim" rivers and lakes. (I was in one of the 'A2' variants that swam from the South Korean mainland to a contested Island in the Yellow Sea back in 1974.)

Posted by: AGBrina at October 5, 2006 10:01 AM

Although it may have been by accident, BT characterized a key internal debate that occurred during the drafting of the 2005 QDR.

Army brass in Army Forces Command is all about picking up a man-intensive core competency like phase IV operations. The uniforms over at Army Materiel Command want to go back to planning for two geographically disconnected, but simultaneous Persian Gulf Wars. Army gearheads love that kind of planning because it is rich in technology and involves a wide variety of weapons platforms.

Ultimately, the two groups agreed to split the difference. The Army now is moving toward a force structure that can fight one insurgency and one Persian Gulf-style war. It is very expensive to maintain two different sets of land vehicles and equipment, so the Army is again trying to split the difference by armoring up light, mobile vehicles and toning down some of their plans for heavy transport vehicles.

The problem is that this attempt to find a vehicluar middle ground is that it will probably generate things that are a jack of all trades, but a master of none.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at October 5, 2006 09:00 AM

Consider this, Our next SET of conflicts could run to Viet type jungles, Iraq deserts, Lebanon urban streets, so do we need 1 universal set of wheels, or a multiple arsenal of combat vehicles. My thought, from a maintenance and logistics viewpoint, is 2 vehicles. A very fast, light gunned 3 man vehicle, and a STRYKER type vehicle, able to move with MBT and associated armored vehicles. The idea of logistics maintenance is to have few types and lots of replacement resources. end

Posted by: exwarrant at October 5, 2006 06:41 AM

The small APC can satisfy both high intensity and low intensity conflict requirements.

In high intensity operations, the current Transformation Thought(tm) is to deploy a lot of small teams on the battlefield, have them find the targets, and then call in artillery or air to blow them up. That was basically the approach the Marine Warfighting Labs were experimenting with during the late 90s. With such an approach, you need a lot of small APCs to support these small teams. A Bradley would be too big.

In low intensity operations, as I described, you again need a lot of small teams in small APCs.

With the current modular design toward armor, we just need to design the small APC to "up-armor" during high intensity operations. We can also up-gun the small APC with, say, the McDonnel Douglas ASP 30 mm chaingun, which is basically a 50 cal on steroids, if necessary.

The brass may not like the small APC approach because it means a lot more pieces on the battlefield, making it more of a confusion and more prone to traffic jams.

In fact, the current Mech Inf Platoon already splits up the infantry squad into 2 6-men teams, each in its own Bradley, so the dismounts are already familiar with the coordination piece within squad.

Posted by: Jimmy Wu at October 5, 2006 01:15 AM

The Bradley is JUST FINE with the different missions its asked to perform. If the Army needs to find another vehicle, then the Army can bolt on some armor onto the M113A3. The A3 model of the 113 series was a major improvement over the older Vietnam era A2 model. I know first hand since I used to TC both the A2 and A3 113 variants.

As for the Army not having enough money to fix broken Bradleys in the Depots, the Army needs to find the monies and take them out of the Stryker program. The Stryker is like a huge BTR 80 with a buttload of electronics and only a damn .50 cal MG to protect it.

The Bradley is just fine for the mission over in Iraq and the Insurgents hate the sight of a Bradley when it starts to kick that Insurgent arse.

Posted by: Comanche_21 at October 4, 2006 09:23 PM

I'm fairly anti M113. I drove those off and on in the Army in the 90s (the M113A2 variant) and it was a gigantic POS. Under Powered, under armored, and unreliable. We shot up an old one out at NTC as it was getting retired and 7.62 rounds out of an M60 at 100 meters were punching though the sides at about 50% success.

Posted by: Bill at October 4, 2006 08:08 PM

BT - I was ready to go off on a rant about "We have these problems now because" but then I read your astute analysis [big picture rant, if you prefer] and second it with a twist - that the 75% of peace keepers be trained to deal with natural / man-made disasters in the way of police and emergency services. Such capability would have been a tremendous asset after Katrina, the Indonesian tsunami, Pakistan earthquake, etc.

Posted by: Noah (the other one) at October 4, 2006 07:48 PM

Robot Economist, I hope your observations with the Army brass are wrong. The dirty wars we are in now are they way of the future. We have these problems now because we did not learn from Somalia, Bosnia/Kosovo and other COTW excursions throughout the 1990's. Ignore the lessons of Iraq at our own peril. It seems like the DOD is always planning, I mean wishing, for quick, clean, drive by wars.

I don't know whether we should go heavy or light. Speed, range, and endurance are highly affective during conventional offensive battles, but heavy is needed for asymmetric defensive postures. I know I would take my chances in something other than Humvees. IED's, mines, RPG's, and ATGM's are a bitch, but not every vehicle can be armored like a MBT. I know we will need many of these vehicles, and it will not need to carry more than six troops, because you can guarantee several will get destroyed. I am not a fan of the Gavin POS, like it seems many of you are. Whatever we need, it better have a "V" shaped hull, and defeat at least 12.7mm AP, and maybe strap on some Nx/ERA if needed.

Here is another “big picture” rant by me. We need two armies, one for conventional wars, and one for post-conflict stability/peacekeeping. Split the army 75/25, with the majority going to post-conflict, and the Navy and Air force need to be halved in favor of the army/marines.

Posted by: BT at October 4, 2006 02:08 PM

Sounds like what the author is recommending is a lot like a Nyala, Bushmaster or a similar vehicle: Less than a Stryker, but more than a Humvee, and with enough aremor to take an IED or RPG without much damage to the occupants. The Canadians and Aussies are using these to good effect in leading convoys in their areas of operations.

Posted by: Hawthorne at October 4, 2006 11:15 AM

If you read the fine print of FCS's requirements for the next-generation of APCs, you will see the Army plans to go back to the old heavy, tracked formula.

My impression of the Army force planners I interact with is that they hope operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will discourage similar wars in the future. The uniforms, in particular, don't want adopt new vehicles based on their experience in Iraq because it would encourage the government to deploy them to similar missions in the future.

They take the old Sam Huntington/Les Aspin approach to force planning. Build the force to fight the Iraqi and North Korean army and just hope that is enough to handle any peacekeeping/phase IV requirements.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at October 4, 2006 08:34 AM

Mech Infantry's Next Step

Comments

Post a comment