Jump to content
kevinkin

Stryker vs Bradley

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

The Army field tested flying saucers in the 50s, but I don't see any of those flying around. 

Ah, but you are not supposed to see them. Therefore they are working great. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Strykers are probably too small for 120 mm guns. There were enough problems with the 105 mm. Secondly, if you need more firepower, then you have already heavy units equipped with Bradleys and Abrams. Strykers are not designed to conduct heavy, set piece combat. Even if they packed more fire power, then they are not protected well enough. In a regular combat, they would be conducting screening missions and disengage, if heavy enemy force was encountered.

Edited by Ivanov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Erwin said:

"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. 

I like the one terrain feature away concept.  Of course it would need to be a relatively secure terrain feature.  But this general rule of thumb seems like it would work for most troop carrying vehicles (half-tracks, Humvees, Strykers, Bradleys etc.)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not go the whole hog and apply the 'munitions ship' concept to the Stryker.....Add one extra vehicle per platoon (or a platoon per company), this one with the entire payload space filled with a VLS Cell Array holding as many Spike/Javelin(/Stinger?) as you can cram into it.  One soldier per section (or more) is equipped with a remote targeting system data-linked to the (multi channel) target designator for the VLS array.  The rest should be fairly easy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, a 120mm breech loading mortar is NOT the same as a 120mm tank gun. Not even close.

Here' s the link, again: http://defense-update.com/products/a/amsII.htm

And here's another, showing it mounted: http://www.military-today.com/artillery/ams_mortar_system.htm

Notice that this is mounted and being used on LAVs. The Stryker is bigger than a LAV. 

One terrain feature away is perfect for some indirect, organic, mortar fire. If the transport Strykers are supposed to be able to provide direct fire support with their .50s and Mk19s, then the environment is not so deadly that a 120mm equipped Stryker could not also be providing direct fire support.

As to the Javelins...this is a minor technical hurdle. In the meantime, a few vertical launched ATGMs would provide a defensive shield to the unit should the enemy intervene with armor.

This is not rocket science. Or is it? ;)

Edited by c3k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall in the late 70s (yes, I'm that old) Belgium had a choice between the 90mm gunned Jpz Kanone and a stripped-down Leopard 1 to fulfill its dedicated infantry support role. They went with the Jpz Kanone. They were up front about their decision. A stripped-down Leopard 1 would still be seen as a 'tank' by commanders who would be tempted to use them as such in combat. But that's not their job. They're direct fire infantry support vehicles. In WWII the US had just that problem with M10 TD. It looked like a tank so commanders tried to use them as tanks. M10, with thin armor, no overhead cover no mg, and manual turret traverse makes for a pretty crappy 'tank'.

Share this post


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

As to the Javelins...this is a minor technical hurdle. In the meantime, a few vertical launched ATGMs would provide a defensive shield to the unit should the enemy intervene with armor.

This is not rocket science. Or is it? ;)

I'm pretty sure it is. Trust me, I'm a rocket surgeon!

I think there are some fairly major technical hurdles to vertically launched ATGMs with the networking aspect. You think your WiFi at home is bad? :P

I think while we're at it we should place TLAMs or Pershing 2s on them!

Or that German tank destroyer with the TOW lifted on a boom... What was that called?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kevinkin said:

Another timely article by professionals in the Military Review (November-December 2017 issue):

http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/November-December-2017/Strykers-on-the-Mechanized-Battlefield/

PS: Note the name of one of the writers. 

Kevin

Very interesting. 

Also, they literally quote Stryker Lt.Gen Lanza:

"There’s a lot of things that had to change in terms of our approach to Stryker training at home station, because we were focused on COIN … and we had a big discussion about the platform itself, because we did not want to employ it as a Bradley.

And:

"The focal point was always delivering infantry into the fight ". 

No surprises there, right? 

All that said, a 30mm would not screw the med unit role - I've lost count if the times I've lost vehicles Nd squads because that 50 cal and GL just can't suppress as well as a 30 mm. I love UKR/RUS  BTRs for exactly that reason. Just wish they had better optics. God how I wish that. 

Having a 30mm won't make me put them near tanks, I'm not an idiot. 

And I'm not even ex-Mil. 

Edited by kinophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

putting 30mm on the stryker is not creating the end of the world situation. the units would still perform the same type of missions. 

Of course, in my world, they would only be a portion of the force make up. with the present .50s and Mk19s, and such still being part of the force mix.

It would just add a little more flexibility as to what they are able to do.

 

And in my book, any good commander wants as many options as he can gets. So anyone that gets defensive as to such a thing being a bad decision in my book is someone that is not mentally built to be a good leader. 

Pointing out that weapons will be used incorrectly  because leaders will think they can do more than they should is a stupid argument. That fact will be there no matter what is provided at any scale. There will be plenty that will always make poor decisions no matter what they are in command of and how it should be used. So not providing a certain weapon to help prevent that is total crap, because it is not a true factor for those type of stupid events. Buts this is not a discussion as to human behavior is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most convincing argument against it is primarily that by continuing to tack on features you'll eventually get something that can't really do anything that the vehicle was originally meant to do.

"A troop transport that can't carry troops.  A reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance.  And a quasi-tank that has less armour than a snowblower, but has enough ammo to take out half of DC." :P

Everything is a trade, right?  The Stryker was designed with strategic mobility in mind. You can strap it into a C130 and bring it wherever you want, unlike a Bradley or a BMP.  Does adding the 30mm cannon compromise that?  Take the M1128 - isn't that too big and heavy to carry on a plane anymore?  Maybe a 30mm cannon is a good middle ground.  I don't know - but what does the trade study look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that a 30mm turret would eliminate carriage by anything smaller than a C-17.  That would eliminate a part of the strategic mobility that was the reason for acquiring the Stryker.

Also, I think the turret also eliminates most of the dismounts and a good portion of the internal stowage.  I assume that would mean less AT weapons carried.  I think the LAV-25 can only handle 4 dismounts and the 30mm turret is even bigger and requires more room for ammo storage.  And the LAV-25 has no Javelins.

That is mostly from memory so the level of confidence is limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

 

Also, I think the turret also eliminates most of the dismounts and a good portion of the internal stowage.  I assume that would mean less AT weapons carried.

No, it is an RWS that does not penetrate the body.

Share this post


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

The most perplexing thing with the Strykers for me, given one of their raison d'etre ( mobility), is the lack of true amphibious ability.

BY all that's holy, THIS. The Russians can make their tinker-toy BTRs amphib, but the all encompassing US military can't do so for the Stryker,, a vehicle whose fundamental purpose is infantry mobility? Seriously? There will always be a bridge? Even in CM, if an oppo mines a bridge over anything larger than, oh a trickle of piss and properly covers it then Strykers are screwed. 

Pretty ridiculous, IMHO. 

Edited by kinophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TJT said:

The most perplexing thing with the Strykers for me, given one of their raison d'etre ( mobility), is the lack of true amphibious ability.

Theaters and application. BTR were designed decades ago back in Soviet time. The main objective back then was to run over the Western Europe as fast as possible. Before US reinforcements have a chance to land in Europe. God forbids but given the time frame it'd have been a fluid battlespace - one moves forward where opponent is weak the moment the weakness is discovered. So one trades better armor protection for mobility.

Same with this discussion IMHO, - it's useless to discuss Stryker design outside the context of their battlefield application as a whole.

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stryker isn't amphibious for the same reason it doesn't have VTOL capability. This is a tired line of logic.

"Well, if the whole point of the stryker is to be light weight and easily/quickly deployable, then why can't it fly like a helicopter?"

"Well, if the whole point of the stryker is to be light weight and easily/quickly deployable, why can't it traverse the ocean with a full compliment inside?"

""Well, if the whole point of the stryker is to be light weight and easily/quickly deployable, why can't it act like an ICBM, flying into low Earth orbit, then coming back down to Earth where it needs to be, ready to fight?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite what we're saying, and you're racing to an extreme fringe in an attempt belittle a pretty reasonable desire - better, tactically appropriate organic fire support and amphibious capability. 

Reductio ad absurdum is entertaining, but only ever proves its inherent point, that there is no real alternative or discussion point being presented other than to suggest that anything but your  position is automatically ridiculous.

Which is plainly argumentative mockery, especially as 30mm APCs do exist and yet somehow are not VTOL, orbit capable and can carry a platoon, their equipment, some chickens and the CO's mistress. 

The point stands, and is backed up by the raw reality of other nation's militaries designing, building, ordering and using APCs that are amphibious, all over the world. 

Feature creep is a real danger, but so is being stopped by a river and also not having rapid fire 30mm when RUS or equivalent BTRs/APCs/IFVs show up. 

From what's said above, the addition of a 30mm would not break the primary mission of troops transport. 

 

Edited by kinophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's that old saying? 'Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics'.
The inclusion of an entirely new grade of ammo for the US to put into the supply pipeline is a BIG DEAL. Is this new 30mm round NATO standard? I hope it would be the same 30x173 aircraft round as used in the AT-10. Because we've got lots of those rounds available.

 Then again, the Pentagon went 105mm for MGS to in an effort to 'standardize' but found those aging stockpiled NATO 105mm tank rounds  tended to jam the gun. They needed to hire Mecar to manufacture entirely new rounds (with stouter shell casings, I recall) which undid the  whole 'NATO standardization' thing.

Army purchased Stryker because during the NATO entry into Serbia in 1999 the US looked on in envy as Canada spearheaded the march with its Coyote 8x8 light ACs. US was at the back of the parade struggling to figure out routes of march with suitable bridges for its heavy armor. Stryker was meant to be a quick -off-the-shelf vehicle purchase (its original name was 'Interim Fighting Vehicle'). But like all things Pentagon the program ballooned. It became too tall, too heavy, too complicated, too prone to overturn, too problematic moving cross-country. Now lets add a remote 30mm turret to the roof too!

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the Javelin vertical launchers!

120mm turreted breech loaded mortars are a MINOR change to the 120mm sitting in the back of the Stryker. It adds direct fire capability and retains the same supply chain.

30mm cannon...even better if the Bradley gets upgunned to match. That'd simplify the chain, no?

Hardened positions are a pita for infantry. Far better for a quick, 5 minute response (realistic time frame to order up a vehicle, orient it, and direct lay), surgical strike, than have to hold everyone up (in an kill zone?) while air support gets called in or distant artillery responds...and everyone has to pull back.

A quickly destroyed target saves on munitions expenditure...and THAT reduces the strain on logistics.

 

Nail it, nail it hard, and nail it now.

Share this post


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

Not quite what we're saying, and you're racing to an extreme fringe in an attempt belittle a pretty reasonable desire - better, tactically appropriate organic fire support and amphibious capability. 

Reductio ad absurdum is entertaining, but only ever proves its inherent point, that there is no real alternative or discussion point being presented other than to suggest that anything but your  position is automatically ridiculous.

Which is plainly argumentative mockery, especially as 30mm APCs do exist and yet somehow are not VTOL, orbit capable and can carry a platoon, their equipment, some chickens and the CO's mistress. 

The point stands, and is backed up by the raw reality of other nation's militaries designing, building, ordering and using APCs that are amphibious, all over the world. 

Feature creep is a real danger, but so is being stopped by a river and also not having rapid fire 30mm when RUS or equivalent BTRs/APCs/IFVs show up. 

From what's said above, the addition of a 30mm would not break the primary mission of troops transport. 

 

The Bradley isn't amphibious, yet no one is complaining about that. Nor has anyone, because the Bradley has been more than fine at doing its job without having to swim as well. Most M113 variants since the 70s have not been amphibious. Most vehicles in the current, and former US arsenal are not amphibious, with the exception of the Marines. 

Clearly, the US Army has not put any emphasis on amphibious capability since the late 60s, and it has not been a detriment. 

Further, a case study. In 2003, the Army and Marines made seperate pushes to Baghdad. Water obstacles were present in said pushes. The Army, with no amphibious vehicles organic to their formations, reached Baghdad first, before the amphibiously equipped Marines. Clearly, not having amphibious vehicles did not hamper the Army's drive on Baghdad. There are other examples, but the point is this; the US Army is not massively disadvantaged by not having amphibious APCs.

Also, just because other military's 'around the world' adopt/do things, does not mean what the US Army is doing is 'wrong' or 'behind' in capability. Different missions, requirements, budgets, etc etc. Apples to oranges. 

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

What's that old saying? 'Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics'.
The inclusion of an entirely new grade of ammo for the US to put into the supply pipeline is a BIG DEAL. Is this new 30mm round NATO standard? I hope it would be the same 30x173 aircraft round as used in the AT-10. Because we've got lots of those rounds available.

 Then again, the Pentagon went 105mm for MGS to in an effort to 'standardize' but found those aging stockpiled NATO 105mm tank rounds  tended to jam the gun. They needed to hire Mecar to manufacture entirely new rounds (with stouter shell casings, I recall) which undid the  whole 'NATO standardization' thing.

Army purchased Stryker because during the NATO entry into Serbia in 1999 the US looked on in envy as Canada spearheaded the march with its Coyote 8x8 light ACs. US was at the back of the parade struggling to figure out routes of march with suitable bridges for its heavy armor. Stryker was meant to be a quick -off-the-shelf vehicle purchase (its original name was 'Interim Fighting Vehicle'). But like all things Pentagon the program ballooned. It became too tall, too heavy, too complicated, too prone to overturn, too problematic moving cross-country. Now lets add a remote 30mm turret to the roof too!

This. 

 

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

×