If you've been following American Mercenary in his latest posting in Europe then you've seen an American Army Officer that seems to be (and this is my opinion, I could be wrong and will gladly accept his correction) impressed with our allies ability to conduct deliberate attacks, seems impressed with the firepower that their vehicles have and is a bit concerned about the lack of punch found in our Stryker Brigades.
But as he said in a post on mobility today....
I'm serving in my second Stryker unit. The first time I did the Iraq thing. This time I'm doing the "cross train with all our NATO allies across Europe" thing. The experience in Europe has really opened my eyes to why the 2nd Cavalry Regiment really does need 81 Strykers with 30mm cannon upgrades.Ok. He wants 30mm cannon upgrades. Like I said...cool. But then he says this...
So yeah, Strykers are great to get dismounted Infantrymen across great distances and into the fight, but it's not a preferred platform to go one on one with COMBLOC tanks and fighting vehicles.Ordinarily I don't like parsing someone's words. It fails to give the full flavor of the statement or the point being made but this time is different (by the way you can read his whole statement here). His statement mirrors what the US Army has been saying.
This all leaves me with the one question that was never asked by defense journalist when this news came out. Why? Why does the US Army think that it needs to upgun its Strykers in Europe? Are they going to employ them differently? Has doctrine changed to account for them moving to a larger caliber main gun? Will TTPs change because Styker Brigades will operate IFVs instead of APCs?
The why is important and no one has asked that of the US Army with regard to the upgunning to a 30mm cannon. If this is just a case of the US Army looking at Polish Wolverine's and being envious then that's not good enough.