civdiv
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by civdiv
-
-
-
-
"Train the way you fight"Originally posted by John Kettler:civdiv,
As I noted above, these weren't armored Hummers, just the standard original production models. Thus, I don't believe that the windows were bulletproof either.
Regards,
John Kettler
You aren't going to get in a scrape in Iraq with an unarmored HMMWV as there are no unarmored HMMVWs there. So why train that way? Dumb, just plain dumb, for a number of reasons.
civdiv
-
Didn't see the tv show mentioned, but it is incredibly dumb to open a bullet proof window in an ambush. The driver's job is to drive, not to shoot. They should be sending these guys to a school that teaches that one of the most important aspects of dealing with an ambush while in a vehicle is driving the vehicle properly. The driver has absolutely no reason to be shooting anything. It is highly inaccurate, makes the vehicle vulnerable (because the window is open), and distracts them from driving.
civdiv
-
Kenfederoff,
I finished 'With the Jocks' a couple of weeks ago. What a great read there! Reminds me a bit of 'If You Survive', another I highly recommend. I just started 'No Holding Back' a few days ago. Semms pretty good thus far.
civdiv
-
</font>Originally posted by Sixxkiller:You said a mouthfull civ.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:
-
I would add that the dud range for RPGs is almost directly tied to the manufacturer. If certain country's indigenious production is included (And I am not sure if Syria has acquired RPG round from this production), they have a very tough chance of even detonating if not struck at close to 90 degrees. The probability of detonation of ANY RPG round has more to due with the angle of impact rather than manufacturing (Due to problems with design). There are several entire production runs of PRGs that simply won't detonate if not struck close to 90 degrees. And those are mostly limited to 'in theater' production rather than that produced in the Eastern Bloc.
At Nasiriyah I recall literally dozens of RPG rounds that failed to detonate; they were just rolling down the road between vehicles. They would literally come spinning down the street, bounce off someting, and skittering between our vehicles and even between our legs.
It was one of those things where they were so ineffective that you would almost disregard them, and then they would get a very rare solid hit with catastrophic results.
civdiv
-
[ March 16, 2007, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
The article has nothing to do with the picture (Which is why it is in two diferent places.).
-
Looks like some kind of antenna. From the looks of it I would guess UHF. Could be an IED jammer, or the antenna for their interlinked command and control system.
-
For the US side there is also something called 'the goat farm'. It is an advanced medical trauma training center. The name comes from the fact that they use goats to simulate human casualties. And yes, they shoot and blow the goats up with everything from rifles and crew served mgs to grenades, and then the medics have to go out and perform first responder trauma treatment. And then the goats are put out of their misery. It's mostly attended by SpecOps medics, plus some regular medics with some level of seniority. Years ago I had a friend who was a Corpsman supporting the USMC (An E-4 in the Navy) and he got to go there.
civdiv
-
Sort of off-topic, but while doing research on IFVs I found this in the BMP wiki entry. I had not heard of this before but it makes perfect sense;
"The original BMP-1 had a significant shortcoming in its protection scheme, which only became obvious during the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. The one-man-turret fighting vehicle seated its driver and commander in tandem layout, in the front-right part of the hull alongside the diesel engine. When a BMP-1 hit the obsolete kind of "tilt-rod" antitank landmine, its steeply sloped lower front glacis armour plate allowed the mine's arming rod to tilt with little resistance until the maximum deflection was reached with the mine already well under the chassis. When it eventually exploded, the mine blast usually killed both the driver and the tank commander, causing a painful loss of specialist personnel in the Soviet Red Army."
-
1. The Marder never did receive an integrated ATGM, except on AT specific models.Originally posted by Andreas:How is the Bradley revolutionary when it appears to be pretty similar to the German Marder IFV, which entered service ten years before it?
All the best
Andreas
2. IMHO, a milan that could be mounted on the pintle ring is not the same as a TOW, fully integrated into the vehicle.
3. The original Marders were upgraded to thermal sites only when the Bradley had entered production, or shortly before.
4. It didn't get a real robust fire control system until well after the Bradley had arrived.
Again, IMHO, the Marder didn't get close to the initial Bradley until the Marder 1 A2 came out. The Marder was intitially produced as nothing more than a good but very conventional IFC with a 20mm auto cannon.
Not as familiar w/ the AMX-10p but correct me if I am wrong, it still does not have an integreated ATGM? Plus, IIRC, its armor is much lighter.
Bradley;
1. Dual ammo autocannon.
2. Fully integrated ATGM (Fired from behind armor).
3. Advanced fire control system.
4. Heavily armored (for an IFV).
5. Advanced gunnery system.
6. Thermal sites.
7. Advanced comm system.
Steve et al,
I understand what the Stryker was designed to do, and that it wasn't to go toe-to-toe with med or hvy mech. Nor to assualt a dug in defender. My original point was that I thought I was seeing too many Strykers in the game considering the scenerio. And maybe it is just due to the screen shots available as I agree, it's neater to model a Stryker than it is a Bradley because the former is such a unique vehicle. I just find the utility of the Stryker to be a bit limited, vis-a-vis the Bradley, given the provided scenario.
IMHO, the Army's program was just plain pointed in the wrong direction. Buying an existing design, spending oodles modifying it towards C3I but being left with a .50 cal seems silly to me. Given, it was supposed to be integrated into Land Warrier which appears to have been cancelled for a development generation or so. I can see it from both points of views;
1. Develop the C3I archetecture and then design the objective force vehicles around it so the C3I system doesn't mature and not fit.
OR
2. Develop the vehicle and keep development going on the C3I system. In addition to probable cost savings this method probably helps to keep the weight down by forcing the C3I system to fit in the existing chassis. And with hopeful chassis development for the final version they might get it down to where it is truly C130 deployable.
The Army picked #1 and I would have picked #2.
civdiv
[ March 13, 2007, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
I won't quibble on most of the points.
What points are unsubstantiated? The Bradley was an entirely new vehicle class, or the first vehicle in this new class that actually worked (The BMP-1 was a pretty lousy vehicle.).The Bradley was an revolutionary design. I would be scared to even characterize the Stryker as evolutionary. Yes, badly managed program carried out badly and spending billions to try and shoe-horn equipment to meet a spec that to this day on numerous fronts, it does not meet.Unsubstantiated claims to bolster your bias. What you should have said is a badly managed war carried out badly and spending billions to try and shoe-horn a force structure to meet a spec that to this day on numerous fronts, it isn't able to meet. That would be a far more accurate and relevant thing to say. The Army, and Marines, are being ground into the sand because its force structure is not capable of handling the mission it has been given by people that probably couldn't find their way out of an unlocked closet with someone pointing to the doorknob and saying "you have to turn this if you want the door to open".
The Stryker is a modified existing vehicle.
Or are you talking about the program itself? I can cute references if that is the part you disagree with. There have already been several posts and references to the problems with the Stryker program. Sure, the Bradley program had massive programs itself. But the end result wasn't a modified existing vehicle mounting a .50 cal.
One point about survivability. The ability to kill your opponent has a lot to do with survivability.
civdiv
-
</font>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:just an interesting web site where they make them near London Ontario:
Main Page Land systems web site
more video's and pics here, from this promotional site:
multimedia web page video's of a wide assortment of vechicles they sell
just for interest sake:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> GDLS-Canada markets wheeled armor products internationally. The division also manufactures the highly successful LAV family of vehicles in a facility that combines state-of-the-art research and development with systems integration. Last, but not least, GDLS-Canada also supports the corporation's global presence through administrative leadership and strategic co-ordination for GDLS-Australia and collaborative initiatives with MOWAG.
-
Steve,It is clear you have a chip on your shoulder about the Strykers. You are not looking at the other side of the argument at all. You only point out the Bradley's strengths and the Stryker's weaknesses, and when I flip it around you dodge it. You can't win an intellectual debate by presenting an obviously biased and lopsided argument. I'm sure you will say the same about me, but count up how many times I have agreed with your facts and how many time you've agreed with mine. I have seen you done the latter... (quick scan) not even once.I agree with you on the following points;
1. The Stryker is faster than the Bradley.
2. It is also quieter.
Now, while I agree with you I see the two factors as being almost irrelevent in a non-COIN/Three block war or certain MOUT situations.
3. I agree the Stryker is more fuel efficient.
4. I agree it is easier to supply (Because of the anemic firepower.).
5. I agree the ride is better and troops arrive 'fresher', if they do arrive.
6. The bigger carrying capacity do give them a much better infantry footprint.
Partly balderdash, partly typical army PR, and part that agrees with my point. The Strykers are not designed for mech heavy fights. Neither were the Stryker's predecessors, the Light Divisions.With that said, since this is like shooting fish in a barrel...Anyone that says the Stryker concept did not come about, due in large part, to COIN, simply doesn't know what they are talking about.
I've been reading everything there is to read about Strykers since before they were called that. So if I don't know what I'm talking about, I've obviously been doing something wrong these past three years [big Grin]
Here is a quote from "From Transformation to Combat - The First Stryker Brigade at War:
The Strike Force [which became the SBCT concept] was to be the Army's newest step toward creating a rapidly deployable organization able to act decisively and successfully under any conceivable set of circumstances from peacekeeping to total war.
Obviously COIN ops is a part of what they are designed to handle, but to say that is what they were designed to handle is incorrect. Another quote:
In the field, early entry and stability operations would be the unit's primary functions, but its members would be trained and equipped both to conduct conventional offensive and defensive warfare and to coordinage support efforts such as humanitarian assistance. Intended to deploy from the continental United States to anywhere in the world with enough lethality to seize the battelfield initiative upon arrival, the unit would field a force of 3000-5000 troops tailored to achieve whatever goals it was set to accomplish.
And, most of this 'transformation' is based on the understanding that economically the world is so intertwined we can't have a huge mech battle with, say, China, both our economies would tank.
And here's another quote from the same document you cited. So what caused the need for transformation?
The Army
believes that the transformation is necessary to respond more effectively
to (1) the growing number of peacekeeping operations and small-scale
contingencies and (2) the challenges posed by nontraditional threats such
as weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.
And why deployable? Because we don't fight the big mech battles anymore so we have to get combat power on deck quick.
And another factor is relevency and inter-service rivaly; needing the Marines to seize the initial ground in Afghanistan was a huge embarrassment to the army. They tried just about everything to come up with a plan that didn't focus on the Marines but try as they did, the army simply couldn't preform the mission.
Agreed, sort of, but I've got bigger fish to fry.The experiences that shaped this were Desert Shield, the Balkans, Haiti, Somalia, and probably a dozen things we didn't get involved in. These operations were all problems for the existing US military force. Transformation seeks to make the rest of the military more flexible, but the SBCT is still the force that is designed to be the most flexible. The SBCT was grown to be a sort of Swiss Army knife, not a specialized single use tool.
I still wouldn't call them equally survivable. So do we agree the Bradley more survivable? And I would point out that one of the original design requirements was the Stryker withstanding 14.5 mm AP and to this day it doesn't, not w/o hanging another 5,000 lbs of armor on it.Sorry, IMHO, your points are off target and just plain flawed. Both the Bradley and the Stryker are equally protected against spork wielding insurgents. That doesn't make them equally protected. To argue that the Stryker is armored like the Bradley is laughable. The Bradley has composite armor that will shrug off some ATGMs and almost all RPGs, the Stryker doesn't. And this is not even taking bar or reactive armor into account.Right, so what part of my previous post are you disagreeing with? Seems to me you are in agreement. To repeat myself, except for a narrow range of threats (like you mentioned) the two vehicles are about just as vulnerable on the battlefield. An AT-14 is going to wipe out either one, an RPG-29 will wipe out either one, an RPG-7 HE round won't likely critically damage either, so on and so forth.
Besides the army's own 'cooked numbers' I have seen no evidence that a Stryker is more reliable.And limiting the Stryker to a .50 cal or a Mk-19 means it can't deal with almost ANY armor it encounters. Sure, it has other varients but EVERY Bradley can kill anything in the Syrian TOE.It can't kill something if it is not even there in the fight or broken down. That's what the Stryker's advantages are, not a toe to toe fight with heavy armor. OK, but let's carry through your analogy here...
Anything short of a Bradley is a waste of space on the battlefield. Soldiers relying upon such inferior vehicles will not be able to perform difficult and taxing offensive operations. They will, instead, be vulnerable when not engaged and useless when engaged. Just like the Marines.WHAT?!? JUST LIKE THE WHAT?!? Just trying to get your attention [big Grin]
-
One issue I have is the handling of RPGs (Based on Iraq.). Theoretically, any RPGs that hit a HMMWV, LAV, AAV, etc, 'theoretically' had almost a 100% chance of killing them. The percentage drops when you talk about M1s and M2/3s. In practice 90% miss, and half of those that do hit fail to function.
-
And from several sources I have seen suffered a total of 3 m-kills.Originally posted by JasonC:As a point of information, in the first gulf war Bradleys using TOW actually outscored M-1 Abrams in terms of total Iraqi armor kills. The reason was the high accuracy at extreme range of the TOW let them plink at will, at distances (several km) and in conditions (night or otherwise limited visibility as a substitute for range e.g.) in which reply was impossible for the Iraqis. M-1s had comparable night vision advantages plus armor, but the accuracy of any kinetic round at extreme range was lower than the ATGMs achieved.
Jason, seen any totals on Bradley or Stryker kills in Iraq? Based on what I recall I have heard of four Bradley's getting KO-d in Iraq, and one was flipped over and the TC killed. In two of the Bradley KOs there were multiple KIAs. I have heard of at least 3 Strykers being KO-d, two w/ multiple KIAs.
Not really related, except that it deals with a KO-d Bradley. Read this;
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2004/n09122004_2004091207.html
and then watch this;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3519855663545752103&q=iraq+journalism&hl=en
Start at about 33:00 but the whole video is well worth the view. Video of the same incident. And we wonder why they hate us.
civdiv
[ March 10, 2007, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
Sorry Homo, I misunderstood you.Originally posted by Homo ferricus:"Homo, the internet has nothing to do with tactical battlefield networks, you are talking apples and oranges here."
for the record, what i said about the Chinese had nothing to do with what i said about the Stryker. Like i said, the Stryker is a great piece of military gear AS LONG AS EVERYTHING WORKS LIKE IT SHOULD. I said that my greatest worry about it was the over-reliance on technology, meaning that if something fails, it could quite possibly complicate many things.
civdiv
-
To All,
Anyone that says the Stryker concept did not come about, due in large part, to COIN, simply doesn't know what they are talking about. The Stryker concept was an adaptation to what modern warfare looks like, and it is COIN and the 'three block' war.
Steve,
Sorry, IMHO, your points are off target and just plain flawed. Both the Bradley and the Stryker are equally protected against spork wielding insurgents. That doesn't make them equally protected. To argue that the Stryker is armored like the Bradley is laughable. The Bradley has composite armor that will shrug off some ATGMs and almost all RPGs, the Stryker doesn't. And this is not even taking bar or reactive armor into account.
And limiting the Stryker to a .50 cal or a Mk-19 means it can't deal with almost ANY armor it encounters. Sure, it has other varients but EVERY Bradley can kill anything in the Syrian TOE.
The Bradley is more manueverable than the Stryker due to its equal on road performance and its superior cross country mobility. Sure, the Stryker goes a little faster on a road, big deal. My G35 does 160 mph but anything over 90 isn't of much use to me.
Sound means nothing. The Abrams is equally quiet, doesn't mean hoot in a non-MOUT/COIN situation. Dust means a lot more than noise.
The army spent billions inventing something that already existed. So now you got an army of a bunch of semi-armored battle-taxis whose only target on a battlefield is a Suburu sedan.
And the Bradleys and Abrams have the same digital network system as the Strykers (Or have the ability to install them.). And Homo, the internet has nothing to do with tactical battlefield networks, you are talking apples and oranges here.
John,
Glad you liked it.
civdiv
[ March 10, 2007, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
How? The M113 is (all versions regardless of add-ons) are C130 transportable when configured for combat. The Stryker (regardless of version) is not.Originally posted by flamingknives:civdiv,
I believe that you are confusing tactical and strategic advantage. The M113 and the Stryker are pretty close as far as tactical goes (Bells and whistles nonwithstanding) but they are leagues apart from a strategic or even operational standpoint.
The Stryker is an albatross.
-
Steve, et al,
I responded to the points of rebuttel made against my original argument. It isn't my fault that their arguments went totally off topic and meandered all around the park. Go back and read the exchange, I didn't bring up deployability.
The Stryker has worse cross country mobility than the M2/3.
The Stryker has anemic hitting ability compared to the M2/3.
The Stryker is very-much less survivable than the M2/3.
Many are calling for dusting off the huge numbers of M113s in storage to use them in Iraq in place of HMMWVs. The M113 is basically a tracked version of the Stryker. I know, I know, digital comms and remote gun sights and all that crap, big deal. In terms of actual combat effectiveness the M113 (w/ bar armor upgrades and such) is the combat equivelent of the Stryker. Lets see someone argue we should invade Syria with a fleet of M113s.
civdiv
-
Correct me if I am wrong but there is no Personal Message feature on this board, right?
civdiv
-
</font>Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:US logistics troops in convoy during a live fire exercise in December 1997
Canadian convoy Kabul
And this from the US Dept of Transportaion Federal Highway Administration military convoy procedures - looks like we are both right!
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Convoy Formations
The convoy must be organized to meet the deployment mission requirements and provide organizational control. The convoy commander decides how the convoy will be formed for movement, taking into consideration such factors as the planned route, distance to the destination, types of vehicles/equipment, and travel conditions (weather, time of day, etc.). The three basic types of formations are close column, open column, and infiltration. They are as follows:
Close column. This formation provides the greatest degree of convoy control. It is characterized by vehicle intervals of 25 to 50 meters and speeds under 25 mph. Close column is normally used during limited visibility or on poorly marked or congested roads.
Open column. This is the preferred formation during movement. It is characterized by vehicle intervals of 300 feet or more and speeds in excess of 25 mph. The open column formation is normally used on well-marked open roads with good visibility.
Infiltration. This formation has no defined structure. Vehicle intervals and speeds vary. This type of formation is normally not used during movement. Infiltration should be used only as a last resort in extremely congested areas, when the convoy becomes unexpectedly dispersed or when the mission dictates.
Too Many Strykers
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
civdiv