Jump to content
kevinkin

Stryker vs Bradley

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

Five books is impressive though. Any you would recommend?

  • Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland is a fantastic (dry) read about Warsaw Pact planning.  I can only find it in German though.  This is my favourite one I've read - 
  • Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics by William Baxter has a good look at Soviet tactics all the way through the political element at the very top.  He wrote it specifically to try to translate the Soviet way of thinking to Western military minds - I find it a very handy reference.
  • The Bear Went Over the Mountain and The Soviet-Afghan War by Les Grau/Russian General Staff provide a lot of insights in how the USSR and DRA fought in Afghanistan as well as how they learned and adapted to fighting there.
  • Red Thrust by Steven Zaloga has an interesting take on the Soviet Army through vignettes in a fictional war in Europe.  He focuses on the weaknesses that Baxter also touches upon with the future of high-tech warfare that the General Staff started to worry about in the early 80s.

I can hardly recommend only one of them, eh? :D 

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

Essentially yes. To make things more confusing, the idea was not to wait for the Soviets to come at you through the Fulda Gap and defend in place, but to in fact attack the enemy who is trying to attack you. Not head on mind you. The entire idea is elasticity. Independent units (Brigade level) being able to act autonomously. This both helps during a conventional war, and in the event of the use of nuclear weapons. The entire army isnt wiped out in one strike because everyone is spread out, and all the smaller groups have enough firepower/logistics to operate by themselves. Again, this is an oversimplification, but I think you'll understand what I'm getting at. 

Yup - I definitely get you.  A focus on interdiction, disruption, and getting within the enemy C3I (at the time - isn't it C4ISTAR now or something?).  Coincidentally, this coincides with a shift in Soviet thinking to an almost entirely nuclear-based deterrence - kinda like Nato had in the 50s!

1 hour ago, kinophile said:

I'd be interested in anyone's playing a custom battle/scenario version of that UKR v RUSSIAN map, what is it - Futile? Relentless? Hell? I forget, but it's UKR btr mech  inf defending a riverine town v RUS Armor-Mech assault.

Brutal!  Ukrainians only get a couple of BTRs though.

1 hour ago, kinophile said:

Tbh, I'd have thought the 105 MGS was way out of scale (logistically) for a Stryker unit.

I believe exactly that is one of the major criticisms of the MGS.  The 105mm gun makes it too big to be air transportable like previously mentioned, so its strategic manoeuvrability is severely limited.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it also has been considered as somewhat a failure in its role, right? Hence the same argument being levied against the 30mm dragoon variant.  I'm not convinced that the argument is a correct one, but it definitely has its strong points. ;)

 

Share this post


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

The WHOLE POINT of the stryker is to give the US Army a modern, quick, flexible vehicle that can respond to anticipated and unanticipated situations. Just because the stryker can't swim, or fly, does NOT mean it is a useless antiquated vehicle. You are the only one here trying to claim that the US refuses to prepare for anything. 

What task, pray tell? We don't need amphibious vehicles in Europe. If we did, there are plenty of "old, antiquated" LAVs and AAVs lying around that could be rushed into theater to fill this glaring hole in strategic doctrine. Funny though, I haven't heard any Generals or otherwise losing their minds because their vehicles can't cross a river. Its a good thing you've managed to find the one massive glaring hole in US doctrine that all of those so called "experts" and "military leaders" overlooked. 

Did I stir the sand in your sand box.

First, I have not ever said anything about the stryker not doing or being the correct machine for its present mission. I think it does what it is intended to do. So you are getting me confused with others comments here. I do not think they should be changed in any manner other than I see no problem with adding 30 mm to the system.

Second , I did get confused that I thought someone had mentioned, they would lose infantry transport ability. but that appears to be incorrect. So even better as not having a issue as to the 30mm being a part of the force make up.

As for amphibious units, you don't like my point of view, that is so clear. As for generals seeing the lack we have and wanting that fixed. Since the only force that really ever is given that type of task is our marine corp, there is plenty of comments and needs that they presently have. But as is always the case, they do not get the funding to get those wish list made. So, as has always been the case, the marines are generally at the mercy of the other branches to somehow get them updated with equipment more suitable for the job at hand.

In recent history,  Iraq war, Marines tank corp was still in M60's until they manage to purchase none used M1's from the army .

(no where to go for amphibious  stuff  - thus the issue) so just as you said, use them old aav's - remind me to have you be in one of those when they get used

 

Oh, since some of you out there hate the thought that I would ever suggest that the M1 would have a Diesel engine.  That fine and should be expected. 

look, when that tank came out, it was like one of the few times America managed to get it so right, by far the best tank in the world at the time. Even to this day, its design concepts has helped to hold it as one of the best platforms out there.

but as to present design needs, does a tank truly need a turbine engine, does it impact it capabilities enough to justify it added requirements. (that is the question I really am posing)

So if you cannot handle that, its ok. - who wouldn't want the best available thing if they can have it. The turbine engine is that, what I am pointing out is maybe, just maybe, its added benefits are not really needed. My point of view, you might not like it, but don't get all worked up about it if you don't agree

 

Edited by slysniper

Share this post


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

Brutal!  Ukrainians only get a couple of BTRs though.

The BTRs get a right pasting in that one, in my next play through I'm going to strip them of gear, dismount them and see if they are more useful as road-blocks!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amphibious Combat Vehicle under Wikipedia gives a basic understanding as to where the marine corp wants to go with their vision of needs.

and if you do a search for "The Commandant's posture of the United States Marine corps presidents budget 2017"  you will find more information than you want as to the present standing of our corp. and some of their requested needs

note page 11 gives a little reference to getting certain programs up to needed status.

The f-35 program  (Of course this is listed since the corp is in terrible shape as to how many fighters they presently can actually use and how the funding for the f-35's have been a nightmare - but it is listed as to what they have coming for sure and their hopes for the rest of the funding needed.)

And the ACV units -  well I am glad to see it appears that funding has finally been made but the precise direction of the program still seems questionable.

but it is stated 204 ACV's in the 4th quarter of the year 2020 as phase one and 490 in phase two.

 

So there is some improvement to the Amphibious needs I have been referring to, I must admit the last I knew, they had not approved these. So only 3 years away from something they have been asking for roughly for 15 years.

Image result for marine acv vehicle 

Most of the prototypes were along these lines

Share this post


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

I can hardly recommend only one of them, eh? :D 

Ahh ok, I know both 'Red Thrust' and "The Bear Went Over the Mountain.' "Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics' looks like a very interesting read. Unfortunately I don't read/speak German so the last book is beyond my grasp. 

17 hours ago, HerrTom said:

Yup - I definitely get you.  A focus on interdiction, disruption, and getting within the enemy C3I (at the time - isn't it C4ISTAR now or something?).  Coincidentally, this coincides with a shift in Soviet thinking to an almost entirely nuclear-based deterrence - kinda like Nato had in the 50s!

Exactly.

To the nuclear deterrence stuff, I know a big reason why the Soviets shifted to a larger nuclear-based deterrence philosophy on the strategic scale was because their ICBM capability only became capable in the 70s-80s. Before that, they still relied overwhelmingly on more conventional delivery methods (ie bombers and such)

10 hours ago, slysniper said:

In recent history,  Iraq war, Marines tank corp was still in M60's until they manage to purchase none used M1's from the army

The Marines used the M60A3 Patton tank in the First Gulf War, but by OIF all of their deployed armor was Abrams. 

 

10 hours ago, slysniper said:

does a tank truly need a turbine engine

The Abrams does, yes. 

 

6 hours ago, slysniper said:

"The Commandant's posture of the United States Marine corps presidents budget 2017"

Every branch claims that it is on the verge of technological obsolescence in order to attempt to gain more funding. This is nothing new. Being able to understand the reality is rather important. The fact is, there is no other military in the world that is as well equipped, on such a large scale, as the US. Arguing against this is asinine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 11:59 AM, 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.

Ehh, part of it was the switch to the LAV 6.0 program, part of it is anti-tank doctrine being in flux with Eryx retired leaving the just Carl G and M72. Much like the TLAV (M113), there isn't the budget or the manning for true mech brigades right now, so the switch to Battle Groups with only mech elements allowed many of the supporting elements to be dropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-11-21 at 1:12 AM, JohnO said:

@IICptMillerII@HerrTomlook at "The Russian Way Of War, Force Structure, Tactics, and Modernization of the Russian Ground Forces" by Dr. Lester W. Grau and Charles K. Bartles dated 2016. You can Google it and get a copy of the PDF.

Thanks a lot for this tip. Been looking for something like this with little success myself. Found it and several other very interesting reads on the same site.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WARNING NUMBER 1: everything what I will say next is subjective lol

If we talking about Bradley then I would agree with BAE Systems solution for it

zlMiJfj.jpg

More about it here: https://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/rebuilding-the-m2-bradley/

If we talking about Stryker as vehicle what should challange similar purpose vehicles of our major military challengers (China, Russia etc.) then these - > aMIkzXe.png

will not work. 

In my opinion the only one (from a stryker family) what makes at least some sense at this moment is this one: 

WpII9xa.jpg

with a turret from General Dynamics nicknamed "Dragoon" - I think I've herd some news about that few of them finally were made and then were sent to Europe. 

WARNING NUMBER 2  everything what I will say next is subjective lol.

Overall I think that no matter what type of a vehicle you planing produce you should follow these general patterns:

1 - Your vehicle should be able to swim or at least be able to cross deep rivers. 

2 - Your vehicle should have low profile so that it would be harder to hit and easier to dig in (defencive position, ambush position and so on).

3 - A single vehicle should be able to engage 4 types of targets and those are: helicopters and drones, infantry, light armor, heavy armor. That means that you should have an automatic cannon + AT Missile system + MG, and automatic grenade launcher (sometimes GL can be ignored though). 

Here an example of when Automatic GL can be ignored (main thing happens starting from 1:12 when that turret is working on those trenches): 

4 (OPTIONAL) - Weapons module should  have an option to be controlled from the distance (with main engine being turned off) - so you dig in on lets say in long term defensive position and then you leave your vehicle and control its turret from the distance while sitting somewhere safe. 

5 - While being inside of this vehicle its crew should be protected from nuclear, bio and chemical hazzards. 

Conclusion: the NEXT GEN APC or IFV in my opinion should share traits of things like BMP3 if we talking about amount of firepower and variety of ammunition being used (yet we need to make each gun better), multiplied by precision of western aiming/stabilizing technologies multiplied on low profile of the vehicle itself. Yet, knowing that we already built a lot of other vehicles - modernization of what we have at this moment looks like an option. Yet, again if modernization cost would reach 2/3 of a whole vehilce then modernization is not an option. Another words - if we can modernize a lot and relatively cheap  - then yes lets work with what we have. If modernization of a single vehicle would cost us as a new vehicle - lets work and develop some new hardware. And no more single gun - single vehicle - single purpose please (comfortable wars are over - our future will be spent in fighting well equipped/trained enemies). We need to start spending our money in a wise way. 

P.S. It would be nice to make sure that all of those vehicles we have now can survive an RPO shot - because thermobaric weapons are coming back and they are creepy my friends. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

WARNING NUMBER 1: everything what I will say next is subjective lol

If we talking about Bradley then I would agree with BAE Systems solution for it

 

More about it here: https://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/rebuilding-the-m2-bradley/

If we talking about Stryker as vehicle what should challange similar purpose vehicles of our major military challengers (China, Russia etc.) then these - > 

will not work. 

In my opinion the only one (from a stryker family) what makes at least some sense at this moment is this one: 

 

with a turret from General Dynamics nicknamed "Dragoon" - I think I've herd some news about that few of them finally were made and then were sent to Europe. 

WARNING NUMBER 2  everything what I will say next is subjective lol.

Overall I think that no matter what type of a vehicle you planing produce you should follow these general patterns:

1 - Your vehicle should be able to swim or at least be able to cross deep rivers. 

2 - Your vehicle should have low profile so that it would be harder to hit and easier to dig in (defencive position, ambush position and so on).

3 - A single vehicle should be able to engage 4 types of targets and those are: helicopters and drones, infantry, light armor, heavy armor. That means that you should have an automatic cannon + AT Missile system + MG, and automatic grenade launcher (sometimes GL can be ignored though). 

Here an example of when Automatic GL can be ignored (main thing happens starting from 1:12 when that turret is working on those trenches): 

4 (OPTIONAL) - Weapons module should  have an option to be controlled from the distance (with main engine being turned off) - so you dig in on lets say in long term defensive position and then you leave your vehicle and control its turret from the distance while sitting somewhere safe. 

5 - While being inside of this vehicle its crew should be protected from nuclear, bio and chemical hazzards. 

Conclusion: the NEXT GEN APC or IFV in my opinion should share traits of things like BMP3 if we talking about amount of firepower and variety of ammunition being used (yet we need to make each gun better), multiplied by precision of western aiming/stabilizing technologies multiplied on low profile of the vehicle itself. Yet, knowing that we already built a lot of other vehicles - modernization of what we have at this moment looks like an option. Yet, again if modernization cost would reach 2/3 of a whole vehilce then modernization is not an option. Another words - if we can modernize a lot and relatively cheap  - then yes lets work with what we have. If modernization of a single vehicle would cost us as a new vehicle - lets work and develop some new hardware. And no more single gun - single vehicle - single purpose please (comfortable wars are over - our future will be spent in fighting well equipped/trained enemies). We need to start spending our money in a wise way. 

P.S. It would be nice to make sure that all of those vehicles we have now can survive an RPO shot - because thermobaric weapons are coming back and they are creepy my friends. 

Requirements 2 and 3 are fairly exclusive.  A low profile vehicle will have more limited gun depression and elevation.  The vehicle will have trouble elevating enough to hit air targets or will have poor depression which inhibits hitting ground targets.

Edited by Sulomon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

WARNING NUMBER 1: everything what I will say next is subjective lol  

:D Now you've gone and done it ......................... hold on, I gotta get some popcorn, be right back...............:lol:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Sulomon said:

Requirements 2 and 3 are fairly exclusive.  A low profile vehicle will have more limited gun depression and elevation.  The vehicle will have trouble elevating enough to hit air targets or will have poor depression which inhibits hitting ground targets.

Look on BMP2 and BMP3 and on German Puma (not a correct compare but still) - elevation depends on a module itself. If you talking about killing everything what is lower then it is also adjustable. For example your turret can have an ability to elevate in certain moments and so on. 

Edited by Oleksandr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

:D Now you've gone and done it ......................... hold on, I gotta get some popcorn, be right back...............:lol:  

Why that bro? :) by the way happy new year! whooaH!) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the vehicle is carrying javelin armed infantry why does it need to have its own heavy AT weapon (that then requires additional ammo storage space, weight etc).

For example your statement about being able to set up and manage the vehicle weapons system remotely looks like a messed up reverse engineering of a dismounted Javelin team  

Trying to create a vehicle capable of all things means it likely does none of them individually well. i think this is actually one of the weaknesses of Russian vehicle design (and some western ones as well). Too many things are piled onto a vehicle without making sure it does it’s original intended role first. Too many compromises leads to a vehicle that can’t accomplish it’s original mission. 

Share this post


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

If the vehicle is carrying javelin armed infantry why does it need to have its own heavy AT weapon (that then requires additional ammo storage space, weight etc).

See Mr. Burke, what you fail to understand is that if a vehicle exists, and its in the military, it has to be a tank. Its a simple concept; army vehicles go boom boom with big guns.

Trying to apply any logic or reason to this simple equation just gives everyone a headache. And remember, the Bradley is such a good IFV, why not have a knock off version of it rolling around?

Seriously though:

35 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

Look on BMP2 and BMP3 and on German Puma (not a correct compare but still) - elevation depends on a module itself. If you talking about killing everything what is lower then it is also adjustable. For example your turret can have an ability to elevate in certain moments and so on. 

Fetishizing some of the worst armored vehicles ever made to justify making the Stryker worse to be like them. Now this, Mr. Burke, is how its done. 

Share this post


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

If the vehicle is carrying javelin armed infantry why does it need to have its own heavy AT weapon (that then requires additional ammo storage space, weight etc).

For example your statement about being able to set up and manage the vehicle weapons system remotely looks like a messed up reverse engineering of a dismounted Javelin team  

Trying to create a vehicle capable of all things means it likely does none of them individually well. i think this is actually one of the weaknesses of Russian vehicle design (and some western ones as well). Too many things are piled onto a vehicle without making sure it does it’s original intended role first. Too many compromises leads to a vehicle that can’t accomplish it’s original mission. 

No forget about that - think of that this way - all javelin armed people are dead, they have no more missiles, you are surrounded for more than a week and so on. Do not depend on your infantry while developing a vehicle. Moreover do not depend on Javelins that much. Stop thinking that you will have a chance to comfortably deploy your fire teams - that you will be the one who sets the battle speed and order. Think about this way - suddenly you faced extreemly well prepared - trained and drilled enemy and you have to depend on your vehicle to fight other vehicles, helicopters, UAV's, tanks, infantry and in the same time you should cross rivers fast, and you should dig in fast and then you should reposition fast and so on. 

Think about engagement when your vehicle is used as a bunker - so this is the situation - your company was cut off main forces 4 days ago - you are under indirect (yet) MRLS shrapnell fire 4 times per day (especially at night), you dont have anything to support you (forget about air support that air is closed - anything what will fly will be shutted down in terms of seconds) you dont have direct calms with other units - heavy weight electronical warfare tech was used - so units within 200 kilometers are not able to contact higher branch - moreover your troops are not even officially there - so its your company against enemy company - and there are no way to deploy anything in a comfort way. Moreover think of a situation where soldiers are demoralized, where casualties are high, where your vehicle and its  ability to get deep in the ground is your last resort. Dont forget about sniper terror - your SGT decided to give an order on the open feild - he got half of his body blown off without a sound by a bullet of 12,7 or even 14mm + 

In this kinds of situations US soldiers might start finding themselvs pretty damn soon and you have to - you simply have to make a universal and relatively cheap IFV to depend on in your darkest times. 

Now dont get me wrong - as a defensive weapon - Javelin is amazing. But you always should double - lets say your javelin taking out 4 tanks - and your IFV taking out 2 more or at least damages them. - 6 when you have - 6 with 1 squad thats a good statistics - enemy might stop going against you directly and will return to sniper terror and artillery strikes (which would be a personal victory of yours). 

Stop thinking that everything will follow the plan and that you will have a chance to play game by your rules - try to create things what can do few things at the time so before being killed or going crazy your soldier will find something what can protect him. Open your mind for a second. No more luxury - we walked out - we made a shot. Think about serious - adult combat. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If all the infantry the carrier is meant to protect are hors d'combat, it has already failed in its primary mission and everything else is a moot point. :)

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


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

If all the infantry the carrier is meant to protect are hors d'combat, it has already failed in its primary mission and everything else is a moot point. :)

Rinaldi is this is the first time when I'm totally agree with you?  lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

Rinaldi is this is the first time when I'm totally agree with you?  lol

Unfortunately not, because I'm disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of your observations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

Think about engagement when your vehicle is used as a bunker - so this is the situation - your company was cut off main forces 4 days ago - you are under indirect (yet) MRLS shrapnell fire 4 times per day (especially at night), you dont have anything to support you (forget about air support that air is closed - anything what will fly will be shutted down in terms of seconds) you dont have direct calms with other units - heavy weight electronical warfare tech was used - so units within 200 kilometers are not able to contact higher branch - moreover your troops are not even officially there - so its your company against enemy company - and there are no way to deploy anything in a comfort way. Moreover think of a situation where soldiers are demoralized, where casualties are high, where your vehicle and its  ability to get deep in the ground is your last resort. Dont forget about sniper terror - your SGT decided to give an order on the open feild - he got half of his body blown off without a sound by a bullet of 12,7 or even 14mm +

The amount of wrong here honestly begs the question; are you BlacktailDefense on YouTube?

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

×