This monograph examines a concept for the employment of the Stinger Air Defense Artillery weapon system known as "Stinger Under Armor." It traces the evolution of the concept from its genesis during the SGT York Division Air Defense Gun testing period to the present, highlighting the many variants the term has come to embrace as well as the changing context in which the Stinger has been employed. The monograph is analytical in nature, but stresses subjective and relational considerations rather than objective criteria which lie beyond the means of this project. Instead, it provides a broader conceptual framework to analyze primary employment alternatives and establish relative values for the overall effectiveness of each strategy. Historical imperatives relating to the employment of air defense weapons in defense of ground maneuver units derived from past conflicts provide a logical, cohesive framework for the analysis. Time tested principles of "mass," "mix," "mobility," and "integration" are combined with essential battlefield tasks of "shoot," "move," and "communicate" to build an evaluation matrix of "Combat Criteria." Similarly, in recognition of the growing influence of force development considerations in the overall acceptability of any strategy, a second set of criteria, based on the factors of "cost," "availability," "feasibility," "risk," and "modernization impacts" are also considered. While the analysis uses numerical ratings for each employment strategy, the numbers simply provide a useful means for comparison of strategies - they are subjective, and open to challenge. However, of greater importance is the relative ranking of alternative strategies based on these two categories of effectiveness, and that ranking is less volatile. The analysis identifies clear benefits of providing dedicated carriers for Stingers. It also establishes the inferiority of non-dedicated Stingers, and of the use of non-dedicated maneuver unit vehicles to carry Stinger teams during offensive operations in mid-to-high intensity environments. Finally, the study draws the reader to question the broader implications of the material acquisition and combat development processes that have contributed to creating a window of vulnerability in forward area air defense in the pre-FAADS era. This broader deficiency ultimately drove the need for "Stinger Under Armor" as a short-term solution to a current battlefield vulnerability.

ADA 226007 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)