Jump to content
kevinkin

Stryker vs Bradley

Recommended Posts

Pretty explicit:

"A Stryker formation would dismount its infantry one terrain feature away from the objective.  The dismounted infantry would then assault the objective with the vehicles they left behind providing supporting fires from either their MK-19 grenade launchers or .50-caliber machine guns. 

These objectives are intended to be ones that light infantry would be traditionally tasked with. 

Nowhere in the doctrine does it discuss Strykers matching up with enemy armored forces.  The greatest tragedy for a Stryker formation is a destroyed Stryker with its squad still in the back, which is exactly what would happen when put up against a tank."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"adding a 30-millimeter cannon it will only create a false sense of security and encourage commanders to do just that"

I've never been convinced by this form of argument in military matters - even dating back to opposition to helmets in WW1 on the grounds of cowardice. I suspect it doesn't give people on the ground enough credit at all.

Stryker is a bus. By most accounts it seems to be a pretty good bus, with decent networking capabilities. Wheels vs Tracks is a reasonable argument when talking about off-road buses, and you can argue about it's overall form (is it too large?/too tall?), but that's really about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care one way of the other.  But, a 30mm cannon seems to be designed for fighting other AFV's - which it seems is not what the Stryker is good for.  The 105mm seems much better for inf support.

Share this post


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

I've never been convinced by this form of argument in military matters - even dating back to opposition to helmets in WW1 on the grounds of cowardice. I suspect it doesn't give people on the ground enough credit at all.

Clearly you know nothing of US tank destroyer doctrine in WWII, or even the tank destroyers themselves, for this is exactly what happened. Commanders saw a vehicle with a gun that looked a lot like a tank, sitting behind the lines doing nothing, and decided to use them in roles they were never designed for. There is a reason no modern military has used tank destroyers since 1945.

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

dating back to opposition to helmets in WW1 on the grounds of cowardice

People today in 2017 argue the world is flat. Just because some ridiculous argument exists out there in the ether, does not mean it is the predominate way of thinking.

Comparing the stryker to the bradley is the same as comparing a helicopter to a plane. They both fly, but that is where the similarities end, both in their uses and doctrine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To an extant I agree with CptMiller, but there is a difference between having entire platoons of Stryker Dragoons and having them as company/battalion level assets, or even as 1 per plt. Does anyone know how these 30mm Strykers are going to fit within the formation? IIRC the MGS was a company level asset that could be doled out when needed, and the MGS itself was a bit of a failure. 

My only experience with Strykers has been in various sims, but I've often found situations where greater and more prolific HE chucker would have been useful. The Mk.19 often falls short and a Javelin is hardly economical. In those cases either the MGS or Dragoon would be a welcome sight.

Share this post


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

There is a reason no modern military has used tank destroyers since 1945.

I'd argue that things like the M901 or Konkurs strapped BRDMs and  the Khrizantema or TOW equipped Stryker would be tank destroyers. They don't operate under WWII doctrine but they still are used..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Canada has retired its TUA anti-tank LAV-3 and converted the chassis into troop transports. One would assume because a schoolbus-size vehicle being even nominally within LOF an MBT is very problematic. Especially when a dude with a Javelin can do the job while hiding behind a bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to go OT, but I have a burning question after watching the second episode of National Geographic's The Long Road Home yesterday, and this thread seems like the best place to ask it:

Two rescue convoys were sent into Sadr City to save US troops who had been ambushed and surrounded; the insurgents had also ambushed and repelled an Abrams platoon that had been sent to rescue, thus heavy resistance was expected. The commander of the first rescue convoy had a Bradley in lead, but decided to overtake it with his armoured Humvee since the dust from the Bradley's tracks was obstructing his vision; the battalion CO was apparently leading the second convoy with his armoured Humvee from the very start - even though he had at least two Bradleys in the convoy. I won't spoil the episode, but let's say the armoured Humvee has significantly lower survivability than the Bradley.

Why wouldn't the officers lead their convoys in Bradleys?

Share this post


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

Clearly you know nothing of US tank destroyer doctrine in WWII, or even the tank destroyers themselves, for this is exactly what happened. Commanders saw a vehicle with a gun that looked a lot like a tank, sitting behind the lines doing nothing, and decided to use them in roles they were never designed for. There is a reason no modern military has used tank destroyers since 1945.

I consider this as a most apprioprate way explaining, why additional weaponry is never a bad idea.

Stating that some units are not going to do some missions is living in a reality where you can choose your enemy, time of engagement and if you are before or after the lunch. Shermans in WWII were to fight enemy infantry, so they did not need high velocity cannons yes? French aristocracy during 100 years war should perfmorm mounted charge on the enemy frontally no matter what, because this is what they always did?

30 mm cannons can be used in a variety of ways and they definitly improve performance of stryker brigades during execution of "normal" missions. And this could be between life and death, if they stump upon something like BMP-3s, which outguns them dramatically. Adding to this attached, integrated javelin, would make it even more elastic. Argument that better weaponry will make stryker commanders feel that they can destroy tanks effectively is very rude comment on these commanders intellect or training.

What is great about adding more weapons is that it is very cost effective in comparison to adding more armour. This is why sword is eventually overcoming the shield in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I believe Canada has retired its TUA anti-tank LAV-3 and converted the chassis into troop transports. One would assume because a schoolbus-size vehicle being even nominally within LOF an MBT is very problematic. Especially when a dude with a Javelin can do the job while hiding behind a bush.

This was more about cost saving and Afghanistan.  Oddly enough, Canada has retired but not yet replaced its Eryx ATGMs, so currently has no ground-based ATGM capability at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Tenses said:

Stating that some units are not going to do some missions is living in a reality where you can choose your enemy, time of engagement and if you are before or after the lunch. Shermans in WWII were to fight enemy infantry, so they did not need high velocity cannons yes? French aristocracy during 100 years war should perfmorm mounted charge on the enemy frontally no matter what, because this is what they always did?

I'm not sure I understand your overall point, but what I can say is that the reality of the battlefield is what got rid of the faulty doctrine of the tank destroyer. As I stated earlier, the tank destroyers were only designed to go against enemy tanks. One of the many consequences of this is that when they were used in an infantry support role, they didn't carry much HE. Try it in CM, use M10s instead of Shermans and you'll see the issue. 

The reality of the battlefield made the idea of the tank destroyer not plausible, and thus it was scrapped. 

51 minutes ago, Tenses said:

What is great about adding more weapons is that it is very cost effective in comparison to adding more armour.

This is objectively false. Adding more of anything is not cost effective, its the opposite. All of the arguments being made are in a tactical vacuum. "Well the Panther was better than the Sherman in a head to head fight so the Panther is a better tank." We all of course know that this is not true. In reality the Sherman was a much better tank for a bunch of reasons, one of the primary ones being that the Sherman could get to the battlefield whereas most Panthers never did. The equipment you have on hand is always better than the equipment you wish you had. 

The entire point of the stryker is for it to be a battle taxi, like the halftrack of WWII. It is not supposed to go up against tanks, just as the Humvee, or the M113, or the BTR are not meant to go up against tanks. More importantly, the stryker is supposed to provide cheap and fast mobile transport to infantry. Tanks and Bradleys are heavy, expensive to maintain, expensive to keep in the field, and expensive to keep in the fight. And by expensive I do not mean cost alone, I mean man hours required to keep a Bradley in the field, to refuel, to re-supply, etc. A stryker is much cheaper, which means you can have a stryker unit operating much longer in the field with much less logistical strain than a heavy unit. Even more important is deployment time. It takes at least a month to get heavy units deployed to a theater. Stryker units can be deployed much faster, and in much larger numbers, and requires a lot less supplies. THAT is cost effective. Sticking a 30mm gun on the stryker makes it harder to deploy, harder to maintain, and more logistically hungry, which defeats the point of the stryker. 

All of this illustrates the fact that there is a difference between an IFV and an APC. The stryker is an APC. It is designed to cheaply and quickly get large amounts of infantry moved around a battlespace. The stryker excels at this as is. 

Edited by IICptMillerII

Share this post


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

I'd argue that things like the M901 or Konkurs strapped BRDMs and  the Khrizantema or TOW equipped Stryker would be tank destroyers. They don't operate under WWII doctrine but they still are used..

I had some technical difficulties and the forum lost my reply to this, so here it is now:

These vehicle you've listed are not tank destroyers. They are not designed to go toe to toe, that is head to head, against tanks. Sabot/HEAT rounds fly much faster than ATGMs. The purpose of ATGM equipped vehicles is to provide units with a stand off auxiliary support. 

A tank destroyer was designed to be used only against tanks, and in a head to head role. Head to head means trading shots.

An ATGM equipped APC will lose very quickly if it starts trading shots with tanks. 

I know it seems like semantics, but these are actually important distinctions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love when people start comparing Bradleys and Strykers based on their gaming experience :D

The games like CM focus on the actual combat and don't consider issues like logistics and operational or strategic mobility. And those were the two main issues considered, when Stryker brigades were designed. They can be deployed anywhere in the world faster than any other type of unit. They have also were high operational mobility, which was demonstrated during the recent deployments to Baltic States, Poland and Romania. So yeah, keep comparing the armour and weapons of Bradleys and Strykers because it's relevant ;)

Share this post


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

I love when people start comparing Bradleys and Strykers based on their gaming experience :D

The games like CM focus on the actual combat and don't consider issues like logistics and operational or strategic mobility. And those were the two main issues considered, when Stryker brigades were designed. They can be deployed anywhere in the world faster than any other type of unit. They have also were high operational mobility, which was demonstrated during the recent deployments to Baltic States, Poland and Romania. So yeah, keep comparing the armour and weapons of Bradleys and Strykers because it's relevant ;)

Exactly. Its a bad comparison to begin with. Apples to oranges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30mm Stryker. The only problem I see is that it isn't 31mm. The bigger, the better.

No, it's not meant to go up against enemy armor. But the enemy gets a vote, too. If enemy armor comes into the operational sphere of a Stryker unit, the enemy would cut through them. Sure, some crunchies might be able to grab a Javelin or 10. But the unit would be destroyed. Game it out. Toss some Russki armor against a Stryker unit. Don't assume the Strykers will be ambushing the Russians. Play around. Meeting engagements, probes, surprise flank counter-attacks. Strykers die.

Don't always assume supporting arms (or branches of service) will be available in a timely manner, or be able to deconflict the battlespace, or coordinate their fires. Organic firepower beats support firepower every day of the week. (Think of the effects of jamming if you are totally reliant upon called-in support.)

If I am in a Stryker (or one of my sons) I'd want the biggest frikken', armor-slicing, super-juiced, slay your enemies, gun on that thing. At least give 'em a chance to defend themselves.

As mentioned, there would be a proclivity for poor leaders to misuse vehicles so-equipped.

Thankfully, the debate has been won by the proponents of the big-gun school of thought. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

I'm not sure I understand your overall point, but what I can say is that the reality of the battlefield is what got rid of the faulty doctrine of the tank destroyer. As I stated earlier, the tank destroyers were only designed to go against enemy tanks. One of the many consequences of this is that when they were used in an infantry support role, they didn't carry much HE. Try it in CM, use M10s instead of Shermans and you'll see the issue. 

 

What I wanted to say is agree with your statement but from the other point of view. The M10 were designed to engage tanks and only them. The shermans(at the beginning of the war) were designed to engage infantry and only that. What reality showed is that you can not choose your enemy and if you are not prepared it will cost you dearly.

I consider moderate upgrade in armement a suitable solution to prevent situation where some unit can't even put up a fight. Imagine strykers catched in the open by enemy mechanized troops - this is what this upgrade is meant for. And it is absolutely possible in a conflict where you can't relay on full dominance in some area before rolling in towards objective.

Edited by Tenses

Share this post


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

They don't operate under WWII doctrine but they still are used..

I think the TD discussion got rather too abstract without taking into account the bewildering variety of these vehicles. The heavy ATGM vehicles you mentioned fit in exactly with the employment of the Nashorn, which was so successful against the KV and T-34 when first introduced precisely because it could engage them at ranges where they couldn't shoot back. Similarly, modern ATGM vehicles can engage Western tanks at ranges where the enemy can't return fire; Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian tanks can, of course, shoot back with their own ATGM, but the 'exchange rate' in terms of materiel loss would still favor ATGM vehicles.

Share this post


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

30mm Stryker. The only problem I see is that it isn't 31mm. The bigger, the better.

Ok, following this logic, why not just put a 120mm on every stryker?

33 minutes ago, c3k said:

If I am in a Stryker (or one of my sons) I'd want the biggest frikken', armor-slicing, super-juiced, slay your enemies, gun on that thing. At least give 'em a chance to defend themselves.

Same question.

How about, instead of asking 'why don't I have a big enough gun to defend myself?' ask 'why wasn't I smart enough to position myself correctly and not blunder into a horde of tanks?'
 

35 minutes ago, c3k said:

No, it's not meant to go up against enemy armor. But the enemy gets a vote, too. If enemy armor comes into the operational sphere of a Stryker unit, the enemy would cut through them. Sure, some crunchies might be able to grab a Javelin or 10. But the unit would be destroyed. Game it out. Toss some Russki armor against a Stryker unit. Don't assume the Strykers will be ambushing the Russians. Play around. Meeting engagements, probes, surprise flank counter-attacks. Strykers die.

Bradleys die. Abrams die. BMPs and BTRs and T90/T72s die. This does not make them irrelevant. Seriously, what do people not understand about a vehicle being designed for certain roles. By this logic, tanks are bad because they cant transport infantry, and they cant shoot down enemy planes. They can be killed by enemy infantry and enemy planes, but they cant defend themselves against them? The horror! What about the WWII halftrack, or the Cold War M113? Neither of these vehicles would survive toe to toe against a tank, does that mean they're worthless? No.

40 minutes ago, c3k said:

Thankfully, the debate has been won by the proponents of the big-gun school of thought. 

No it hasn't. The stryker dragoon is a prototype that is going to be field tested with 2CR sometime this coming summer. It is NOT a deployable vehicle. The Army field tested flying saucers in the 50s, but I don't see any of those flying around. 

 

39 minutes ago, Tenses said:

I consider moderate upgrade in armement a suitable solution to prevent situation where some unit can't even put up a fight. Imagine strykers catched in the open by enemy mechanized troops - this is what this upgrade is meant for. And it is absolutely possible in a conflict where you can't relay on full dominance in some area before rolling in towards objective.

You can say the same thing about literally any APC. Is the BTR bad because of this? What about the MT-LB? The M3 halftrack or the M113? Seriously, no vehicle is perfect for every possible situation. Thats why different types of vehicles exist. By the way, if a horde of Abrams were ambushed by mechanized infantry, it wouldn't go well for the tanks either. These arguments are semantic that do not address the main point of the stryker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 30mm upgrade for stryker comes from exactly the same desire to improve vehicle versatility as our 30mm APC projects. It won't necessarily change its tactical niche but expand the application within that niche. Supporting dismounted infantry from a distance with a 30 is a lot easier and more effective than with a .50 after all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

120mm on every Stryker? Um...I've already proposed that. Seriously. Toss a support platoon into each Stryker company. Equip 'em with 120mm, breech-loading, direct and indirect capable mortars. 6 vehicles should do it. A Stryker company would have a battery of 120mm on call. 2 deployed with each rifle platoon means that platoon gets a pair which could direct fire (Bunker? Gone. House giving you a headache? Boom.), and the other four (with the other two rifle platoons) could provide indirect support.

http://defense-update.com/products/a/amsII.htm

The goal is total overmatch of expected resistance.

I'd also put a 4-pack of Javelins in vertical launchers on every Stryker and have them integrated with the RWS...and data-linked to other vehicles. One vehicle could launch all the Javelins in the entire platoon.

The Stryker would still be used to transport and provide support firepower...as it does now with the 50 and mk19. Just bigger. The operational role would be fast transport and light infantry roles...not storm troopers.

 

Share this post


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

120mm on every Stryker? Um...I've already proposed that. Seriously. Toss a support platoon into each Stryker company. Equip 'em with 120mm, breech-loading, direct and indirect capable mortars. 6 vehicles should do it. A Stryker company would have a battery of 120mm on call. 2 deployed with each rifle platoon means that platoon gets a pair which could direct fire (Bunker? Gone. House giving you a headache? Boom.), and the other four (with the other two rifle platoons) could provide indirect support.

http://defense-update.com/products/a/amsII.htm

The goal is total overmatch of expected resistance.

I'd also put a 4-pack of Javelins in vertical launchers on every Stryker and have them integrated with the RWS...and data-linked to other vehicles. One vehicle could launch all the Javelins in the entire platoon.

The Stryker would still be used to transport and provide support firepower...as it does now with the 50 and mk19. Just bigger. The operational role would be fast transport and light infantry roles...not storm troopers.

 

I'm all about fire superiority, on the tactical level on up, but this seems excessive...

 

I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×