Jump to content
LUCASWILLEN05

Stryker - Pros and Cons

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:


I think the military/warfighting is one of the few fields total amateurs regularly wander into with the idea that they somehow know more than the professionals.   

 

Not true, I can tell you plenty of horror stories in my own field. People's willingness to jump in and offer advice for areas they are totally ignorant of is pretty amazing. Just view the comments section of just about any news article.  

 

@shift8 you are close, but you still go for the small solution. What we need is to mount a carrier battle group and an attached MEU on tracks.  A combined anti air, mobile strike platform that has an armored and infantry capability.  Plus cruise missiles. You have to have cruise missiles. And it is all sealed up with an Aegis package.  The only thing holding it up is Trump deciding we need to keep the steam catapults. Other than that we should be fielding the new "land carrier battle group" by 2025. 

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Re: 120 MM mortars

The mortar platform already exists though, it's a 120 MM, and while it's not a breach loader, it is fully digital and does some spooky stuff as far as servicing fire missions.  While I'm past the point of being combat arms/ground force commander/whatever, I'd have swapped my BN's M113 based mortars for the Stryker platform in a heartbeat (although best option would be the Stryker's mortar system mounted in a Bradley chassis for mobility-parts commonality with the rest of a CAB).  

As far as the direct fire role, given the capabilities of precision fire mortars, and their existence at the Company level, I don't think an additional mortar platform makes a lot of sense.  The autocannon mount, and the various other firepower enhancements seem to offer a distinct capability vs capability duplication.  There might be some value to replacing the existing mortar vehicle with a different kind of mortar, but I think the issue you run into over there is the capabilities of the existing platform are perceived as adequate weighed against the cost of replacement. 

Sure, 30mm is nice way to knock on the door. But 120mm brings a new level to the "knock, knock". The current mortar vehicle is so...dated. With a 120mm turreted mortar, you get everything the old mount could do...and more. In a better looking package. Semi-auto loading; automated laying; multi-round TOT impact from a single tube; direct fire capability; what's not to like? You can digitally link multiple tubes for even more impressive results. 6 tubes per company. (I like the "booms". :) )

I haven't even started with the Air Defense version. (If you're thinking laser cannons, you're getting warm. ;) ) And, obviously, wherever there's a .50 cal hanging on a Stryker, it'll get upgraded by the GAU19. Because more is better.

Edited by c3k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, c3k said:

Sure, 30mm is nice way to knock on the door. But 120mm brings a new level to the "knock, knock". The current mortar vehicle is so...dated. With a 120mm turreted mortar, you get everything the old mount could do...and more. In a better looking package. Semi-auto loading; automated laying; multi-round TOT impact from a single tube; direct fire capability; what's not to like?

30 MM is hardly knocking on doors, and it's a lot easier to use around troops (smaller "danger" areas while moving, superior against enemy light vehicles).  

As far as a turreted mortar, again, does it do it better enough to justify spending the money?  Semi-autoloading sounds fun, but is it a much better loader than the 11C system? Is the automatic lay much different performance wise from the existing precision systems?  Etc.

Basically if it's 10% better, but 60% more expensive, it loses a lot of the performance value unless you can make the pitch the 10% better performance is decisive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I think the military/warfighting is one of the few fields total amateurs regularly wander into with the idea that they somehow know more than the professionals.  

 

10 minutes ago, c3k said:

With a 120mm turreted mortar, you get everything the old mount could do...and more [Complexity]. In a better looking package. Semi-auto loading; automated laying; multi-round TOT impact from a single tube; direct fire capability; what's not to like? [Complexity]You can digitally link multiple tubes for even more impressive results. 6 tubes per company. (I like the "booms". :) )

As a career gunner, let me tell you that the "advanced" and "time saving" features of the M777 has increased maintance, headaches and work more than you can imagine.

Fancy gun laying computer breaks? Too bad it wasn't designed for easy manual lay so it's harder than the old guns.

Crew of 5 compared to the 9 on older guns? That about doubles all of the other work a crew does other than fire the gun. Enjoy putting up cam nets and setting up the gun position.

Hydraulic systems break? It was designed and ballanced around them, so good luck doing anything by hand if that fails (with reduced crew, mind).

I could go on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I think the military/warfighting is one of the few fields total amateurs regularly wander into with the idea that they somehow know more than the professionals.  

 

27 minutes ago, sburke said:

@shift8Not true, I can tell you plenty of horror stories in my own field. People's willingness to jump in and offer advice for areas they are totally ignorant of is pretty amazing. Just view the comments section of just about any news article.

LOL we see it here fairly frequently with people's thoughts on game design. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IanL said:

 

LOL we see it here fairly frequently with people's thoughts on game design. :D

Well i don't think you would have much luck in an argument with a T90 when all your Stryker has is a machinegun or a grenade launcher. Hopefully the guy with the Javelin is able to deal with the threat but maybe having the extra ATGM capability like the Bradley have might possibly be quite helpful when you go toe to toe with Russian heavy armour units which is obviously going t be the case. So, what reasons might here be NOT  to add ATGM capabilty to all the Strykers assuming the budget were available to pay for  the work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Automation and pitfalls:

I totally agree that the more sweaties there are to do the work, the better. Hydraulics fail, motors fry, fuel runs out and incoming fire can take out some of the crew. Having more hands available at the start is better. (The US Navy uses this type of approach (or did) with their submarines. A manual valve is far less likely to fail.) Reloading, cleaning, digging holes, pulling watch, fetching food and water, etc., all use up manpower.

I still like the 120mm turreted mortar. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Well i don't think you would have much luck in an argument with a T90 when all your Stryker has is a machinegun or a grenade launcher. Hopefully the guy with the Javelin is able to deal with the threat but maybe having the extra ATGM capability like the Bradley have might possibly be quite helpful when you go toe to toe with Russian heavy armour units which is obviously going t be the case. So, what reasons might here be NOT  to add ATGM capabilty to all the Strykers assuming the budget were available to pay for  the work?

Obviously?  Why is it obviously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Well i don't think you would have much luck in an argument with an Abrams when all your BTR82 has is a autocannon and machiegun. Hopefully the guy with the AT-13 is able to deal with the threat but maybe having the extra ATGM capability like the BMP-3 have might possibly be quite helpful when you go toe to toe with American heavy armour units which is obviously going to be the case. So, what reasons might here be NOT  to add ATGM capabilty to all the BTR82s assuming the budget were available to pay for  the work?

f2d628ebae2d60b9befa3a64107cc45d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Well i don't think you would have much luck in an argument with a T90 when all your Stryker has is a machinegun or a grenade launcher. Hopefully the guy with the Javelin is able to deal with the threat but maybe having the extra ATGM capability like the Bradley have might possibly be quite helpful when you go toe to toe with Russian heavy armour units which is obviously going t be the case. So, what reasons might here be NOT  to add ATGM capabilty to all the Strykers assuming the budget were available to pay for  the work?

You really ought to do more researching:

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/army-to-upgun-all-strykers-30-mm-javelin/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19710/army-stryker-vehicle-weapons/

Like I said, the conventional aspect of Stryker Brigade operations has come a long way over the last four or so years.  I'd assumed you'd educated yourself, somewhat, but apparently not.

You shouldn't ever be going toe to toe with armor in an IFV or ICV anyway.  The missiles are there to give some AT capability, but on an armor-centric battlefield, if you're rolling Stryker pure, you done screwed up A-A-Ron.  

 

 

43 minutes ago, DougPhresh said:

 

As a career gunner, let me tell you that the "advanced" and "time saving" features of the M777 has increased maintance, headaches and work more than you can imagine.

Fancy gun laying computer breaks? Too bad it wasn't designed for easy manual lay so it's harder than the old guns.

Crew of 5 compared to the 9 on older guns? That about doubles all of the other work a crew does other than fire the gun. Enjoy putting up cam nets and setting up the gun position.

Hydraulic systems break? It was designed and ballanced around them, so good luck doing anything by hand if that fails (with reduced crew, mind).

I could go on.

 

If I had to visualize technology and weapons systems, it'd be a "maturity wave" in which equipment goes from "novel, but totally outside of being militarily useful" to a peak of optimal efficiency (strong compared to peer technology, reliable enough for common employment)  before trailing off into obsolete and lowered readiness due to system age.

Picking where your country rides that wave is tricky, as you don't really get to ride the wave nearly as much as you pick a spot where you get to dwell until the next major weapons procurement cycle.  You're also competing with peer threats who are trying to pick their spot to dwell for the same reasons.  Pick a spot too soon, and your stuff is immature and breaks often/doesn't live up to full specs.  Pick a spot too late and you're fighting against someone who's had the capability for a few years, or after the technology was at peak relevance.  

Precision fires, and automated gun laying is almost certainly the way of the future, as is smaller gun crews.  If those trends are at a point where the technology reliably supports it, or it is realistic given modern capabilities of course, is an open question.  I would contend the M777 is somewhere near the wave as it curves towards "mature" but it hasn't quite gotten there yet relative to the capabilities of conventional towed artillery units.

 

17 minutes ago, c3k said:

Automation and pitfalls:

I totally agree that the more sweaties there are to do the work, the better. Hydraulics fail, motors fry, fuel runs out and incoming fire can take out some of the crew. Having more hands available at the start is better. (The US Navy uses this type of approach (or did) with their submarines. A manual valve is far less likely to fail.) Reloading, cleaning, digging holes, pulling watch, fetching food and water, etc., all use up manpower.

I still like the 120mm turreted mortar. :)

The 120 MM isn't a bad idea at all!  It's just I don't think it's as probable in the current generation of AFVs.  If whatever AFV for IBCTs that gets kicked around as a loose concept every few years kicks off, I think that might see a turreted 120 MM mortar, or whatever AFV happens after the next generation will likely have the mortar carrier with a turret.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The only thing the US Army ever does is high intensity, high tech battlefields.  It virtually never deploys to situations short of high intensity conflicts.  Those never happen.

Huh? I'm curious; what would you call the years-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be the glamorous weapons systems that cause issues, my regiment recently received automatic grenade launchers with fancy night/thermal sights and a built in range finder and ballistic computer.

They mostly stay in the gun shed when we roll out because it's a lot easier to service a C6 (FN MAG) in the snow and mud of the Canadian spring than to wrestle with not only a complicated and finicky weapon but the equally complicated and more fragile sight that goes with it. 

In-game reliability doesn't play a factor (although I wish it did) but the Stryker does exactly what it was designed to do, and does it well if well handled. Slapping on more cost, weight and things to break so that it can badly do a role it was never designed for is how you get doctrinal failures.

I don't want anyone to think I'm bagging on the Americans too hard here, this is a recurring issue in weapons system procurement, and sometimes the Bad Idea Fairy gets to run away with the ball.

e30fb2d9abd833781197f6a4f1aa9133.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an old saying (I hope I'm not repeating something posted above) "A camel is a horse designed by committee." The impulse to turn a purpose-made design into all-things-for-all-people often results in ruination of the original program.

A dozen years ago there was a need for a little direct fire infantry support. Instead of dropping a simple Mecar low pressure gun onto a Stryker they gave us 'Stryker MGS' which very nearly received a 'combat ineffective' rating while in Iraq. That's a lot of complex vehicle just to toss a few low-pressure squash head HE rounds downrange.

Up until the last upgrade Stryker MGS was a poor performer in the game. Combining an overhead gun with a hull down command greatly helped the situation. Don't expect to win a fight against a veteran T90 with it but a hull-down MGS does have some utility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of the Stryker Brigade is the concept of the medium force. Something that seats in between Heavy tracked forces and light forces on truck. Prior to the Stryker, the US had nothing in between Abrams/Bradleys and Humvees. As it has been explained above, having something in between is a good idea both for tactical reasons but also economically. Having the entire army riding Bradleys would be very very expensive.

Strykers are armoured battle taxis, they're not meant to fight head on. They are supposed to move the troops around fast thanks to their great operationnal mobility while offering them basic protection against battlefield hazards. They aren't IFVs like the AMV Patria or the VBCI. They more like the German Fuchs or the French VAB in terms of use.

The problem is that the game scale doesn't represent the Stryker's advantages well since when the game starts, the mission of the Strykers is mostly done. Another issue with the Strykers is that some vehicles are missleading. Because the thing has a gun strapped on the top doesn't mean it's meant to fight tanks, it's mostly an infantry fire support vehicle. For real wheeled tank destroyers, it's better to look at the Italian Centuro or the French AMX10RC, which are dedicated vehicles and not converted APCs.

In general, those medium brigades shine on low to medium intensity operations with long elongations and low supply available, after being projected quickly. That's what they're meant for ! Here is an example of an operation where a Stryker Brigade could have shine :

https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiT043s9_fTAhUB2RoKHWruBYgQFggnMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rand.org%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Frand%2Fpubs%2Fresearch_reports%2FRR700%2FRR770%2FRAND_RR770.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEYSKiTgiuAS1v8v6ecXXUpsNLu0w&sig2=Am0mqbUtOuXGztWusF71Ng&cad=rja

To sum up, Stryker Brigade aren't bad at all, it's just that it's not the right tool to fight head on high intensity mechanized battles against a peer opponent, which is what is depicted in CMBS. It's not their purpose. Furthermore, this concept is rather "new" to the US army, and the shortcomings that were found are being corrected (mine protection and so on).

Edited by FoxZz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IanL said:

 

LOL we see it here fairly frequently with people's thoughts on game design. :D

Yup.  Writing and movie-making is also at the top of what anyone can do ... "if only they had the time". 

 

Also... "...the (CM2) game scale doesn't represent the Stryker's advantages well since when the game starts, the mission of the Strykers is mostly done. "

Yeah this is a problem with the relatively small maps featured in CM2.  CM1 was better in being able to feature longer range fire on its 8Km x 4Km maps.

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

OMG Shift* enough with those pics, you cracking me up too hard.

Entered IOC 5 hours ago. Turns out all the F-16 needed to be decent was a SAM strapped to it. Come to think of it, that is what the stryker needs. Its far too vulnerable to ground attack. A stryker with a Patriot on top would be ideal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find it hard to fathom is that no  one has mentioned how **** the abrams is. I mean, if the stryker is too light, surely the abrams is. The T-90 will kill us all. 

 

I propose this as an upgrade to the abrams. Then we will have a decent tank for once. Plus all you need for this is a bike pump and privates to pump it. 

tank-jpg.112467

Edited by shift8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been told that the army is disapointed with its new saw, it cannot drive a nail ... Instead of wasting money buying all those saws and shovels, they should have kept the good old hammers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...