Stryker - Pros and Cons

[Thewood1]

If you just looked at a few of the responses, you'll see all of this was covered and we even have pictures...of the 30mm-armed Stryker

[JUAN DEAG]

I feel like a 40/50 turret could massively boost the firepower of the Stryker with a minimum sacrifice of weight, cost, and size. SLAP ammo for the 50 cal and HEDP for the 40mm grenade launcher would deal with the issue of enemy BTR/BMP which seems to be the source of complaints about Stryker firepower. This solution also has the added benefit of allowing the gunner to reload safely within the vehicle. The 40/50 turret already exists on the Marine's LVTP and other vehicles which gives it some existing parts commonality.

[sburke]

14 hours ago, Erwin said:

Yes..., MOBILITY.  CM2 maps rarely give opportunity for vehicular mobility.  As someone pointed out a Stryker is more like a halftrack than a tank and has little or no place in CM2 scenarios cos by the time one gets into the short range firefights of CM2, the "Stonkers" would be in the rear.

There is mobility and then there is operational mobility.   A CM map can definitely be large enough that mobility becomes very important. You really want that infantry platoon to march a kilometer or 2 before making contact? Or trying to cross a kilometer potentially under arty fire?  That however is different than operational mobility, that is the point folks are making about the role of the Stryker and I do agree  that piece you can't really portray in CM without a campaign layer.   See what I did there ?Perfect segue into what we all know we want   BF fix or do sumfink 

[MikeyD]

I understand Canada is in the process of converting its stock of LAVIII TUA vehicles to plain-Jane APCs. If reports from Syria are true that active signal jamming countermeasures work against TOW that significantly lowers TOW's worth on the battlefield. I'm not saying it is true, I'm just sayin'...

[JUAN DEAG]

A necessary upgrade

 

 

[JUAN DEAG]

I just reached my attachment limit, how do I post pictures now?

Edited May 19, 2017 by JUAN DEAG

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

Re: Kasserine Pass

It's relived by a different unit virtually every month at NTC.  
I'm really stunned by the supreme arrogance in some of the replies by a certain someone on this thread.  The anti-armor capabilities, or lack therefore of on the Stryker are well established within the Army.  However the solution isn't to try to make it into a Bradley because that is precisely not the missionset it was designed for.  

There is a push to add some ATGM capability to the vehicle to give it a sort of "bear mace" level anti-armor capability.  But speaking as someone who'd done Bradleys vs tanks in training, an ATGM really isn't enough unless you're in a good defensive posture (while a Javelin likely would work better than the TOWs I had to play with, the engagement cycle for a tank is so much faster than an ATGM, so in a "I'm moving/he's moving we see each other same time" the party in the tank will win full stop).

In more practical terms if a Stryker unit is called upon to fight around significant enemy armor, it will be augmented by armor (as in Abrams), CCA, or other assets.  There's just not a lot of tools that handle tanks on the offensive as well as tanks.  

Re: .50/40MM turret

Big downside to that turret is that it is not stabilized, doesn't have thermal optics, or a LRF.  The RWS on the Stryker will get you first round on target, and when you're using it in overwatch or supporting positions, that's pretty valuable.  

If I ruled the world:

I think the Army needs to bring back a few Tank Battalions, as in independent units.   Both IBCTs and SBCTs often need armor when they're called on to do a lot of higher intensity missions.  However when tank are used to augment these units, they come out of an ABCT that might like to have more vs less tanks.   Having a separate tank battalion able to slice out self-supporting company sized elements (tank company+maintenance team+logpac augmentation if required) would enable giving an SBCT a lot more maneuver punch, or IBCT some close armor support without impacting ABCT capabilities (or make "Ultra" ABCTs with their three organic CABs+one tank BN).  Also rounding out ABCT ARS's with a DIVCAV/ACR style D Company* would be wise.


*The old DIVCAV/ACR Squadron had three "Troops" which were a mix of tanks and scout vehicles, with a fourth "Company" that was tank pure.  I'd keep the existing three troops in a modern ARS Bradley/sensor focused, but then having the tank company squadron internal would allow for non-augmented completion of the cav's "security" mission set.  

[LUCASWILLEN05]

13 hours ago, shift8 said:

Since when Lucas do we not use APC's in conventional wars vs near-peer threats? What do you think the M3 Halftrack, M113, and BTR are? The Stryker is not a "asymmetrical" weapons system. It is a battle taxi.

The only reason anyone has ever referred to the Strkyer in the fashion you seem to think it was "meant for" is due to the fact that a unit equipped with lighter vehicles is easy to move and deploy quickly. For various reasons, it is SOMETIMES beneficial to deploy a light unit when other units cannot be there. The vehicle is meant for major wars. It just so happens that APC's are really good a people moving, which incidentally is what you end up doing alot of when you are fighting and insurgency in Afghanistan or Iraq. 

No one has ever suggested that the Stryker is some kind of tank replacement. What was suggested is that Strkyer BCT's are sometimes ideal to deploy when you cannot get anything else there fast enough, and getting something there is beneficial. GUESS WHAT: we would do the same thing with M113 Battalions or any other mech units form any other era. 

TL:DR

The Stryker is just a APC. Just like anything else. It is not a new type of vehicle. It is not a small war specific machine. It is literally just a 113 replacement. 

You obviously did not read my post properly. What I said was that Stryker (and for that matter other APCs) are more vulnerable in a high intensity armoured warfare environment. We aare NOT talking about a COIN environment in this case we are talking about a Great Power conflict or a conventional war against a well equipped second  rate power like Iran or Syria. This kind of conflict still happens you know.Strykers could benefit from having some AT capability if only for self defense even if their primary function is moving troops. This is the benefit of usng IFVs which both move troops and can fight tanks if they have to

[LUCASWILLEN05]

27 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 

Re: Kasserine Pass

It's relived by a different unit virtually every month at NTC.  
I'm really stunned by the supreme arrogance in some of the replies by a certain someone on this thread.  The anti-armor capabilities, or lack therefore of on the Stryker are well established within the Army.  However the solution isn't to try to make it into a Bradley because that is precisely not the missionset it was designed for.  

There is a push to add some ATGM capability to the vehicle to give it a sort of "bear mace" level anti-armor capability.  But speaking as someone who'd done Bradleys vs tanks in training, an ATGM really isn't enough unless you're in a good defensive posture (while a Javelin likely would work better than the TOWs I had to play with, the engagement cycle for a tank is so much faster than an ATGM, so in a "I'm moving/he's moving we see each other same time" the party in the tank will win full stop).

In more practical terms if a Stryker unit is called upon to fight around significant enemy armor, it will be augmented by armor (as in Abrams), CCA, or other assets.  There's just not a lot of tools that handle tanks on the offensive as well as tanks.  

Re: .50/40MM turret

Big downside to that turret is that it is not stabilized, doesn't have thermal optics, or a LRF.  The RWS on the Stryker will get you first round on target, and when you're using it in overwatch or supporting positions, that's pretty valuable.  

If I ruled the world:

I think the Army needs to bring back a few Tank Battalions, as in independent units.   Both IBCTs and SBCTs often need armor when they're called on to do a lot of higher intensity missions.  However when tank are used to augment these units, they come out of an ABCT that might like to have more vs less tanks.   Having a separate tank battalion able to slice out self-supporting company sized elements (tank company+maintenance team+logpac augmentation if required) would enable giving an SBCT a lot more maneuver punch, or IBCT some close armor support without impacting ABCT capabilities (or make "Ultra" ABCTs with their three organic CABs+one tank BN).  Also rounding out ABCT ARS's with a DIVCAV/ACR style D Company* would be wise.


*The old DIVCAV/ACR Squadron had three "Troops" which were a mix of tanks and scout vehicles, with a fourth "Company" that was tank pure.  I'd keep the existing three troops in a modern ARS Bradley/sensor focused, but then having the tank company squadron internal would allow for non-augmented completion of the cav's "security" mission set.  

The point about Kasserine Pass was that o ne of the reasons for the US defeat was entering WW2 with substandard, undergunned, under armoured vehicles. I am appalled at the arrogance of officers like yourself who cannot accept that the US army might have deficiencies. Sheesh, that reminds me of Fetterman who believed he could ride through the "whole Souix Nation (add ended up riding smack bang into an ambush that got him and his entire command massacred to the last man) Or those arrogant Prussian officers in 1806 who failed to realize the deficiencies in their own army - deficiencies that led directly to the disasters of Jena and Auerstadt.

Even US Generals acknowledge that the US army is not as prepared as it needs to be for a war with Russia. Are your top brass also "wrong" Note that the defense officials qouted in this article also indicate that the US army cannot count on air dominance in a war with Russia - a matter we have argued about in the past. Do you think these guys in the Pentagon are "wrong" as well?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/pentagon-fears-it-s-not-ready-for-a-war-with-putin

Do you think that Mattis and McMaster who have both commanded in combat are "wrong"

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/05/how-pentagon-preparing-tank-war-russia/128460/

I predict that with arrogance like yoursthe US army is going to pay a price in the first battles at least of the next Great Power conflict wherever it takes place. Some military defeats may be exactly what is required to teach people like yourself a little humility. Unfortunately the price that will be paid for failing to learn lessons in peacetime is paid in blood in war. You should understand this but, with all due respect, this and other conversations we have had tell me very clearly that you don't have the humility to listen to the opinions of others simply because they are civilians. That is why I am done with you

[Lille Fiskerby]

Dont put Strykers up against russian armor, got it !!!

I would rather like to talk about the US campaign in the CMBS battle pack instead. In this campaign you have to fight ENY armor with your Stryker SQDN so ...

Within the SQDN you only have two assets: The MGS Platoon (not good against ENY armor) and the Javelin (very very good against ENY armor).

Then you have support: the 155 mm. Bty. with precision ammo not that precise anymore against tanks so I use them against BMP's and use javelins on tanks.

Another support asset is Apache helicopters: very very good against anything the russians come up with.

 

[Rinaldi]

4 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

I just reached my attachment limit, how do I post pictures now?

Just use an image host to keep up the dank sh*tposts fam

[c3k]

Kasserine Pass was being referenced to as the unit's introduction to the NTC. (If you're not familiar, search it.)

Independent Tank Battalions. Neat idea...but. Historically, independent battalions were attached to the same parent formation. It fosters all sorts of good things. And it eventually means that, for all intents and purposes, that independent battalion is now part of the parent unit's TOE. 

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, Lille Fiskerby said:

Dont put Strykers up against russian armor, got it !!!

I would rather like to talk about the US campaign in the CMBS battle pack instead. In this campaign you have to fight ENY armor with your Stryker SQDN so ...

Within the SQDN you only have two assets: The MGS Platoon (not good against ENY armor) and the Javelin (very very good against ENY armor).

Then you have support: the 155 mm. Bty. with precision ammo not that precise anymore against tanks so I use them against BMP's and use javelins on tanks.

Another support asset is Apache helicopters: very very good against anything the russians come up with.

 

And that campaign I would suggest does highlight the drawbacks of Stryker that I have been talking about. I really felt the lack of heavy armour support and had problems adjusting to that.

In an ideal world, yes. You should avoid going up against enemy tanks. In the real world however you may not have a choice - the enemy does have a say :-) Arguably the campaign demonstrates he problems a SBCT is likely to encounter in a high intensity armoured combat environment

Yes the Apache Gunship is a good antidote to tanks but is vulnerable to SAMs And those Tunguska are actually pretty nasty :-)

Regarding precision artillery fires again yes with the real world caveat that there is something called Counter Battery Fire which is not covered by CMBS but s important in the real world

In regard to the MGS platoon, yes that is helpful to some extent with the 105mm gun but maybe an ATGM option would be better considering the light armour. Ideally equipping each Stryker with its' own ATGM capability would be ideal but I accept there will be some sacrifices that will be necessary n order to do that 

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

8 minutes ago, c3k said:

Kasserine Pass was being referenced to as the unit's introduction to the NTC. (If you're not familiar, search it.)

Independent Tank Battalions. Neat idea...but. Historically, independent battalions were attached to the same parent formation. It fosters all sorts of good things. And it eventually means that, for all intents and purposes, that independent battalion is now part of the parent unit's TOE. 

 

Also early US tanks such as th M3 Lee had certain deficiencies and were being replaced by the Sherman. The Red Army in 1943 also did not like this vehicle calling it "a grave for sx

[DougPhresh]

8 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I understand Canada is in the process of converting its stock of LAVIII TUA vehicles to plain-Jane APCs. If reports from Syria are true that active signal jamming countermeasures work against TOW that significantly lowers TOW's worth on the battlefield. I'm not saying it is true, I'm just sayin'...

That's true. The CAF has a different anti-tank doctrine than the Yanks. We had a lot of training on LAW and Carl G, but the Eryx and TOW were rarities.

The LAV UP / LAV 6.0 program was a huge success, and I think shows the utility of light armoured vehicles.

As a gunner, there is one Canadian weapons system that still makes me glow with pride (and rumour has it there are still some in war storage).

[Thewood1]

58 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

"In regard to the MGS platoon, yes that is helpful to some extent with the 105mm gun but maybe an ATGM option would be better considering the light armour. Ideally equipping each Stryker with its' own ATGM capability would be ideal but I accept there will be some sacrifices that will be necessary n order to do that"

 

You mean something like this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1134_Anti-Tank_Guided_Missile_Vehicle

Edited May 19, 2017 by Thewood1

[Lille Fiskerby]

54 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

And that campaign I would suggest does highlight the drawbacks of Stryker that I have been talking about.

Agree 100 %.

55 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Ideally equipping each Stryker with its' own ATGM capability would be ideal

But I would still use the Stryker as a "battle taxi" away from the frontline.

58 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Yes the Apache Gunship is a good antidote to tanks but is vulnerable to SAMs And those Tunguska are actually pretty nasty :-)

Oh yes, Tunguskas are very nasty and in missions with those "babys" they have first priority to be destroyed.

[Thewood1]

Can I ask what the point of having the Stryker would be if you make no easier to transport than a Bradley?  Maybe logistics and maintenance?  Again I ask, is it the doctrine, the vehicle?  Should we worry about the middle ground strategic mobility between HumVee and Bradley?

[LUCASWILLEN05]

15 minutes ago, Lille Fiskerby said:

Agree 100 %.

But I would still use the Stryker as a "battle taxi" away from the frontline.

Oh yes, Tunguskas are very nasty and in missions with those "babys" they have first priority to be destroyed.

It is certainly a campaign I found difficult. As you say, given the capabilities of the Stryker they must be used differently than the Bradleys I am used to. If I think I am going to be facing Russian Armour  this, in CMBS is very different to the Syrians and the terrain is likewise completely different than the Middle East - which changes the considerations on both offence and defense In Ukraine I tend to find that dismounting infantry fairly soon into the game heels but, when using he HBCT you may use the Bradleys as anti tank overwatch which s an option you don;t have with the SBCT  beyond the MGS platoon if they are present.

Destroying Russian air defenses can also be problematical. For starters you need o locate them. Doing so with drones can result in the loss of your drone and Tunguskas tend to remain safely at the back where t s often hard to spot them - other than finding em the hard way. On top of that s the Igla dismounts who are even harder to spot until they shoot. As always what we have is a combined arms problem - and it can be like trying to unpick the Gordian Knot at times

[Apocal]

18 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

The issue is NOT survivability. The issue is giving Strykers something to fight tanks with.

...

On 5/17/2017 at 3:18 PM, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Stryker might be ok against insurgents. However on a high intensity, high tech battelfield it leaves much to be desired. n fact one might as well be equipped with the old M113 or even trucks :-)

 

Someone remind me again how much integral AT firepower an old M113 or a cattle truck carried again? Anyway, the actual limit on the number of heavy brigades in the Army is budgetary, so the choice isn't Stryker vs. Bradley; it is Stryker vs. dudes in Humvees and cattle trucks.

[Wicky]

"The issue is NOT survivability. The issue is giving Strykers something to fight tanks with."

French Army solution...

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Wicky

[LUCASWILLEN05]

17 minutes ago, Apocal said:

...

 

Someone remind me again how much integral AT firepower an old M113 or a cattle truck carried again? Anyway, the actual limit on the number of heavy brigades in the Army is budgetary, so the choice isn't Stryker vs. Bradley; it is Stryker vs. dudes in Humvees and cattle trucks.

Again misrepresenting what I have actualy been saying. Boring!¬

[Apocal]

Just now, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Again misrepresenting what I have actualy been saying. Boring!¬

 

Those are direct quotes. They even link back to the post in question, so people can look for themselves to see the full context. Now, are you going address the Stryker vs. cattle truck/Humvee portion of my post or ignore it like the rest of points raised against you?

[shift8]

5 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

You obviously did not read my post properly. What I said was that Stryker (and for that matter other APCs) are more vulnerable in a high intensity armoured warfare environment. We aare NOT talking about a COIN environment in this case we are talking about a Great Power conflict or a conventional war against a well equipped second  rate power like Iran or Syria. This kind of conflict still happens you know.Strykers could benefit from having some AT capability if only for self defense even if their primary function is moving troops. This is the benefit of usng IFVs which both move troops and can fight tanks if they have to

Oh yes I forgot. And it was also a design flaw that the M3 Half Track couldn't take on the Panther. A disaster one might say. Us poor fools for thinking a 21st century APC didn't also need to be a tank. 

Another system with this problem is the 688 class submarines. They cannot carry enough airplanes to fight aircraft carriers! What will we do! Also the aircraft carriers cant dive deep enough! 

EVEN WORSE: Neither of them can fly!

[Lille Fiskerby]

33 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Destroying Russian air defenses can also be problematical. For starters you need o locate them. Doing so with drones can result in the loss of your drone and Tunguskas tend to remain safely at the back where t s often hard to spot them - other than finding em the hard way. On top of that s the Igla dismounts who are even harder to spot until they shoot.

It is a big problem, Iglas you cant do much against just hope they miss their target. Tunguskas are big and you should be able to locate them (in one mission you know from the briefing where they are located) I found out that after one of my drones located a Tunguska and was shot down I could still call precision rounds in on the Tunguska and destroy it.