Jump to content
LUCASWILLEN05

Stryker - Pros and Cons

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

And why not return the brigade to APC M113, mobility and patency at the level of Bradley. M113 can be strengthened by armor and weapons. These APC in warehouses will suffice for several world wars.

As mentioned before, the M113 fleet is old, and has realistically reached the end of how much you can upgrade it before it's more expensive than a new vehicle.  We were still using M113s in HQ units/as ambulances when I was active duty, and they were kept functional mostly by stripping those warehoused M113s for parts.  Last I checked there's a plan to make an M113-like vehicle out of the Bradley chassis, and if we're talking tracks, that is the superior option.  

 

 

10 hours ago, IMHO said:

@panzersaurkrautwerfer, you'd need to manage these "independent tank battalions" in peace time one way or another. Like hire/fire people, pay salaries etc. Making "independent" support functions for each "independent" battalion would be an overshoot so you'll inevitably end up pooling them together in some division-level structure or attaching them to an existing one.

That's why I said they'd be collected under a "regiment."  It'd fill all the various staff functions for the subordinate units, just on a smaller scale on account of not being required to conduct actual combat operations as a cohesive unit (while 3-4 armor battalions sounds awesome, it'd be smarter to augment an existing ABCT with an armored BN or two vs trying to get enough pieces from other ABCTs to make the Armor regiment functional).  This is already common with things like Fires Brigades, which might have MRLS, or ADA Battalions that in the event of war function as battalions directly subordinate to Divisions or Maneuver Brigades, but they have a sort of administrative HQ that keeps them training and runs all the HR/day to day logistics stuff.

 

 

7 hours ago, db_zero said:

snip

Re-Independent tank battalions: Almost sounds somewhat similar to the independent tank destroyer concept in WW2, then again there were lots independent tank battalions and some if not all US armored divisions were divided up into separate combat commands-CCA/CCB/CCC or something like that. I haven't kept up with things lately so I don't know if the Army still uses a divisional or brigade type org. I think the Marines use the regimental system?

A few independent battalions at the NTC is an interesting concept. I would also have them rotated to Europe a year or 2 at a time as that's presumably where they would end up be needed. I also believe that the Europeans need to step up to the plate and provide a few independent armored units if they are going to be serious about defending NATO.

Perhaps some creativity can be utilized. Perhaps the West can train some specialized tank hunter infantry units and arm them with Javelins or similar weapons to supplement AT capabilities. 

Of course the best approach would be diplomacy. Come to some sort of mutual understanding and agreement. The last thing anyone wants is a real hot war between the West and Russia, but at the same time you do need a credible deterrence to back diplomacy up. 

It's exactly where I got the idea.  There were a lot of units that needed some sort of armor support despite not being armor formations.  We have fires/sustainment/whatever units that attach to augment a unit's capabilities now, having a tank unit to loan that maneuver/anti-armor capability seems like a good deal to me.  

The Army uses Brigades to denote self-supporting units, basically like the Combat Commands, all the logistics, infantry, armor (where applicable), artillery etc under one distinct HQ.  Regiments are used by the Cavalry (just another name for Brigades) but they're also used for historical purposes (basically tracing the history of that particular Battalion). I chose a regimental structure to hold the Tank BNs because if it was a "Brigade" then it'd be a similar name to the all-arms Armored Brigade Combat Teams, while a Regiment is clearly something else and would also lend a distinctive designation to the subordinate Battalions to again avoid confusion with other "Armor" (read Combined Arms Battalions).

In my crazed vision, the Armor regiment would loan out tanks (or tank crews for prepositioned tanks) to non-armor units going on European rotations at the pre-deployment NTC certification.  Basically it'd be where they picked up the tanks, trained alongside them in a realistic setting, etc.  

The allocation of course could vary.  Like a mostly COIN mission that needs occasional armor support (like Iraq when it was bad) might just take a tank company with a Brigade, while an ABCT being deployed to spearhead an attack into Iran or something might take an entire Battalion with.  Some other tweaks might be worthwhile (say four platoon companies to make a company able to support all three "line" BNs and the CAV SQDN with a platoon each in a BCT, or putting a M1068 type platform in the Company HQ to serve as sort of a "tank HQ" at the supported unit's CP, building a logistical element to provide the heavy cargo/fueler/recovery assets in small self-supporting packages), but it's all crazed former tanker speak at this point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been previously mentioned in this thread, it is being upgraded with a 30mm cannon.

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1714219-new-30mm-stryker-gun-changes-infantry-combat

'

 
Remote%20Turret%20Stryker%20MCT30.jpg?w=The US Army continues to receive prototypes of a newly-engineered up-gunned Stryker infantry vehicle armed with a more lethal, longer-range 30mm cannon as compared with the currently installed .50-cal machine guns.

 

The upgraded Stryker vehicle will be known as the Dragoon, the name of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. The prototype also features a new fully-integrated commander's station, upgraded driveline, componentry and hull modifications, according to statements from the Army's Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems.

Edited by Lee Vincent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Apocal said:

Um, yeah, pretty much all of us knew that...?

There was a mission in CMSF featuring the AT platoon of a Stryker Bn versus attacking Syrian armor in fact.

There was - I made it. it was part of the campaign and called The Screen (there is a part 1 and part 2, this specific one was part 1). Link to the actual scenario if anyone interested:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rsazcz5149z0fkm/31_0 The Screen v07.btt?dl=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, George MC said:

There was - I made it. it was part of the campaign and called The Screen (there is a part 1 and part 2, this specific one was part 1). Link to the actual scenario if anyone interested:

There is a video on you tube about this mission:

 

Share this post


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

As has been previously mentioned in this thread, it is being upgraded with a 30mm cannon.

 

Not only has it been discussed in detail with links, that same picture has put up three times now.  Might want to get caught up on the thread before posting links and pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question: Is this whole discussion based on American players not being able to accept limitations in their equipment? I haven't seen any posts about BTR-70s or 82s not being able to take on tanks!

Share this post


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

Serious question: Is this whole discussion based on American players not being able to accept limitations in their equipment? I haven't seen any posts about BTR-70s or 82s not being able to take on tanks!

Have you considered the possibility that it might be about the limitations of the Stryker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I don't know about you Doug, but personally I wouldn't take on tanks with BTRs (or Strykers), that would be daft!  ;)

Except of course the enemy might, just possibly. have a say in the matter! Let me rephrase what you are saying. You would not like to have too take on tanks with APCs - but in the real world bad things happen from time to time

Share this post


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

Serious question: Is this whole discussion based on American players not being able to accept limitations in their equipment? I haven't seen any posts about BTR-70s or 82s not being able to take on tanks!

This is heavily spearheaded by a single person who doesn't respond well to criticism. I think very few people here don't accept the limitations of the Stryker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about the sky being blue and how we need to get over this groupthink mentality that the sky must be blue and do something about it.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...