StrykerPSG

My apologies if this was addressed in another thread, but will there be an attempt to model the newer smoke rounds that have metallic and/or plastic fillament to make thermal imagery much more difficult?

You are right that the differences between the M4 and M16 are more cosmetic, as far as ballistics go, there is some difference, but not significant. The Marines for a very long time kept the M16 because they often trained in longer range marksmanship (and because funding wasn't a priority for the M4) in the 400 meter range and thought the M4 was less accurate at the same range and simply aesthitic in value. However, what a carbine offers is the ability to quickly manuever your weapon in CQM and close quarters in general. It is much more challenging to be as effective with a long rifle in confining spaces versus a carbine. Since CCO's (Close Combat Optics) are standard fare for all combat arms units, many incorporate the ACOG which when sighted in, is very capable of the long range shot. In addition to the CCO's, the SBCT's (and I am quite sure the other BCT's do as well) place a huge emphasis on squad level marksman equipped with a scoped M4 or M16A4, depending on MTOE. It is curious to note that many armies are opting for carbine/bullpup designs to replace their standard rifles. Basically, in answer to your statement though, much does depend on the inidividual. We historically spend a high percentage of time on basic and advanced marksmanship. This historically makes many of the NATO/SEATO and US militaries stronger in the small arms arena. When conversing with Arab, former eastern Bloc and Communist Asian military leaders, they do not dedicate the same emphasis on the rifleman. Matter of fact, many expend less then a few hundred rounds over that service members commitment in training. We only used shotguns to blow hinges off the door frame. Shotguns are generally inaccurate and lack enough stop power at range. As has been stated before, there is also greater concern with regards to collateral damages. While there is an arguement about the psychological impact of a shotgun indoors, an 5.56 or 7.62 round fired inside a confined space is just as mind numbing. As far as nerves affecting aim, with the amount of CQB drills we do with live ammo, that becomes almost a non-issue In my opinion, the AK can be a superior weapon with regards to durability and simply lacks a windage adjustment on the rear sight aperature. I have seen a few countries attempt to modify the AK (Finland, Israel, South Africa and Czech) but these do not see much export. Generally AK's truly suffer from lack of a user that has ample time behind the trigger. Having said all of that, the M4 has transformed into a much more lethal system than the original AR15.

You know, when we played with the 25mm armed LAVIII's from Canada, they had much potential to be a great support by fire vehicle. I cannot for the life of me figure out why that is such a difficult concept for the Army to swallow. I don't need all four vehicles per platoon with 25mm, but one per would be fantastic and greatly compliment the MGS. I really like this new 25mm and hopes they may re-consider a SBF vehicle per platoon. The one thing I don't like about the Kongsberg mount is the way we feed the weapon system. The ammo can is very limited in capacity, though with the optics, it doesn't burn through ammo like a pintle mount. With regards to Steve's comment about the ammo logisitics tail and the fewer rounds per vehicle makes sense, but I still think it is not much different then putting the MGS into the fray with it's 105mm ammo. Besides, most of the units I know would love to be rid of the 40mm. It's very limited in it's functionality in the cities, though doesn't have the concern about collateral damages as the .50 does. Afghanistan may change their views on the 40mm, but why not just replace the 40mm with that 25mm LWS? I am betting the ammo footprint would be about the same.

Whoa, what an improvement over the original! Good find akd.

Wow Steve! For showing up late to the show, you sure pack one heck of a whallup! I couldn't have summed it up better than that if I tried. Thanks Steve, for believing in the SBCT's strengths enough to design a great game around them and for being such an outspoken advocate of all sides, a true porfessional. Hooah! Matt

Sorry, don't know any Teller or Sands, Sims possibly, but as you stated, a fairly common name, though not a SSG. Too bad about the short term memory loss, used a similar technique for my Soldiers with the digital voice recorders. Anyway, didn't mean to diverge onto another thread regarding ranger school, just the army is a small enough world that once you have made it into the senior ranks, that world becomes even smaller.

I don't believe this to be permanent, but just an adjustment until they have filled such slots. It happened with all of the newer BCT's formed. As for your class, MSG Harris or SFC Rouse ring a bell?

We did indeed use the Fuchs, matter of fact, we couldn't pry your former PSG out of it when they were being sent back to Germany. Fuchs wasn't very good tactically, but was hecka comfy up front and had a great frontal compartment view.

Haven't heard anything about 6 man squads, but they love them and yes, they have been deployed for years. What ranger class were you in, may have actually known your RI?

Jon, welcome back. Haven't seen you in a while. Sorry, forgot to add that earlier. Anyway, ironically enough, the MGS with it's 105mm turret is actually taller then the 25mm turret, as is the RWS when setup into operation.

Here is what I was taking about. 3-73 Armor (ABN) tried them out a few years back.: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-ags.htm I think the SBCT's are equipped with some of the finest recon assets available. While the recon equipment is not exclusive to the SBCTs, it seems to be disproportionately higher, giving them better situational awareness then a BDE with less assets. I am not sure how the Marines use their LAV's within their organization, but can tell you without hesitation, the Rangers love em too. Here's another link for you. Be forewarned, if you have never visited the site as you stated, the originator, to remain nameless, is a bit on the wild side of reality. He has some valid points, but refuses to acknowledge the goodness of both designs. http://www.combatreform.com/m113combat.htm Anyway, glad I could help direct you onto a more informed path of enlightenment.. : )

Well, no disagreements, just what GDLS told us. I think the 25mm would have put quite the punch in the SBCT's, allowing them to be more heartier contenders in the medium intensity fight.

Well, herre is the title at least, apologies for it not working right: Strykers...and Why I thank god I am not Stryker Infantry, started by Guardsman11B I don't disagree the vehicles costs may have been excessive, but was only the guy put in place to execute higher's plan, regardless of the cost, so can't comment. The powerplant has been improved and the vehicle does untilise auto-inflation/deflation to help with the ground pressure, not making a one size fits all, but providing more abilities to climb and negotiate other terrain not normally suitable for wheels. I got to briefly use the M113 when I first entered service in 1990 and did love the robustness of the A3. However, it's suspension was no match for the M2/M3 in the cross country arena. I know the original mandate put forth for the interim vehicle was that they wanted wheeled over tracked and that was the main disqualifier for the M113. We were one of the few nations that failed to recognize the benefits of wheeled armored transport. Sure we had the HMMMV, and it's a great truck, but it's very limited as a warfighter.

Steve, we did indeed use the LAVIII with the 25mm, was a fantastic truck! However, the initial arguement for not keeping the 25mm was the turret was too high and would not fit in the C-130. We voiced that a 25mm FSV vehicle would increase the lethality with at least one 25mm per plt, however, it fell on deaf ears.

The M8 was a great idea, in my opinion, that just lost momentum because of the introduction of the Stryker and the possibility of the MGS, let's call it redundancy of systems if introduced. I too, thought the M8 had great potential and should have been investigated further, however, not in the decision making process. I think the Stryker has a niche role within the army's hierarchy of conflict. I think it is more then capable of holding it's own in light and medium intensity conflicts. However,the higher the intensity of the conflict, the more it should be relegated to exploiting weaker areas due to the lighter armor. It does put more boots on the ground than any other similar asset so can minimise the number of vehicles needed and the logisitical tail associated. As a signal soldier, I have no doubt the amount of ribbing you endured from Divisional units, so will leave well enough alone. As for the Gavin comments, you supported the unofficial name by stating how an old 1SG and others referred to it in such capacity, therefore making the name correct.....etc, basically supporting naming the vehicle after Jumpin Joe, which he deserves, but the originator of that arguement is, well, unique. Most of the fans that jump on his wagon are generally former para's and bring a valid arguement, but they also twist the facts to fit their version of truth without trying to validate both sides of the story. Nor would I talk trash with regards to anyone and their efforts to fight a common enemy, regardless of their preference of delivery means. Since you were a signal type, meaning you weren't offered an SBCT assignment at the time, perhaps you didn't know that the original core leaders were mostly taken out of the light/airborne community, including many from 2-75. I think the Army tried rather successfully to not adopt more "death before dismount" mindsets. We routinely conducted monthly 12 milers for everyone, including the supporting units, because if you're vehicle is blown away, you are now an infantryman. We also ensured those same softskill MOS's qualified in the shoot house and ARM.

Try this link. It was an earlier discussion that goes into great detail about the pro's and con's of wheeled versus tracked, etc. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=259 Without rehashing the entire debate, there are obvious pro's and con's to both. Tracked has an obvious advantage in more challenging terrains, such as climbing steeper grades and traversing some softer ground. However, as a tracked vehicle, one limit is it's track and the wear and tear it imposes on the local infrastructure and it's crew. Tracked vehicles vibrate and that takes a major toll on the crew. Then, the obvious, that it's a tracked vehicle and subject to loosing one or both tracks and becoming an expensive pillbox until repairs are complete. Wheeled vehicles have not only a speed advantage, but the tires are much more stealthier then track, for obvious reasons. Wheels have their limitations with regards to softer terrain and steeper grades. Some vehicles can minimize these limitations with adjustable tire inflation, but it's not a cure-all. Many, though not all wheeled vehicles often are equipped with run flat tires, giving them the distinct ability to leave the kill zone. Wheels also cannot pivot, which has some great advantages when in a built up area. The list goes on and on, but would refer to the above link. It too became quite heated but went into the Stryker strengths, as I knew them, and some of it's weaknesses too. Finally, with your reference to a humorous tone, that humor may not always be shared by those that have fought and believe in the vehicle. Those same people you are choosing to spar with well more then likely have lost comrades fighting their vehicles too and so you remarks, with regards to your perception, are not what I would expect of someone that purports to be a professional warrior. I have served in airborne, air assault and light infantry postings before coming to Strykers, but have enough professional common sense to not ask a Mech person why they believe in their "iron coffins". I welcome banter about vehicles, tactics and units, matter of fact, who are you with at Bragg? There are lot's of inner Bragg rivalries we can hash out as well, on a more humorous note. I agree there doesn't need to be a reason to lock the thread, but perhaps a tool to utilize is the tool that looks up prior postings and that persons background, as I did with you and your comments on the Gavin. If would like to know more about the vehicle professionally, I will be more then happy to give you my POC info and we can discuss some more sensitive items off line, in a non-public forum.

LOL, he has a self imposed cult following regarding the evil of the Stryker and how it was acquired and the greatness of the M113 (Gavin as he would call it).

I too hate the inner-service gnashing, but fear C_N is a Mike Sparks fan boy that has used neither vehicles and at best some locally up armored HMMMV's. So, after reading Mike Sparks rants on Stryker versus M113, he now wants to know why the US military wants to keep supporting the Stryker vehicle. That's my spin on it. Anyway, as stated, his initial statement was written offensively, so should expect some backlash.

As has been stated by your "professional tone" with the "big metal death traps" remark, why wouldn't a true professional who touts the ranger creed in his signature have approached us in a manner more befitting of someone who goes the extra mile, as stated in the 4th stance of the creed: "Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress, and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow." So, perhaps you should edit your post and re-address as we would expect a true professional Warrior to present it? I think, as the Lt Mike has stated and I too have witnessed, we have encountered many initial nay-sayers who quickly become converts once they have experienced the stealthiness and durability of the vehicle. And, lest we not forget, 75th Ranger Regt, has embraced the vehicles for all of it's strengths for more then 4 years now. It is great to argue in a professional manner, but once it degrades to personal attacks, whether intended or not, it generally results in a locked thread. Myself and Lt Mike would be more then happy to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the Styker particuarly and there are others equally informed about the greatness of the LAV chassis.

I just recall there was a specific reason why it was (x) distance away from the vehicle and that prescribed distance was definitely not 12 feet but rather inches.

I don't think I was that far off the mark with my definition and what you have mostly taken out of the bulletin. TB3 that you reference is dated JUL 77 and has no mention of slat/bar armor specifically, if at all. It does mention the former chain link fence method for stand off, where as you mentioned, the fence shorts the fuze. So, I stand corrected to the earlier question about some armor types defeating the RPG fuzes. I don't have the specifics, but I don't think slat had that specific function in mind only, but was additional effect of the design. Seems more suggestive of capturing the round and providing enough stand off to minimize the effects of the round, should it detonate. I will try to find out the specifics fo the distance and did note the 12 feet needed for standoff with an M113. There is also a difference in armor designs between Stryker and M113 that may have some changes to standoff distance as well. If memory serves me correctly, some of the rationale behind the distance was for fragmenting warheads, that once the propellant ran out, would detonate without contact of the fuse. The initial briefs we were given were not always extremely technical and I didn't design it, but rather took what the designer told us and noted how well it worked in theater. There are many more technical types that are much more savvy on the warheads. Ultimately, should have allowed someone that has more technical know how reply and am probably armed with just enough info to be dangerous from time to time.

Mmmm, nope! That is too precise of an operation. The slat is much more simplistic by just providing stand off, via the warhead wedging between slat or de-formation, therefore preventing physical connection with the armor. Depending on the warhead type, the wedging/deformation has different effects.

I went to Mongolia about 2 years ago to help certify and prepare their Army for UN peacekeeping missions. I was able to see how heavily indoctrinated they were in Soviet style leadership, which is very centralized and takes the NCO's out of the decision making process. The first few missions I noticed there were never any NCO's around during the OPORDER and the missions were never dissemenated to the NCO's. Well, having spent 17 years in the Army at that point, found it to be very odd, they were afterall sending their NCO's to our NCOES system. So, I started killing the PLT CDR every iteration, which enraged several other Mongolian officers. Finally, after talking with their staff about my methodology, I imparted to them what makes many NATO and SEATO countries outstanding was their ability to pass the mission statement off to their NCO's in case the officer leadership is incapable of completing the mission. Anyway, just thought it was a great lesson learned by me, just how important the role of leadership is, at every level for mission accomplishment. Hat's off to all the fine young men and women of the worlds militaries that make it happen. Hooah!

Lt, thanks for the nod and acknowledgement. It also has officer leadership that is open to bold new ideas and the occassional "panache" as we were told in the AAR's in all events, good and bad. Matt

Great graphic Dima and I stand corrected, or mostly corrected. the design of the slat is still to keep the warhead from contacting the vehicle though, just misinformed about some of the mechanics of the RPG. Thanks for the correction.