LGMB

"as a squad attached asset" Agreed- maybe as a specialist squad weapon. However, as an individual assault-rifle weapon its just absurd.

Biggest misconception of all time: 5.56 bullets and 40mm/(20mm) grenades are the future if combined. OICW and the AICW are ****ing moronic. Logisticaly stupid- batteries, grenades, repalcement parts, etc; heavy- the weapon, the grenade ammunition; impracticle- the fancy computerised weapons system and optics (they break, then what are you gonna do? You run out of batteries? etc). Just a ****ing dumb idea. And besides, 1 guy with a 50 dollar AK47 is still going to have the same chance of killing you as you are of him. [ December 02, 2005, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Lord General MB ]

I'd love to see Special Forces guys calling in Hellfire strikes from local Predator drones (or Pegasus drones if they'll be in by 2007).

I can see what Steve is saying- ie, the Stryker Platoon brings some redundnacy that the Tank Company would lack, given the nature of Javelin missiles. However, I might add- on a grizzly note- that that redundnacy comes at the cost of lives. A T-72 brewing a Stryker loaded with its squad is going to result in a lot of causlties- sure, someone might scamper out with the Javeline, or another Stryker will deploy their units, and they destroy the T-72-- but in that senerio you've got 4 dead crewmen in the T-72, and 10 or more dead soldiers and crewmen in the Stryker. Considering the respective cost of each vehicle and the complexity of equipment (and the cost of lives)- the T-72 is comming off way better there. And of course, there's always the chance that the T-72 will survive the hit, or the missile will miss, or be deflected by the T-72s anti-missile systems... while there's no chance that the T-72 will not destroy the Stryker (miss maybe). Not to mention, if the T-72 Company engages the Stryker platoon while their mounted, it's going to take the Stryker Platoon a while to engage its targets- dismount, and setup the Javelines. This goes back to Peter's point- the Stryker Platoon depends totaly on reconnosiance; the Hull down T-72 at 1.5 km threat is a very very deadly threat if the Stryker Platoon comes blundering into the Company. In fact, Steve said it himself: I don't like to imagine that the "future of combat" is based on having 1 more guy with a Javeline.

Hey, thanks for the detailed replies, Steve. The Abrams comparison is a very good point- I hadn't thought about that. Sorry about insulting your intelligence there, again, I was just going back to what I'd read (again and again). Well, I doubt I'll ever fully 'convert' on the Stryker issue, but I know when I've been owned. And, I think it's fair to say, I got a whooping. On that article you posted: Everytime I hear that I cringe. There's just something very unerving about assuming that speed and communicatons really can make up for light armor. A friend of mine, who's brother is in Iraq right made a very good point about the "averege infantryman," when we were discussing small arms. We were talking about aim-points, and he said, something along the lines of, "if its not made of metal, and bolted to gun, we can break it". I think the key there is durability- the point being that battery-powere aim-points, in this case, were fine for spec. ops, but more or less useless for everyone-else.... ...which leads me to question, are the Stryker brigades going to be treated (aside from rapid reponse, and so on) as something akin to Spec. Forces? Even then, against a serious oponent, ie, not a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and IEDs, will the 'Flash-to-bang' advantage of hightech communications and speed really factor in? You seemed to be agreeing with, when you said above that, it was troubeling... or something... Yah here, Well, I guess that even then, they've got the Abrams in the wings... I'm just hoping no bright eyed Stryker commander is going to get the bright idea of sending his "advanced" combat units against T-80s without artillery support (and I don't mean the Strykers mortars and Mobile Gun Systems, obivisouly). Now that's what I'm all about. Ariel drones! JDAMs for everyone (and don't forget, the HORSES)! This pisses me off too- stop pretending like the "slat armor" is high-tec and new. Its a ****in' Skirt, and everyone knows it. A pretty archiac solution to the problem, but, well, I *guess* if it works it works... [ October 28, 2005, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Lord General MB ]

Preface: I was just doing some reading on 2005 Stryker crew survivalbity and, suprisingly to me, it does sound pretty good. I'd like to stress, however the point in bold below, post facto. Fair enough. But this leads me to assume then that the Stryker is bassicaly an anti-Iraqi weapon. What bugs me- and blame me for only uses sources that are "2 to 3" years old, but alot of the huff about the Stryker has been to make it seem as though it would be the "next generation" United States fighting vehicle, the basis of the US army's rapid deployment force, etc. Somekind of "core" unit. However, as seems to be stressed again and agian here, that is no longer the case (never was?). Now the Stryker is an Urban Combat support vehicle or somesuch. In which case, its really just an armored Hummer. How would it hold up in cross-country, winter conditions? Under heavy fire from aircraft or regular army units? From tanks? So far I'm just hearing the same thing- its a mid-point between light armor and Hummers. Do we even need a midpoint there? What's the deal? Edit: Will the Stryker be able to handle actaul combat situations, unlike those seen in Iraq? Ie, against an enemy with Tanks, and airforce, etc? (I guess we'll just have to wait for CMSF to find out) I was reffering to the M113 "Gavin" which, I understand, are generaly better at protecting crewmembers then Strykers are against RPGs. Hence, in reply to Krazy- I'm not saying the thing is shrugging off RPGs left and right, but just that its crew-survivaiblty is better. Well thank you Mr. Nice-guy! I don't for a moment believe, however, that every issue I've raised so far has been dealt with (the damn thing still isn't transportable by air! Facts are facts!) As you yourself pointed out, the Stryker is still undergoing "teething" problems- fair enough. But are those problems costings lives? Are they acceptable? These are the important questions. Like I pointed out above, I'm talking about the crew still being alive. That's what matters. Ok, I hadn't known that was 9 tires out of 309 vehicles. I just read that now infact. I assumed that was out of a far smaller number of vehicles. Otherwise, obiviously, its not a very important issue at all, as you've pointed out. Nevertheless- the "Styker wasn't disigned to fire on the move." What? Did I miss something here? And doesn't Summer 2006 seem a little late for something that should be implented... er... before the vehicels were deployed? [ October 28, 2005, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Lord General MB ]

The M113 "Gavins" (mentioned and dismissed earlier in this post rather tepidly) are superior when it comes to armor over the Stryker- they can actaully take RPG hits. Not to mention, I think its unfair to compare a vehicle made with alluminion and steel components to a vehicle made with Kevlar and Cremetic compenents. If the 113 were made in the same manner, I'd imagine it would be just as well protected- if not better- then the Stryker.

Steve, I get most of my information from Globalsecurity- which, as I understand it- is a pretty descent source. I don't have acsess to any of the field reports, so I think you can understand my ignorance in that case. However, I think my main critisicims still stand: the system is bigger, heavier, yet poorly armored when compared to the M113. I get the idea that "it's not an M113 replacement," however that doesn't change the fact that the thing, as the basis for the United States future military agenda is an error in direction. Again, I'm really just asking "why" in this context? Is something that comes off as an upgunned LAV the size of a schoolbus really apprioprate to Urban close action?

I've gotta haul, so just this for now- http://science.howstuffworks.com/stryker3.htm What did I say about computer faults? http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/military/stryker/story/4734661p-4367685c.html Also, with the Battlecruiser analogy- it does work. BC's were used as fast screening support for the BBs. Nevertheless, they just couldn't fit the bill.

My concern with the Stryker is simply a why issue- Why has the United States military sruggled so vehemently to see this vehicle, whatever its flaws (and from what I've read, they're massive), implemented? As an M113 replacement, as far as crew survivabilty is concerned, there's no comparison. A Stryker can't stand up to RPG-7 hits or .50 caliber machine gun rounds (and even with scalled armor would still have massive problems doung so) and that alone pretty much throws out its usefuleness in modern combat situations, espacilly MOUT enviroments. Sure the M113 is out of date and needs to be replaced, but why is the Stryker seen as the right way to go? As a light-armor mobile gun system, the Stryker's wheeled layout makes it inadiquate (tendency to flip, flats screwing the gun's gimble system, etc), while its low ammunition capacity makes it totaly useless as a supressive weapon. Aside from these problems to the vehicles major roles, it weighs something upwards of 17 tons (more with scaled armor and a squad and so forth), and its like over 2 and a half meters high- making it, contrary to its designation as a "low profile vehicle" an extremely high profile vehicle! For comparison, the M113s, supposedly too high profile and too heavy, only wieghs 14 tons and is only 2 meters high! Now, again, I'm not saying the M113 is the way to go; clearly its out of date, but what I am suggesting is that the Stryker is certainly the wrong way to go. The obivious comparison I make is the the First World War and the use of battle-cruisers by the major powers of the war, specificaly the British. The assumption had been, in building battle-cruisers (as proposed by Fuller) that the speed and firepower of these ships would make up for their lightly armored nature. As we all know, this was not to be the case and the destruction of the Invincible, the Queen Mary and Indefatigable were proof positive that speed and firepower cannot makeup for armored protection. The Styker suffers the exact same critical flaw- the assumption that this vehicles heavy firepower and superior mobility (both of which are totaly questionable, I might add) are enough to compensate for its armor defiecency is a critical mistake. Americans will pay with their lives for it, just as the British did at Jutland. The vehicle's own weight tends to cause tires to blow out- so even if actaully 'shooting out the tires' is hard to do, maintinance and logistical support become further complicated by the tire problem. Uhm... does it really? As far as I've read, the thing is difficule to transport (weighs to much and doesn't fit in transports), prone to technical faults (computers shorting out when hit at close range, internal cooling systems failing, etc), and a pain in the ass to drag out of ditches, or to haul back to be repaired after its blown a few tires. Sure; its easier to drag a Stryker back then a tracked M113, but these fualts cannot be over looked. The point, I think a lot of people ignore, is that the Stryker is not a small vehicle as far as goes other light wheeled armor- its huge. And heavy. And very complicated- overly so when it comes to combat situations. [ October 27, 2005, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Lord General MB ]

I am a little worried about actaully running CMx2- I've got an eMac 1ghz with a 32 card, which basicaly hates me. So, I hope the sys requirements aren't too high- I already had to drop WWIIONLINE becuase of that. However, if I hard core want it (and I probably will) I could buy the PC and run it on my girlfriends machine (some AMD thing with a 64 card).

Soldiers, This would also cause the return of me.

Soldiers, It damn well better!

Schweeet Tom.

Jason C, lord of the Grognards.

Soldier, Keep posting- things will look up!

I've been saying it since CM 1.5: Jamming Tank MGs & Reload sounds!

Look, you idoits, the hamsters are right there!

Didn't we send this one to Coventry? And in any case there's no location in the profile. Joe </font>

Send me a turn, troll.

You'll find they do little else.

Soldiers, JC comes through yet again.

Soldiers, It'll be ready, when it's ready!

Without Manstein supporting the finishing off of the Kursk Salient, the Germans may have been able to aviod the position they put themselves into after the battle. Not only this, but Manstein's actions as commander of Army Group South are undoubtabley the cause of what led to the ill fated confrontation between 5th Gaurds Army and the II SS at Prokhorvka. Without Manstein pushing for a quite resolution (in meeting Kluge in the North), he would not have ordered the continued and rapid advance of 4th Panzer Army which brought them into contact with the Steppe Front's reserves. Finaly, why did Manstein not commit his own Army level reserves? He had at his disposal and addition TWO panzer divisions (light reinforcements I know, but still enough to strenghthen the battered 4th), enough firepower to tip the scales in his favour had he fought on after July 11/12. Clearly, Manstein and only Manstein can take responsibilty for the operation. He should, at the very least, have known that the Russians held the advantage in terms of numbers and defensive locations (though, admidtly, Hitler and Zeltzer would have pushed for the operation anyway).

I'm with y'all on that boat... phew... but shouldn't it say "love boat" on the side?