What is infantry?

Infantry soldiers primarily fight on foot, mainly with small arms and operate within organized military units

They also capture and destroy enemy ground forces and repel enemy attacks.

The primary purpose of infantry is to engage in ground combat, the biggest difference between the different types of infantry is the way they get to the fight.

The different types of infantry I am going to talk about today are, Air Assault, Mechanized, Airborne and Stryker.

Air Assault
Combat tested during the Korean War but not widely used until the Vietnam War in 1964, the Army realized that they needed a new type of transportation for use in the jungle.  They found that it was very slow to break brush through jungle terrain and needed a quick way to be inserted into the combat zone.
The first Air Cav was activated for service in Vietnam. They saw intense combat during the Battle of Ia Drang Valley where the speed and mobility of the air cav was proven.

Air Assault infantry’s primary mode to the fight is by helicopter, they are very fast to the fight and can be dropped just about anywhere.

They also can be re-supplied by air and evacuated by air if necessary.

Although once on the ground they are limited to what they can carry and are light infantry



MECHANIZED Infantry uses Armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles to transport troops or even use these vehicles in combat.

Initially they are slower to arrive in theatre compared to other types of infantry because of the size and weight of heavy infantry fighting vehicles.

While mounted mechanized infantry cannot move in all types of terrain

Heavier firepower and armor than light infantry

Vehicles are high maintenance and require fuel, spare parts and extra resources compared to light infantry.

Mechanized infantry vehicles are also highly visible on the battlefield and can be vulnerable to enemy armor.


Airborne infantry uses airplanes to drop paratroopers into combat zones

Thus they can be placed behind enemy lines, and have an ability to deploy almost anywhere with little warning, they are very fast into the fight, but lack suplies for prolonged combat there is only so much gear a paratrooper can carry into battle.

They can pretty much be dropped out of no where and can act as a great spear head to a assault.

Although there operations are very dependant on weather conditions


Stryker

The stryker is meant to be somewhere in between light and heavy, in situations where the call for heavy infantry is too much but more armor is needed than light infantry.

Less maintenance than tracked vehicle and less wear and tear on roads.

Although they are lighter and faster than the Bradley they do not have as much armor.

da bump fire!

The air assault infantry has the main job of holding LZ's and FARP's. This allows the helicopters to reach further in, leapfrogging as far as they can.
I was disappointed to hear this at an Air Assault school graduation, especially considering the speaker was my infantry battalion commander. It was exactly what we did in Iraq during combat operations, except we GAC'd across the border.

yakrat101

Quoted: The air assault infantry has the main job of holding LZ's and FARP's. This allows the helicopters to reach further in, leapfrogging as far as they can. I was disappointed to hear this at an Air Assault school graduation, especially considering the speaker was my infantry battalion commander. It was exactly what we did in Iraq during combat operations, except we GAC'd across the border. yakrat101

thx

why did this dissapoint you?

TTT

bump!

Quoted: The biggest point you missed on mech infantry is their tactical mobility. You can move 200 miles in one day.  The point to operational manuever is to keep your enemy on the run.  Mech can pursue a motorized or mechanized enemy. There is no pursuit in light infantry. Strategic mobility is nice, but the true destroyer on the battlefield is your mechanized forces. Of course, since the only thing that matters is badges and who has the cooler shit on their M4, we must worship at the ground of airborne infantry. Logistics is difficult but not impossible (as we have proven) Never forget the vietnam war ended when NVA armor invaded and conquered the south.

thx for the help so what you are saying is that usually light or airborne troops are stuck when they are on foot where mech can move around?

I would change the point of view on the Stryker infantry. It's not an issue of armour, it's an issue of mobility. After all, if you need armour, why not have Bradley levels? Once paratroopers or chopper-borne troops are out of their aircraft, they are pretty immobile. Without external help (i.e. more choppers) they are by an large stuck to wherever their little legs can carry them. This is not a limitation on Strykers, and a Stryker unit is vastly more mobile than the other two airmobile types. They do require a lot more aircraft to get to where they're going, but once on the ground have much greater tactical and operational mobility. Speed is a weapon, after all.

A classic example might be using the paratroops to conduct an airfield assault, and when the airfield has been captured, you now have an airhead for the transport of Stryker infantry who can then get to wherever they need to get to.

NTM

A c-17 can move two brads or an M1. Why settle for a half assed Bradley when you can have the real thing.

You also need to fly in all the required support structure. A single Stryker, which uses less fuel, and has easier maintenance requirements will carry a full 9-man squad. You can't fit a 9-man squad into a Bradley. So you need an extra vehicle, with the accompanying increase in the already higher requirements for fuel and maintenance support. Even just on a one-for-one basis, Strykers need less support than Bradleys.

NTM

Quoted: The biggest point you missed on mech infantry is their tactical mobility. You can move 200 miles in one day.  The point to operational manuever is to keep your enemy on the run.  Mech can pursue a motorized or mechanized enemy. There is no pursuit in light infantry. Strategic mobility is nice, but the true destroyer on the battlefield is your mechanized forces. Of course, since the only thing that matters is badges and who has the cooler shit on their M4, we must worship at the ground of airborne infantry. Logistics is difficult but not impossible (as we have proven) Never forget the vietnam war ended when NVA armor invaded and conquered the south.

Except mech isn't all that useful in places like heavy forests, jungles, swamps, cities, mountains, basically anything but open terrain.  Once they are out of the open desert and into the cities, they aren't any more mobile than light.

You can drive 200 miles in a Brad, or you can fly over them at 3 times the speed in a Blackhawk.  Once on the ground, and after the mission, the birds can come back and pick you back up, return to base, or move to another location.

Tactical mobility?  When the 101st air assaulted 400 miles into Irak in Desert Storm, that wasn't tactical mobility?

The NVA armor entered the South after the US had left.  Armor, theirs and ours, was limited to roads and larger trails.

Quoted: Tactical mobility?  When the 101st air assaulted 400 miles into Irak in Desert Storm, that wasn't tactical mobility?

I would submit that that's operational mobility.

When the shooting starts, and troops need to get from one ambush position to another, or what have you, they're likely on foot.

NTM

Quoted: A c-17 can move two brads or an M1. Why settle for a half assed Bradley when you can have the real thing. You also need to fly in all the required support structure. A single Stryker, which uses less fuel, and has easier maintenance requirements will carry a full 9-man squad. You can't fit a 9-man squad into a Bradley. So you need an extra vehicle, with the accompanying increase in the already higher requirements for fuel and maintenance support. Even just on a one-for-one basis, Strykers need less support than Bradleys. NTM

Yeah, "easier to support"

Stryker
.50 remote fired MG
light-meduim APC armor

Bradley
25mm gun
7.62 co-axial MG
7.62 AA MG
Tow II X2
(Unless it's a "Linebacker" the Tow II's get switched out for a 4 pack od ADA missiles)
medium-heavy APC armor

The amount of support for a Bradley is certainly more than a Stryker. The amount of firepower a Bradley brings is far in excess of what the Stryker has.

The big support hog is the M1 Abrams. 1,500 gallons of diesle per day.................  We need the M8 AGS to get on line.

1 Abrams per C5, or  5 M8's.................................

Depends on the battlefield.

Everything has it's strengths and weaknesses. That's why it's a combined arms team. That's why the 101st can air assault in the enemy's rear set up a FARP and leapfrog an entire brigade forward while mechanized forces are tearing up across the desert. Or how you resupply light infantry in terrain that is impassible to mech/stryker forces.

Yeah in OIF 1 we GAC'd into Iraq and it was a shitty 3 days, but weather played a role and the CG's decision to save airframe hours.

I've been light my entire time, and I love the mobility. If I can't fly in or jump in, I'm pretty damn sure that I'll get trucked in, sure I may have to walk a few klicks to where I'm going, but hey at some point in time everyone has to get out and walk.

But really, it's all about the combined arms effort and massing the appropriate combat power and assets to defeat the enemy you expect to face.

Oh, and as far as I know, the last time we seized an airfield with an airborne operation was during Panama. The elements of the 82nd that are in theater right now are riding around in 1114's just like the rest of us.

tag

What they all have in common is the 11B's. Tracks without Inf support is in trouble.

Quoted: Yeah, "easier to support" Stryker .50 remote fired MG light-meduim APC armor Bradley 25mm gun 7.62 co-axial MG 7.62 AA MG Tow II X2 (Unless it's a "Linebacker" the Tow II's get switched out for a 4 pack od ADA missiles) medium-heavy APC armor The amount of support for a Bradley is certainly more than a Stryker. The amount of firepower a Bradley brings is far in excess of what the Stryker has. The big support hog is the M1 Abrams. 1,500 gallons of diesle per day.................  We need the M8 AGS to get on line. 1 Abrams per C5, or  5 M8's.................................

I don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this. The extra firepower and armour of the Bradley is pointless if the Bradley can't move anywhere because it's waiting for track components or ammo or fuel, all of which are heavier and bulkier than the Stryker counterparts (Exception of roadwheels, but a Stryker has far fewer of them), or simply because they're pulling track maintenance, which takes a lot more hours than wheeled vehicle maintenance.

Stop thinking of the Stryker as Bradley-Lite. Start thinking of it as Light Infantry (Improved). Different roles.

Now that the MGS has finally been approved for production, I doubt the M8 will see the further light of day. It's another item to throw into the logistical mix. One of the great features of a Stryker unit is commonality of parts. All the vehicles, from the ambulance to the 105mm cannon variant use the same wheels, engine, transmission, headlight bulbs...the works. Compare that to a unit with Bradleys, M113s and M8s, and you have a mess of parts to worry about. Logistics wins wars these days.

Whilst your statement that as currently operating, Stryker can't be carried by C-130 is correct, there's nothing to say that Stryker -has- to go around the world with the extra five tons' worth of steel. The main advantage it provides to the infantry are the wheels, not the armour. Remember that the M8 had three different levels of armour package depending on what you wanted it to do, this is exactly the same as Stryker's current situation. If you're going to use it as a patrol vehicle in an insurgency, then yes, you need the full weight. But then, you probably also have the time to get them to where they need to be by other means. If you're looking at, say, a situation similar to the airborne deployment in Desert Shield 1990, then the RPG cage is irrelevant.

Oh, and as far as I know, the last time we seized an airfield with an airborne operation was during Panama

I could have sworn there was an airfield seizue in Northern Iraq.

NTM

During OIF 1 there was a jump on an airfield. The airfield was secured prior to the jump. Same thing happened during Desert Storm. Memory's a little hazy about the one in Desert Storm, but I had a TL in the early 90's who was super excited that he finally got to wear a combat patch because they jumped on a secured airfield.

I could be wrong, but if there is anyone here from 3/75 they could probably confirm or deny...

Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, "easier to support" Stryker .50 remote fired MG light-meduim APC armor Bradley 25mm gun 7.62 co-axial MG 7.62 AA MG Tow II X2 (Unless it's a "Linebacker" the Tow II's get switched out for a 4 pack od ADA missiles) medium-heavy APC armor The amount of support for a Bradley is certainly more than a Stryker. The amount of firepower a Bradley brings is far in excess of what the Stryker has. The big support hog is the M1 Abrams. 1,500 gallons of diesle per day.................  We need the M8 AGS to get on line. 1 Abrams per C5, or  5 M8's................................. I don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this. The extra firepower and armour of the Bradley is pointless if the Bradley can't move anywhere because it's waiting for track components or ammo or fuel, all of which are heavier and bulkier than the Stryker counterparts (Exception of roadwheels, but a Stryker has far fewer of them), or simply because they're pulling track maintenance, which takes a lot more hours than wheeled vehicle maintenance.

Yeah, it takes more to support a Bradley, and to get it there in the first place.
Once the shooting starts, the amount of firepower you have becomes very improtant. The Bradley can engage other IFV/APC types, as well as possibly taking out MBT's with TOW's. A Stryker can't effectively engage any of those threats.

A .50 cal is far too little weaponry for a 19 ton vehicle.  

If you want wheels and low maint, why not 4 HMMV's instead of 1 Stryker................ Then you could at least mount a TOW launcher, a .50 cal, and 2 MK-19's. They would also be far easier to support than a Stryker.

Stop thinking of the Stryker as Bradley-Lite. Start thinking of it as Light Infantry (Improved). Different roles.

Stryker needs more weapon.....................

Now that the MGS has finally been approved for production, I doubt the M8 will see the further light of day. It's another item to throw into the logistical mix. One of the great features of a Stryker unit is commonality of parts. All the vehicles, from the ambulance to the 105mm cannon variant use the same wheels, engine, transmission, headlight bulbs...the works. Compare that to a unit with Bradleys, M113s and M8s, and you have a mess of parts to worry about. Logistics wins wars these days.

MGS................ the guys who built it say it is too heavy, and needs at least 2 more wheels
M8 has an HEMMT engine, the transmission and cooling gear are Bradley parts............... it has commonality with equipment already being used.

Whilst your statement that as currently operating, Stryker can't be carried by C-130 is correct, there's nothing to say that Stryker -has- to go around the world with the extra five tons' worth of steel. The main advantage it provides to the infantry are the wheels, not the armour. Remember that the M8 had three different levels of armour package depending on what you wanted it to do, this is exactly the same as Stryker's current situation.

The M8 is airdroppable in level 1 armor from a C-130, can your Sryker do that?
M8 in level 1 armor weighs less than 19 tons, about the same weight as a "stock" Stryker.

If you're going to use it as a patrol vehicle in an insurgency, then yes, you need the full weight. But then, you probably also have the time to get them to where they need to be by other means. If you're looking at, say, a situation similar to the airborne deployment in Desert Shield 1990, then the RPG cage is irrelevant.

RPG cage irrelevant? Those RPG's are EVERYWHERE......................

NTM