Jump to content
markus544

30mm Strykers...get some

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Can they time-travel?  :o

If not it probably ain't gonna happen.  :rolleyes:

Quote

Combat Mission Black Sea is a military grade simulation depicting a fictional series of escalations between Russian and Ukraine which results in open conflict in the summer of 2017.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am mystified by this vehicle -- is it an APC, is it an IFV? Why did they not mount the bushmaster on this guy (share ammo with Bradley)? Why didn't the U.S. Army just adopt the LAV-25?

Hopefully, we'll get LAV-25s or LAV IIIs, in future USMC or Canadian dlc, for BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Part of me would love the game to be opened up to some new tech.....I'd love to see the Turkish Altay, Chinese Type 99A2 etc.  But where does one stop? 

Lets be honest about 30% of the tanks or tank options already in the game are ficticious in the 'historical' timescale.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


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

I am mystified by this vehicle -- is it an APC, is it an IFV? Why did they not mount the bushmaster on this guy (share ammo with Bradley)? Why didn't the U.S. Army just adopt the LAV-25?

Hopefully, we'll get LAV-25s or LAV IIIs, in future USMC or Canadian dlc, for BS.

 

I see the USA is doing it again, over-engineering vehicles until nobody is quite sure what purpose they serve 😜😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The decision was actually born out of analyzing the Donbass. They found that armored battle taxis like BTRs had an unfortunate habit of ending up in situations they weren't "supposed" to be in, and when that happened the guy with a cannon won. Sometimes this was command ineptitude. A lot of time it was the reality that both sides are trying to kill each other very hard, and that is going to create situations where "APCs that aren't IFVs" are suddenly in direct combat.

They also verified that light automatic cannon, even in limited quantities could strip the infantry off an armored attack by killing their APC/IFV rides. On the defense it wouldn't stop the dismounted squads from fighting locally, on a macro-tactical level it was pretty effective at blunting breakthroughs. On the attack, this meant that "APC" style units could be stopped up cheaply unless they had cannons of their own.

Hence "lets put a cannon on two strykers in each platoon." Design side, it was an upgrade in firepower without sacrificing mobility or armor. Organizationally, there was already a personnel cost to keeping a gunner up. Now the gunner just mans a 30mm. Training wise, expenses go up.

As to why not buy a whole bunch of LAVs or foreign models for license production? Well, maybe with foresight. In what the US had though, they had already bought nine brigades worth of these vehicles.  Far cheaper to drop on 30mm conversion kits than to change out a fleet that is roughly the size of the entire UK and Canadian army's mech inventory.

Edited by GloriousRuse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2019 at 5:25 PM, DerKommissar said:

Why did they not mount the bushmaster on this guy (share ammo with Bradley)? Why didn't the U.S. Army just adopt the LAV-25?

  1. The general opinion is 25mm Bushmaster is less than effective against the front of BMP-3.
  2. Plain vanilla LAV-25 is outdated.
  3. LAV-25 and Strykers are different platforms. Why have the pain of supporting two platforms within one unit anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, IMHO said:
  1. The general opinion is 25mm Bushmaster is less than effective against the front of BMP-3.
  2. Plain vanilla LAV-25 is outdated.
  3. LAV-25 and Strykers are different platforms. Why have the pain of supporting two platforms within one unit anyway?

1. US Army's APC needs a bigger gun than its IFV? The BMP-3 has rudimentary aluminum armour, can't the 25mm APFSDS-T will not penetrate it? They'd be facing mostly BMP1s and 2s, is it worth the logistical hassle to use an uncommon caliber?

2. They have quite a few upgrade packages for the platform. They're in use by quite a few nations, US included.

3. That's a good point. I know both vehicles are based on the Piranha, not certain how many parts are interchangeable.

Slapping a modern LAV turret on top of a Stryker would be the best of both worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the engagement geometry and the add-on armour package of that specific IFV type.
Note that in addition to 30mm ACs those Soviet/Russian patern IFVs carry ATGMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A LAV-25 turret atop a Stryker is basically a Canadian LAV III. Because of the weight penalty of mounting the turret Canada had to forego Stryker's ceramic uparmoring. You can play LAV III in CMSF2 to see how it stacks up against Russian IFVs and other threats.

Looking at the 30mm Stryker photo makes me wonder if the Pentagon was nostalgic for the old M60A1 MBT. Could they make it any TALLER? It looks like a schoolbus with a Mini Cooper placed on top of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

1. US Army's APC needs a bigger gun than its IFV? The BMP-3 has rudimentary aluminum armour, can't the 25mm APFSDS-T will not penetrate it? They'd be facing mostly BMP1s and 2s, is it worth the logistical hassle to use an uncommon caliber?

2. They have quite a few upgrade packages for the platform. They're in use by quite a few nations, US included.

3. That's a good point. I know both vehicles are based on the Piranha, not certain how many parts are interchangeable.

Slapping a modern LAV turret on top of a Stryker would be the best of both worlds.

I believe the plan is to either upgun or replace the Bradley.  Replacement would have larger caliber.

Share this post


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

A LAV-25 turret atop a Stryker is basically a Canadian LAV III. Because of the weight penalty of mounting the turret Canada had to forego Stryker's ceramic uparmoring. You can play LAV III in CMSF2 to see how it stacks up against Russian IFVs and other threats.

Looking at the 30mm Stryker photo makes me wonder if the Pentagon was nostalgic for the old M60A1 MBT. Could they make it any TALLER? It looks like a schoolbus with a Mini Cooper placed on top of it.

Both the LAV-25 and LAV III have received armour upgrades since Shock Force time (2008). I am eagerly awaiting the release of the Canadian campaign for CMSF2, to check this out. In my CMSF experience, the LAV III had little problem with Syrian IFVs. The LAV has better situational awareness, and would fill up a BMP full of 25mm before they had time to swing their turret around. I did my best to keep LAV III's on overwatch, after reading how badly those vehicles handled HMG fire in Afghan.

Generally speaking, American designs are tall. Even the Bradley is significantly taller than any comparable IFV. The war-winning Sherman was tall as heck. There's an argument to be made for choosing crew ergonomics over silhouette reduction.

1 hour ago, akd said:

I believe the plan is to either upgun or replace the Bradley.  Replacement would have larger caliber.

Why not go with the 40mm Bofors, then?

1 hour ago, ikalugin said:

Depends on the engagement geometry and the add-on armour package of that specific IFV type.
Note that in addition to 30mm ACs those Soviet/Russian patern IFVs carry ATGMs.

What sort of BMP3 variant has 100mm RHE against APFSDS?  I do not think it's fair to compare a wheeled AFV's firepower to a tracked one. Even with the 30mm, the Stryker is a far cry from the 100mm cannon the BMP 3 carries.

Which, brings me back to my original question. Is the 30mm Stryker going to be used as an IFV, or is it simply an upgrade to an APC? The latter makes more sense to me, and follows the world-wide trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

Which, brings me back to my original question. Is the 30mm Stryker going to be used as an IFV, or is it simply an upgrade to an APC? The latter makes more sense to me, and follows the world-wide trend.

I suspect that the intention is the latter, but in practice they may be treated as the former.  :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pentagon is apparently quite unhappy with Stryker MGS. If they can provide a Stryker company with greater aggregate firepower they might just phase out MGS altogether. The 30mm gun may have less to do with hitting power and more to do with effective range. A subcaliber 25mm round has physics working against it at extended ranges. There's also the issue of commonality with other NATO forces. The German Puma mounts a 30mm gun too. I'd be shocked if it not the same round.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 105 mm round does not get the job done.  The 30 mm round will.  Does the NATO forces use 5.56 or 7.62.  It goes all the way back to the MBT-70 disaster when we tried to work with Germany.  We went with the 105 mm then went to the 120 mm which in the end was a good choice, but has the MGS even seen any combat?  I don't recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I believe there may still be some 'technical issues' with the MGS.

It also doesn't carry much ammo for it's whopping gun, and has very little armour.....So while it looks kind of like a tank and consequently there's a temptation to use it like one, it isn't one and you shouldn't.  ;)

This is also the issue referenced in my comment about the 30mm armed Stryker.....It won't actually be an IFV (any more than a BTR-82a is), but there's a risk that it might get used as one.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

1. US Army's APC needs a bigger gun than its IFV? The BMP-3 has rudimentary aluminum armour, can't the 25mm APFSDS-T will not penetrate it? They'd be facing mostly BMP1s and 2s, is it worth the logistical hassle to use an uncommon caliber?

  1. BMP-3 has spaced steel-aluminum armor with a total thickness of 66-70mm. Similar protection schemes used on Western IFVs do protect against 25mm APFSDS.
  2. BMP-3 is actively phasing out BMP-2s from Russian service.
16 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

2. They have quite a few upgrade packages for the platform. They're in use by quite a few nations, US included.

3. That's a good point. I know both vehicles are based on the Piranha, not certain how many parts are interchangeable.

  1. LAV-25 was designed as recce vehicle with an emphasis on mobility. Plain vanilla armor is effective only against 7.62mm rounds. Whatever upgrade packages one may try to slap on it you still have a suspension and engine meant for a much lighter vehicle.
  2. Different engine, transmission, suspension, targeting etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Pentagon is apparently quite unhappy with Stryker MGS. If they can provide a Stryker company with greater aggregate firepower they might just phase out MGS altogether.

The current plan is to use fewer MGS but enhance firepower with more Dragoons. 2CR is meant to have 50% of its ICVs replaced with Dragoon version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Pentagon is apparently quite unhappy with Stryker MGS. If they can provide a Stryker company with greater aggregate firepower they might just phase out MGS altogether. The 30mm gun may have less to do with hitting power and more to do with effective range. A subcaliber 25mm round has physics working against it at extended ranges. There's also the issue of commonality with other NATO forces. The German Puma mounts a 30mm gun too. I'd be shocked if it not the same round.

That makes sense to me. So the Dragoon is a support platform to replace the MGS. I think mounting a 30mm is certainly more practical than a 105mm. The Germans are the only NATO country that uses 30mms, as far as I know. It would make sense to make it ammo-compatible. EVERYONE and their mother uses the 40mm Bofors, if you want firepower and commonality, that's the sweet spot. If you can mount a 105 on a stryker, maybe a 40mm isn't out of the question? Especially if it is a fire support vehicle, and not a section carrier.

7 hours ago, IMHO said:
  1. BMP-3 has spaced steel-aluminum armor with a total thickness of 66-70mm. Similar protection schemes used on Western IFVs do protect against 25mm APFSDS.
  2. BMP-3 is actively phasing out BMP-2s from Russian service.

1. That's pretty good. But, the Bushmaster should be able to handle it with the tungsten-core M919 APFSDS-T, at reasonable ranges. No need to get the depleted uranium rods out.

2. Are all the BMP-1s phased out yet?

I've been curious as to how the BMP-3 preformed in Yemen, with the UAE. I couldn't find any information in English. Any word from the other side of the pond?

14 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This is also the issue referenced in my comment about the 30mm armed Stryker.....It won't actually be an IFV (any more than a BTR-82a is), but there's a risk that it might get used as one.

If the 30mm is replacing the 105mm. It would make sense to me to keep it back, behind a crest, on overwatch -- not with the infantry, like a section-carrying AFV. Like a light SPG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

I've been curious as to how the BMP-3 preformed in Yemen, with the UAE. I couldn't find any information in English. Any word from the other side of the pond?

Bellingcat has some on their deployment, but not much on actual combat performance.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2019/04/11/logbook-part-i-the-uaes-bmp-3-ifv-in-yemen/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...