StrykerPSG
-
Posts
135 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by StrykerPSG
-
-
Hi
long:
In CMSF and most would agree in real life as well I think, the lethality of one weapon or another varies less between the actual weapons themselves and more according to the skill of the user. An M16 is about as effective as an M4 in relative terms compared to a sniper or a raw recruit handling the same weapon.
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.
There are some exceptions I think, but I'm not sure. The exceptions are what I'm interested in. An example: shotguns for inexperienced handlers in close quarters are much more effective than rifles or hand guns because the weapon allows you to basically point in the general direction of the threat and hit it. Nerves affecting your aim aren't really going concerns anymore. So at least across the threshold (horizontally) of inexperienced users, a shotgun is much better than a rifle in that situation.
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
Is the AK-47 special in any way, for example, either for a specific kind of soldier/user or for a specific situation? (In CMSF... in RL)
Thanks for any thoughts.
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.
-
Hmm. Seems like the round selection on the LW25 would have been a great feature, and if spread across all vehicles in a Stryker platoon (as a replacement for both the 40mm and the .50) the ammunition issue would have been somewhat ameliorated. I've only read the "super happy brochures" about it, though (you know, the ones where it will replace every weapons system ever). How is the 25mm round's lethality versus the 40mm? Night and day?
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.
-
Perhaps the ATK LW25 (Lightweight Bushmaster) on the PAWS mount will provide a solution that makes everyone happy.
http://www.atk.com/customer_solutions_armamentsystems/cs_as_gs_25mm_LW.asp
Whoa, what an improvement over the original! Good find akd.
-
Sorry... a bit late getting back to this.
Remember that one of the critical arguments for wheeled vs. armored is the logistics tail requirements and in-theater redeployment. It is a fact, and I mean a big and indisputable fact, that wheeled armor uses less fuel, lubricants, spare parts, and major overhauls for equal numbers of miles traveled compared to tracked armor. To support tracked armor you therefore need more personnel, more storage/facilities, more vehicles to move stuff around, more logistics headaches, etc. That stuff has to be bought/trained, paid wages, housed, deployed, fueled/fed, supplied, protected, and moved around.
Wheeled armor is also, again without any question, cheaper to maintain over their lifespan for this very reason. So even if the acquisition cost of a Stryker isn't as low as we would like it to be compared to a M113 or Bradley, it's lifetime cost is dramatically lower. Plus, when figuring out the cost of a Bradley you have to include its R&D costs compared to the Stryker's. With the massive problems the Bradley program had, partly because it was new and partly because it was a major FUBAR, the Stryker program by comparison was not bad. Plus, it was EXTREMELY quick. Something like 4 years from inception to first combat deployment. That's something that hasn't been seen since WW2. Whether the M113 could have been the same or better is questionable. In theory it could, but in theory the Stryker should have been easier and cheaper to acquire. Remember, when the Beltway Bandits get involved a good idea goes from 60 to 0 before it goes from 0 to 45 (which is still 15 below the contract specifications
).As for deployability, it's without a question of a doubt that the Strykers are more deployable vehicle for vehicle compared to the Bradley (or a M113). Again, it's not just the physical weight and size of the vehicle, it's also all the logistics stuff that has to go along for the ride. Remember Task Force Hawk!
Within theater the wheeled armor is, once again no question, more flexible in terms of capability to be somewhere far away in a hurry. In Iraq a Stryker based task force made something like a 300 mile redeployment out of Mosul (I'd have to look up the details) under its own power in record breaking time. It went into combat almost immediately upon arrival. There was a company of Bradely infantry that went along too, but they had to be loaded up on transporters and the infantry stuck into trucks because the Brads (not to mention the poor sods in back) wouldn't have made such a road march in condition to go right into combat ops.
The designers of SBCT doctrine also acknowledge, and always understood, that the SBCT is not a universal tool. It's funny to see how quickly critics of SBCTs ignore something called "combined arms" when pointing out that putting a SBCT up against a full up enemy mech force with heavy tank support isn't optimal. No kidding
Just like having the 101st Airborne fighting in Bastone against wasn't optimal. But it's amazing what can be done when it's necessary. Still, it's true that you wouldn't want to deliberately put an SBCT in the path of an armor heavy adversary. Just like you wouldn't want to put an HBCT against a lightly armed fighters in the mountains of some country like, oh... I dunno... Afghanistan comes to mind Hmmm... so no one BCT is good at everything all the time in every situation? Shocking 
Plus, if you do need to be someplace within a couple of days and have a few thousand highly armed and capable soldiers in place with the basics to take on anything... if you want an HBCT in place you'd better hope is forward deployed already.Now, as with every post I've made about Strykers in the past 4 years or so... a few caveats. I am not saying that wheeled armor is the only thing that should be on the battlefield, nor am I saying that the Stryker is the best possible vehicle for whatever challenges are out there on the battlefield. It isn't and it's not. But it's a damned fine compliment to our previously Light and Heavy tools in the 'ol toolbox. And the performance of SBCTs in Iraq has shown there utility in at least COIN ops in largely urbanized areas. Which is a good thing since that's going to be on the menu for a long time to come.
Steve
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
-
Meant to add:
The RIs who made the biggest impact on me were a SSG Sands, SSG Teller, and SSG Sims. The rest, like most of my drill sergeants, I don't remember names, just mannerisms, and or their "douche bag factor".
I don't remember the names, but I probably should. I have an extremely poor memory due to a deployment injury I've posted about a couple of times before and carry a portable audio recorder around with me to help. For example, I can only remember the names of 4 of my drill sergeant s(out of 12 in basic, and a comparable number in AIT). I have problems remembering my first 1SG, and the only thing I remember about my first PSG was that he was a tool and that his last name was Marshall.
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 was in 07-04.
Regiment is changing to 6 man squads to fill out slots for the additional companies that have been added to each battalion. It's kind of bizarre, if you ask me, but that's what they're doing.
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?
-
I know that 3-2 SBCT (the first SBCT) actually used the FUCHS (Fox) vehicle for testing.
StrykerPSG prob knows about that :-)
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.
-
I meant "have they been deployed", sorry, I really don't know. I never paid much attention to what Regiment did once I realized I wasn't going there after graduation. I also didn't know they've had them that long, I didn't become aware of it until a couple months ago when I read in Army Times they had "recently acquired X amount of Strykers". Though "recently" in this context could be anything under 10 years, I suppose.
Since Regiment is transitioning to 6-man squads, how does that impact their Stryker fleet?
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?
-
Which is a weird argument to make, since the LAV III with 25mm turret does fit into a C-130.
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.
-
Just so I'm sure we're talking about the same thing; I meant the WW2 era M8 Greyhound
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 you're right. Do you think that in such conflicts the SBCTs would act as an ad hoc reconnaisance unit? I am unfamiliar with how Regiment is using their Strykers, but is their intended use a mirror of the Marine's LAV battalions?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.
Now I remember. I actually spent some time during, and after, that thread (I can't remember the title) trying to find the source of the "Gavin" name. I never actually found it, if I remember right.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.. : )
-
Which is a weird argument to make, since the LAV III with 25mm turret does fit into a C-130.
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.
-
Stryker PSG your link doesn't work.
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
My problem with the Stryker (just personal interest) has always been the cost. As an infantry carrier it's awesome (with the slats). I have my doubts about the wheeled performance in mud and off-road but I only have impressions on that. The vehicle does have a higher ground pressure than any other, and last I checked a lower hp/weight ratio than any other active in US service. But those are minor problems in developed areas.But how did it get to cost the same as a Bradley? Cost per unit in some studies has exceeded the M2.
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.The old debate, iirc, was mostly about how the M113 could have been upgraded with armor kits and sensors and would be what the Styker is now. Then the cost/unit would be pretty low. Some people don't like tracks but that was never the central argument - the cost was the issue. And just as many people prefer tracks to wheels.The airlift difficulties with slat cages don't really seem to me a significant problem, either.
Both sides seemed to agree protection and mobility were good enough. It's just that price tag...
-
Question for StrykerPSG and LT Mike-
IIRC when the Army was first testing the Interim BCT they used LAV III with the 25mm cannon. But when the final choice for the vehicle was made the Styker obviously didnt have a turret. I thought that was rather strange, but what do I know? Just curious on your thoughts about this.
Steve
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.
-
Yeah, Tracked vs Wheeled has been raging for some time. On another forum, I was discussing the Army's old M8 and comparing / contrasting with the Stryker. I think there is a good argument for armored wheeled vehicles, I just wouldn't want to ride around in one.
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.
Now, with the Army expanding it's Stryker BCTs (or implying that they will be doing it), do you think that's a wise move? Is Stryker an effective offensive platform against a conventional force more effective than Iraq? I honestly don't know; I'll check the link out in a bit.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.
I was promoted to "civilian" last year, but I was in 327th Sig Btn / 35th Sig Bde and USASOC. In the case of Bragg rivalries, I used to live in a barracks next to 82nd soldiers, and we routinely engaged in fisticuffs, and my time in USASOC was generally spent competing with 3rd and 7th group for soldiers and resources.As a signal soldier, I have no doubt the amount of ribbing you endured from Divisional units, so will leave well enough alone.
Posts on the M113? I barely remember posting something about them awhile ago, if I remember correctly, I was just advocating the use of a light armored vehicle for Airborne units. Calling me a "Mike Sparks fanboy" is pretty weird, because I had never even heard the name until that thread.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.
Seriously, I wasn't trying to offend anyone, but I can see how it would come across that way and apologize. Now, I've had friends, a great many of them, die in humvees and on foot. I'm not going to go around half-cocked at people who talk trash on humvees or LPCs.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.
-
It was just a question meant to be framed in a slightly humorous tone, hence "death trap". Have you never been part of a light-hearted exchange of ****-talking? As for the Mike Sparks stuff, I think you're reading too much into it, but that's okay.
I'll re-frame the question:
What are the advantages to using Stryker as opposed to any other vehicle / infantry fighting platform? Or, why would I use a Stryker vs a Bradley?
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.
-
I didnt know we were allowed to use THAT GUY's name on the internet anymore.....most of the time that happens and hell and brimstone come raining from the sky!
Secondbrooks
That made me laugh!
steve
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).
-
So, for you Stryker guys, what is it about your big metal death traps that you like so much?
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.
-
So, for you Stryker guys, what is it about your big metal death traps that you like so much?
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.
-
Really?
All those armour experts I've spoken to must be wrong.
And whoever wrote TRADOC Bulletin 3.
While distance degrades the effect of a shaped charge, you still need 12ft for M113 armour to be effective against an RPG7 (TRADOC again)
Bar armour and similar arrangements work by dudding the rounds, which is why they are about 50-60% effective. (Simple geometry. The remainder hit a bar and go off)
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.
-
I thought the slats worked by squeezing the fuze mechanism so it broke?
I read that here so it must be right.
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!
-
Thank you. This Brigade, specifically is built on NCO's that know their ****. Guys with Stryker experience, who have done a tour or two and know the vehicle and its capabilities.
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.
).
Just like having the 101st Airborne fighting in Bastone against wasn't optimal. But it's amazing what can be done when it's necessary. Still, it's true that you wouldn't want to deliberately put an SBCT in the path of an armor heavy adversary. Just like you wouldn't want to put an HBCT against a lightly armed fighters in the mountains of some country like, oh... I dunno... Afghanistan comes to mind 
Plus, if you do need to be someplace within a couple of days and have a few thousand highly armed and capable soldiers in place with the basics to take on anything... if you want an HBCT in place you'd better hope is forward deployed already.
Question about artillery smoke
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
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?