Jump to content
dan/california

Shock Force was an argument for Strykers. Black Sea is an argument against them.

Recommended Posts

If you use your Stryker as a fighting vehicle, I'd imagine no, if you use it in it's intended role to transport and provide local support for the infantry...  I served for 6 years as an infantryman on BTRs and BMPs.  The BTRs just took us to dismount points and we did our mission on foot, our BTR was not trying to fight other vehicles.  I son't know te USA doctrine, but I don't think they are going to put a company of Strykers on line and assault through an objective with them.

Edited by Na Vaske

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strykers, BMPs, BTRs, etc., are basically like WW2 halftracks, they provide battlefield mobility and some cover to small arms fire, but they are not made to survive on the battlefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strykers, BMPs, BTRs, etc., are basically like WW2 halftracks, they provide battlefield mobility and some cover to small arms fire, but they are not made to survive on the battlefield.

 

I wouldn't lump BMP into simply 'providing cover from small arms fire and battlefield mobility.' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wheeled vehicles are supposed to require less maintenance, they are potentially faster on operational level if there exists a road net...They are also cheaper, or so I've heard.

Wasn't the Stryker result of experiences from the Cosovo conflict in '99? Something packing more punch than a Humvee, yet way easier to deploy than a Bradley. The result being that you have considerable force on the battlefield quickly and you are able to hold your ground until armor arrives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may quote the manual:

"The Stryker line of vehicles was developed as an answer to post-Cold War combat scenarios which often necessitated fast deployment across the world. The Stryker provides infantry with high strategic mobility while having a smaller logistical footprint than heavy mechanized units."

 

Even if it won't survive the environment, thats what it's supposed to do. It wasn't build for a war against a techological rival.

Edited by Jargotn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's one thing that Shock Force taught me, it was that a Stryker force handled with care is going to survive longer than a Bradley force used recklessly! ;)

I would actually argue that Bradleys are significantly compromised in the sort of full up fight taking place in the AAR, or would be if Panzrlder didn't have almost complete fire superiority.  Hideous as the logistics are you need Abrams level protection to really call it an IFV.  There are just a lot of ways to die out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't lump BMP into simply 'providing cover from small arms fire and battlefield mobility.' 

 

I presume you mean they can provide supporting fire?, which is also true of the various Stryker variants. However, since they are thin-skinned, they still have to be used carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the original design, Strykers were designed more for a counter-insurgency/urban warfare role, hence why they are wheeled, were supposed to be air-transportable so they could be deployed quickly overseas and were supposed to be built with "off the shelf" parts, so they would be less expensive to build and maintain. Not all of these design goals were met.

Edited by Sgt Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't lump BMP into simply 'providing cover from small arms fire and battlefield mobility.' 

 

I would.

 

Slapping a 30mm on an ICV and stating it is now capable of fighting doesn't make it an IFV. BMP-2s can usually be made mission or mobility killed if hit with anti-material calibers. It was gratifying to see BMP-2s have turret, optic and even track malfunctions when hit with defensive fire by .50; as its the technologically correct portrayal of their limitations. IFVs are always 'Gun' in the Gun vs Armor debate, and should only be used as a weapons platform in the correct instances. The BMP-2 is an updated BMP-1 - 60s tech, folks, slapping a new cannon and marginally newer bull**** (excuse my french) on it doesn't suddenly make it capable of rolling forwards with the MBTs its theoretically meant to support. 

 

This goes for most IFVs; I'm not going to sit here and Shill for Western Equipment. I've played enough Shock Force against human opponents. It was sobering, but fair, to watch LAV-IIIs and YPRs get damaged by DhSK fire, for example. I spent enough time in the CF to tell you that the difference beteween an IFV and an ICV is more than semantics; and the LAV-III is a perfect example of why doctrine for Mechanized forces are often married to the equipment.

 

A Bradley mounted unit can keep up with the Abrams they are meant to protect; yes, protect. Strykers don't need to keep up with tanks, and their only job is to get Infantry to a detrucking position and cover if possible. A Stryker doesn't need to help act as a pair of additional eyes or ears for an Abrams outfit, and there's a reason that a SBCT doesn't have Combined Arms units.  

 

 

 

I would actually argue that Bradleys are significantly compromised in the sort of full up fight taking place in the AAR, or would be if Panzrlder didn't have almost complete fire superiority.  Hideous as the logistics are you need Abrams level protection to really call it an IFV.  There are just a lot of ways to die out there.

 

Edit: Last words, as my 2 cents are coming closer to a full dollar by now. There's a reason why ABCTs are not considered strategic assets; to put it in perspective I'll reference the past, the Panther was deemed 'not a strategic tank' in reference to maintenance, mobility and sustained hitting power. You can choose disagree or agree with these post-war observations all you like, but food for thought. The ABCT is the same; with the right logistics, it can drive deep and fast, but 'Speed and Power' to those who are reading the AAR intently, means on the tactical or operational level. If you want to smash the enemy's main force, you use an ABCT. 

 

And yes Dan, Abrams level protection is *precisely* why its an IFV. There's a reason why an Armored battalion is a 2/2 split; the logic works both ways, many (myself included) will argue that an Abrams needs a Bradley or something with similar capabilities (read: Not a Stryker) to do what it does best: Kill the enemy without distraction.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would.

 

Slapping a 30mm on an ICV and stating it is now capable of fighting doesn't make it an IFV. BMP-2s can usually be made mission or mobility killed if hit with anti-material calibers. It was gratifying to see BMP-2s have turret, optic and even track malfunctions when hit with defensive fire by .50; as its the technologically correct portrayal of their limitations. IFVs are always 'Gun' in the Gun vs Armor debate, and should only be used as a weapons platform in the correct instances. The BMP-2 is an updated BMP-1 - 60s tech, folks, slapping a new cannon and marginally newer bull**** (excuse my french) on it doesn't suddenly make it capable of rolling forwards with the MBTs its theoretically meant to support. 

 

This goes for most IFVs; I'm not going to sit here and Shill for Western Equipment. I've played enough Shock Force against human opponents. It was sobering, but fair, to watch LAV-IIIs and YPRs get damaged by DhSK fire, for example. I spent enough time in the CF to tell you that the difference beteween an IFV and an ICV is more than semantics; and the LAV-III is a perfect example of why doctrine for Mechanized forces are often married to the equipment.

 

A Bradley mounted unit can keep up with the Abrams they are meant to protect; yes, protect. Strykers don't need to keep up with tanks, and their only job is to get Infantry to a detrucking position and cover if possible. A Stryker doesn't need to help act as a pair of additional eyes or ears for an Abrams outfit, and there's a reason that a SBCT doesn't have Combined Arms units.  

 

I'd just say in my army service, tanks supported me, I didn't support tanks.  Perhaps that is just doctrinal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True enough; and we treated our Big Cats the same way, but that's probably because my country isn't exactly capable of forming an armored fist even if it wanted to. The Russian Federation and the US don't have those same limitations. 

 

The US however, to my knowledge, always lead with a 'tank first' attitude in CABs.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had some decent success with TOW mounted Strykers. Most of the things that killed them would have killed. Bradley as well. As an all round support vehicle though in the typical CM scale battlefield you are gonna want Brads over Strykers. Still they are fun to play around with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with the Bradley is that it was designed in the 70s and the production line stopped 20 years ago. Yes, you can modernise and upgrade it, but eventually the Army needs to find a replacement.

 

Ironically, the Stryker was originally designed as an interim vehicle until the Future Combat System vehicles were produced. However, now that the FCS has been killed by budget cuts, the Stryker's life keeps getting extended. New and improved models should be produced until 2018, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last armor upgrade to the Marine LAV-25 they sealed off the old hull side vision blocks and pistol ports. Bradley had lost its side gun ports ages ago, the single rear ramp gun port was the last to be sealed over. IFVs stopped being 'infantry fighting vehicles' a long time ago. BMP-3 is more vulnerablee to HMG fire than Stryker (Stryker's ceramic plates should make it proof against DShK) and being packed full of high explosives BMP-3 would be a veritable death trap to any infantry on board. When arguing about fighting ability we're basically talking about IFVs in the light tank role once the troops have disembarked. Disembarked Strykers don't exactly make the most impressive light tank. Then again Bradley had to have its troop compartment redesigned twice over before becoming a satisfactory infantry carrier.

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed/Adaptation is an important part of infantry tactics. Strykers and other "light" vehicles have a real impact on battlefield.

 

=> Infantry rapid moves and manoeuvers

=> As Sgt Joch said, their core target is counter and urban reactivity.

=> But also, they are important for troop morale: knowing that having an Abrams at your side is reassuring,  to have a Stryker to quickly being extracted from a conflict zone is probably encouraging soldiers and helps keep calm.

 

If I may say a metaphor, if we perceived the Abrams as a regular armed force (rather slow but very often ruthlessly efficient), the Stryker could be seen as a guerilla's tool (fast, low fire intensity, but able to quickly move the avenues of approach).

 

 I'm sorry if my english is not perfect, but I'm already working to make myself understood at this time ^_^ . Thank you for your patience :D

 

 

Damien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Shock Force, my Strikers were always meat for RPG-7 in buildings, but maybe I wasn't covering them well enough?

Edited by frez13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strategic mobility means airlift.

 

One Abrams can be carried by a C-17. That's a lot of sorties to get a battalion of tanks in-theater.

 

Paratroopers have outstanding strategic mobility, but piss-poor tactical mobility. Get 'em 8,000 miles away in 16 hours, and wherever they land, that's where they'll stay.

 

It's all a balance...

 

Strykers as combat vehicles? Well, if you call them "trucks" instead of "tanks" (or "IFV" or even "AFV") you'd be closest to their role. They're good...against small arms. Would I rather have a deuce and a half or a Stryker? Easy, the Stryker. But let me choose an Abrams or a Stryker and that's equally easy.

 

Great for operational mobility, bring a lot of capability, but not for medium/high level threat environments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall the precise moment when the Pentagon decided it wanted Strykers. Entering Kosovo in 1999 the US struggled with its cumbersome heavy armor forces while watching the Canadians in their new LAV-IIIs zip to the head of the line and lead a quick advance into the country. It was plain to see the Pentagon was positively dripping with envy.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall the precise moment when the Pentagon decided it wanted Strykers. Entering Kosovo in 1999 the US struggled with its cumbersome heavy armor forces while watching the Canadians in their new LAV-IIIs zip to the head of the line and lead a quick advance into the country. It was plain to see the Pentagon was positively dripping with envy.  :D

And if they have to go against Russian T-99 now, they'd be kicking themselves for that decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always viewed them as a useful supplement to IBCTs or ABCTs depending on the mission.  In low intensity conflicts, Stryker units offer the speed and firepower that IBCTs lack, without the expense and inherent impact heavy armor has on a community. (anyone who's seen a tank drive down an Iraqi street knows what I'm talking about).  In a high intensity conflict, they have the mobility to keep up with armor forces in the lead, but have much more "boots" to clear complex objectives like cities and forests compared to armored forces, and enough firepower to deal with limited enemy bypassed "heavy" forces.  

 

As the spearhead they're limited, they'll do very poorly force on force with armor, and they're still a lot slower to deploy than an IBCT would be.  But again as that light force to assist heavy units, or heavier to support light units, they're helpful.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strykers can carry more infantry. The strengh of a stryker brigade is its dismounted infantry. Strykers are there to provide mobility and carrying capacity for ammo, javelins and some light support against light targets, 

 

Talking of BMP-3, the ERA equipped one has a yellow square level of protection (means good, better than bradley) against the 20-30mm projectile category. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...