Jump to content
LUCASWILLEN05

Stryker - Pros and Cons

Recommended Posts

Fortunately, there is a solution!

Replaces both the Apache and the Star Destroyer for ground combat missions. 

Edited by shift8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shift8 said:

 

Fortunately, there is a solution!

Replaces both the Apache and the Star Destroyer for ground combat missions. 

 

Even though I am an old fart I like those Marvel movies !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, what's needed is something like a triple hull carrier that's at least 360,000 tons.

And it'll have an arsenal of railguns and lasers to shoot at everything in the way.

And tracks, so it can drive up onto a beach for amphibious assault.

And it'll carry the Marines. Not Marines, as in an MEU or some such.

it'll carry the entire Marine Corps.

*nods*

Share this post


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

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

You've been saying the exact same thing since yesterday, and despite all the answers you received, you ackwnoledged none ...

It's very difficult to discuss with someone that disregards all the answers he gets.

Even if your replaced Strykers by Bradleys, those would be in very bad situation if they faced a bunch of T90s. I'd say, in an even worst situation than the Strykers.

Their TOWs and 25mm gun would be defeated by the T90s armor and APS, and with only 6 man carried in the back they would have a lot less man and Javelin ammo to set up a good defensive position. What makes Bradleys good at fighting tanks isn't Bradleys, it's Abrams. Bradleys mission is to destroy ennemy light targets and infantry using both its weapons and its infantry, it's meant for supporting the tanks, not to destroy tanks.

So if you replace Strykers by Bradleys, if you don't bring Abrams with them, you'll have the same problem. The Army is currently fixing the Stryker deficit of firepower against light targets with a 30mm version.

Here you got your answer.

Also, you must take into account that in real life, the US air force is doing something !

Edited by FoxZz

Share this post


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

Clearly, what's needed is something like a triple hull carrier that's at least 360,000 tons.

And it'll have an arsenal of railguns and lasers to shoot at everything in the way.

And tracks, so it can drive up onto a beach for amphibious assault.

And it'll carry the Marines. Not Marines, as in an MEU or some such.

it'll carry the entire Marine Corps.

*nods*

Yes that will solve the problem of having to buy so many APCs. With a single Land Battle ship, no, Battle Station, we will be able to finally conquer the Galaxy, I mean Russians. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

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.

You really think the outcome would have been different if you swapped armor types between the sides?  German tankers in Pz IIIs (majority of German tanks) probably would have been thrilled to switch to Shermans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am amazed that the guy won't answer questions, doesn't read posts, and gets upset when you show him his own quotes.  Maybe there is something wrong with his browser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

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

Dude you should really ratchet it down. You are talking to someone actually experienced in the field and as far as anyone knows here your entire experience is playing board and computer games. To think you are showing a far superior awareness of what may or may not be needed is..  well kind of embarrassing. The rest of us are just kind of sitting here gritting our teeth and not making eye contact with anyone. It is like bringing your drunk friend along to the wedding and listening to him tell the bride how hot she is and she could do so much better (whlie he is so drunk he doesn't realize he is talking to the bride's mom).  Your ignorance of these matters is matched only by your own self assured view that your views are brilliant.  They aren't.  Please do us all a favor and continue to argue your view if you want, but don't do so with this tone that you know far more than some ignorant experienced armor officer.   It is just really painful to listen to.  And then to link to a statement from McMasters which I don't even have to read to know you are likely completely changing the context on...... sigh   Please  just a little more humility.  Or any for that matter  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lille Fiskerby said:

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.

That is my preferred method for dealing with the Tunguska. Locating them befre they shoot something you want down can be easier said than done though Getting ground forces into position to see the Tunguska is often not posible. Likely it is at the rear somewhere. Sending on of your limited number of drones ends up with h loss of te drone though seeing the missile contrail will give you some idea of the location f the launcher. At least hen you can target the area with artillery fire whch may hit the vehicle. Or an airstrike although that is a risky proposition for the fighter jocks :-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sburke said:

And then to link to a statement from McMasters which I don't even have to read to know you are likely completely changing the context on...... sigh   Please  just a little more humility.  Or any for that matter  

 

McMasters quote was referring to DPICM leaving the US inventory, compared Russia which remains a huge fan of the stuff. Ironically, the article includes an anecdote about Russia's ability to essentially vaporize two mechanized battalions with their firepower. Gone, kaput. The moral of that story appears to be that winning the fires fight is key above all else and attempting to fight from the wrong end of the supporting fires ratio is a fool's errand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one word...oblivious.  This kind of reminds me of the really old BFC (BTS) forums before Steve purged a few people.  The endless circular debates where almost every single person could see how wrong a single person was and there wasn't anything to do about it, except hope BFC stepped in and cleaned it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apocal said:

McMasters quote was referring to DPICM leaving the US inventory, compared Russia which remains a huge fan of the stuff. Ironically, the article includes an anecdote about Russia's ability to essentially vaporize two mechanized battalions with their firepower. Gone, kaput. The moral of that story appears to be that winning the fires fight is key above all else and attempting to fight from the wrong end of the supporting fires ratio is a fool's errand.

Oh so literally nothing that supports whatever....point....trying to be made by Lucas. I'm shocked, truly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apocal said:

McMasters quote was referring to DPICM leaving the US inventory, compared Russia which remains a huge fan of the stuff. Ironically, the article includes an anecdote about Russia's ability to essentially vaporize two mechanized battalions with their firepower. Gone, kaput. The moral of that story appears to be that winning the fires fight is key above all else and attempting to fight from the wrong end of the supporting fires ratio is a fool's errand.

Yeah figured it'd be something completely going elsewhere. Anyone who starts with the premise that Russia is anywhere near capable of a Cold War Fulda gap type attack on the west has completely missed the boat at how really limited Russia's ability to wage a large conventional attack on the west is now.  The logistical piece alone is likely gonna fall apart on its own without NATO intervention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also dragged into conversations like this when Canada stopped using flechettes and DPICM in the artillery branch and landmines and cluster munitions generally.

It's all well and good for amateurs to have opinions on these things but to talk down to people raising reasonable points, with knowledge and experience in the field (literal and figurative! ;)) is not condusive to a good conversation. 

Personally the utlility of DPICM shredding tank columns in the Fulda Gap is not worth the risk of a child playing with them in some low-intensity backwater. That's just my opinion but I understand why policy decisions weigh more than just the tactical considerations.

Share this post


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

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

If the problem to Strykers being relevant against tanks was simply bolting on a TOW system, then you'd see TOWs strapped to Strykers.

One of my friends was in a Stryker Battalion that had the misfortune of training against my home state's national guard, which at the time had some tanks to spare.  A single platoon of folks who train once a month kept the entire Battalion, even with AT Strykers and MGSes totally bottled up.  That some of the Strkyers had AT missiles was irrelevant.  The tanks were able to engage faster, with greater effect, and better exploit maneuver than the Strykers were.    

Now it wasn't really a fair fight, the Strykers were unable to employ fires, be it artillery or aviation, and the terrain was such that infantry had no infiltration routes.  But it is patently illustrative of two things:

1. The Army is very aware of how Strykers do or do not handle tanks.

2. Simply strapping a TOW to a Stryker is not going to change the equation.  Stryker with TOW on the offensive is going to lose most of the time against a tank in any aware posture.  On the defensive, the Stryker is better off kept away to lower the profile of the infantry, who are very lethal with their missile systems.  

The push to add ATGMs to Strykers is to give them some capability against armor, either on the move, or augmenting on the defensive.   

In response to your articles, I am genuinely unsure if you read the articles you post. 

Re: ADA

Oh not again.  It's readily apparent you think "not having air dominance" equals IL-2s taken out of the museums cutting a bloody swath through the entire US Army.  It means the US will not have total air control.  It will result in a air situation that is stupidly lethal, and will murder planes much more capable than anything the Russians fly for CAS.  Russia will need to establish at the least air superiority in order to reliably risk CAS birds, and that is something outside of their capabilities.

Re: "Lessons"

Having learned lessons, done things, gone through a variety of educational formats, military, civilian and otherwise, and having had over a decade of various flavors of military service, I think I have some experience in what the military looks like when it's not cardboard counters or blips on screens.  If the Stryker was just an ATGM away from being unstoppable and able to handle tanks, it'd have an ATGM.  But it's not.  And no matter how much everyone of every profession and background explains it to you in simple english human words, you remain frustratingly stuck in this logic loop that somehow, you and you alone are the only one seeing this clearly. 

If anyone isn't learning their lesson, it's you.  It's not "arrogance" when people with real world experience look at someone who thinks their hobby of pretending to be a commander, and obsessing over rulers and LOS rules fully qualifies them as a subject matter expert.

If that was the case we wouldn't waste time training commanders, they'd just send elite teams to kidnap Warhammer 40K nerds from the hobbytown down the road to lead America to greatness.  Your continued insults to the profession of arms, and the people who have had to dedicate themselves to the art and science of war is just one of the things that draws me back into your threads, because it's just so outlandish.  It's like watching a neckbeard talk about how he'd do surgery because he's the captain of the ER fanclub, or the countless internet specops master warriors who shamelessly ape call of duty.

You can be outside the military and well educated in it.  But the arrogance of sitting outside, condemning it all as "group think" because SOMEHOW no one in the Army sees that bolting a TOW to the back of a Stryker makes it into something able to realistically challenge an MBT...it's just staggering.  

Share this post


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

It's like watching a neckbeard talk about how he'd do surgery because he's the captain of the ER fanclub, or the countless internet specops master warriors who shamelessly ape call of duty.

You can be outside the military and well educated in it.  But the arrogance of sitting outside, condemning it all as "group think" because SOMEHOW no one in the Army sees that bolting a TOW to the back of a Stryker makes it into something able to realistically challenge an MBT...it's just staggering.  

Okay gotta admit I had to google neckbeard.   Still freakin laughing my ass off.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

I was also dragged into conversations like this when Canada stopped using flechettes and DPICM in the artillery branch and landmines and cluster munitions generally.

It's all well and good for amateurs to have opinions on these things but to talk down to people raising reasonable points, with knowledge and experience in the field (literal and figurative! ;)) is not condusive to a good conversation. 

Personally the utlility of DPICM shredding tank columns in the Fulda Gap is not worth the risk of a child playing with them in some low-intensity backwater. That's just my opinion but I understand why policy decisions weigh more than just the tactical considerations.

To talk down to someone because you are a professional and the person raising the point is not is also unacceptable. A civilian also can have informed insights. Not respecting a civilians views (ven if wrong or incomplete is also not conducive to a good conversation and, worse can result in that civilian losing respect for the military (or just the US military) Further, as Military History has shown arrogant officers who, for example don't listen to the opinions of others can result in a situation where the entire institution becomes arrogant, resisting or not even implementing necessary change - and that has been known to contribute towards battlefield disasters - which are for keeps and which often cost many lives.

Perhaps some military types would do well  to adopt a little bit of humility and acknowledge that "civvie" may have a valid point even if you don't agree with it. If you do that you may find that you will get a lot more respect in the long run from civilians in general. In an atmosphere like that it s more likely that the military and civilians can have pen, honest and mutually respectful conversations On this forum and elsewhere. That is just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stryker however continues to evolve on the basis of experience albeit n the COIN environment. jhowever optmization for COIN oes not neccessarily equate to suitability for high intensity combat. That sad, the M1134 variant noted earlier is clearly suited for such an environment

Perhaps the  questions should actually be about organization in a high intensity war. Should the M1134 variant be more widely available? One could form these vehicles into a company size formation at battalion level for administrative purposes but attach platoons to company level for combat.Should there be a permenent attachment of one platoon per company with the option of attaching 1 x M1134 to each platoon per company? This way units can train and work together long term.Is there  a case for company commanders keeping this capability concentrated in a tactical overwatch position. The latter option  may well make more tactical sense than penny packetng vehicles out to platoon level

 http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/US-Army-Moves-Ahead-with-Stryker-Hull-Modification-06308/

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...