StrykerPSG

Flashbangs are issued, but rarely used. It's not that they are by any means useless, just hard to suprise the inhabitants when you use a water impulse charge or ram your vehicle through a door. Needless to say, the element of suprise is then lost. And, as BradleyDick pointed out, there is the uncertainty of who is in the room.

JasonC, you're not comparing the FCS to the Stryker are you? They are very different platforms indeed. The FCS is a bunch of pipe dream stuff that may come to fruition in , oh say about 20 years. I have been to some of their briefs and while they brief well, the future purported capabilites, tecnology just isn't there yet. Though, as computer technology becomes lighter and more robust, it's certainly possible. I too sneered at the Land warrior concept as a young starry eyed infantry private many years ago. Back then, it was demonstrated inside an ALICE ruck sack and weighed as much as a patrol ruck, this was without ammo and water. Enter today's Land Warrior, a techno marvel, just not ready yet. Not to say it's un-useable, still a work in progress. What is my point you ask? Just this, FCS, I believe, is something brought from the reality of the 90's BRAC and military drawdowns, where the armor MTOE was changed from a 4 tank platoon to a 3 tank platoon and we (US) were considering the possibility of an autoloader to make the tanks 3 man crews. The 90's were a very trying time for the military, so we had to struggle with less money, less people but an unstable post cold war world that is far more dangerous then the cold war was. So, contractors being capitalists at heart, looked for a way to sell a new weapon that would catch the attention of a cash starved defense industry. The Stryker was, from inception, designed to utlilize off the shelf technology and be implemented right away. Of course, contractors again, in a capitalist society, looked for ways to add their own extras, to again, absorb the disappearing defense dollars. Anyway, this thread has brought some wonderful stuff to the table that too has broadened my perspective of how our SBCT's are viewed. I truly had no idea there were so many opposed to the vehicle. I have also seen many false perceptions and certainly many with valid arguement. Thanks JasonC for not being someone humming the politically supportive tune, but bringing thought to the forum. I initially held you in a guarded opinion, but am seeing some thought to your process. I do not necessarily agree with it all, but there is some thought put into your counter points versus the initiator of this thread.

Hey LT, tell Perry he's still ugly and being folically challenged is cool. You must be A trp, my former alma mader. I was the former mortar PSG before Sanchez and Aquino was my PL. Such a small friggin world. You guys look great! Tell the Thunder platoon and Perry I wish them all the luck. I'm over in 5th BDE going through the evolution of standing up from scratch now, though now as a 1SG. wish them luck and see you in a few more months. Matt

Can I change my vote? I too, on reflection, think a Russian add on would be very cool!

Snickering....my last assignment, prior to Lewis was at Ft Hood 99-01 as an Observer/Controller for AC/RC. Well, having never been mechanized I was amazed at the sheer number of vehicles on Hood itself. Driving down their main street where all the motor pools are is a sight to behold! Anyway, slipping out of context I know.....when GEN Shinseki announced his vision of the SBCT, the post was in a general uproar (though not officially)about the SBCT and how it would never work and the 105mm was an inferior weapon system. Apparently, I was the minority in thinking the concept was fantastic! But from the beginning, it was briefed that SBCT would be complimentary versus replacment. Again, going back to our then current strategy of only heavy and light divisions. It just made perfect sense to have multiple lighter armored vehicles that could be placed sooner rather then later, until the heavies could arrive in force. After all, how many former paratroops or light infantry guys remember being in Saudi during DS/DS, in the forward camps, thinking we were just a strategic speedbump until the mech/armored units arrived in theater? This isn't to say the airborne/light infantry lack a sting, but TOW HMMMV's, Dragons and attack aviation only last so long.

My vote is in for both NATO and IDF expansion modules. There are some fantastic platforms from both and since NATO is supporting OEF now, not unrealistic to expect them to share responsibilites in a Syrian invasion too.

I agree also with an IDF over USMC expansion. Our MTOE's are somewhat similar and certainly weapons are the same as the USMC. I think it would be a realistic possibility that IDF would come north to support a NATO/US coalition since they are the tenant residents of southern Syrian occupation on a regular basis.

JB, If there were two things I could ask for and receive it would be integrated OH58's and a 25mm SBF vehicle. If there are any plans to field them, I am not privy to this info. However, I think it makes terrific sense to have at least one vehicle per PLT, strictly as an SBF vehicle, and by the way, since only 6-7 fit behind the turret, why not place the weapons squad in there? I also think part of the reason they didn't want a 25mm is because the Army is very territorial by design, ie if we received a 25mm variant, the Bradley guys might be in an uproar. While this may sound silly, look at the uproar the Stryker has stirred with the tracked armored community. From inception, the armored community that didn't pay attention to the initial sales pitch thought the MGS and ICV's were meant as replacements for the M1/M2. However, that was never the case. SBCT was always intended to be a complimentary mix, which I believe succeeds very well in doing.

Link I'm not sure what they carried in terms of ammo, fuel, etc on the LAV for that trial. Also this ... Link </font>

The Stryker's have to be deflated too, though I am not sure to what degree.</font>

PSY, Our FBCB2 suite is almost a weapon system by itself. It is fantastically easy to use, especially in an age of multi-computer households and therefore the familiarity with windows and menus. If there were a downfall, it is schooling the older commo guys in using the newer stuff. When we first got our Strykers, it was an information overload. But, as time progressed, we continued to use and refine the systems that comprise the FBCB2 suite, making them user friendly. Again, this was a by product of working hand in hand with the manufacturer, providing direct input into it's design.

Splinty, purposely went back in to edit and delete my posting. I do not want to start any flame wars as I should know there are many NG outfits attached outside the FOB, but by and large the NG infantry units we encountered were relegated to FOB security, at least the ones we ran into at the assorted FOBs in theater. The exceptions were transportation, aviation, engineer and also MP.

I too have tried to do this, since the MGS is originally built as a infantry suporting vehicle. Certainly one of the functions envisioned is the ability to breach walls to give the dismounts the ability to gain dynamic access sooner.

Are you really in the Army? There are so many things wrong with what you're saying that it makes me wonder. Have you been to basic yet? </font>

I've heard the argument bandied about that Stryker tires are actually an advantage, because if a tracked vehicle throws a track it's immobilized. The Stryker tires can run while flat, and the vehicle can continue moving even if some of the tires are lost. Tracks are clearly better for off-road and for turning radius, but tracked vehicles may actually be more likely to become immobilized. I don't really know one way or the other, but am curious as to how some of you with actual experience would evaluate this argument. Care to comment? </font>

Man, I have never seen one thread draw as much attention as this one, and felt I owed Jason some replies, so here goes: Originally posted by JasonC: [QB] I guess I find this statement sort of confusing. Because you read something somewhere, you believe you are better informed then I am? Pretty bold assumption that I just covered down on some equipment without vital feedback to either the government or the manufacturer. They both want to know what can make the vehicle more "fightable" and lethal. If something didn't work, what were the work arounds to fix it(TTP's)? Now, that isn't to say that prior to my assignment at Lewis, I was only privie to news articles and theorists that came out from every rock. To use one of your analogies from earlier, it's like being a cook (you)on a cooking show watching another cook (me) designing a recipe of sorts. Yes, you may have some better ideas, but you're not contributing, just assuming. Given that we are one of the last surviving super powers and by default of our self pronounced democracy building (911 responders)process it is in our best interest strategically to design a highly mobile and lethal organization to respond to these democracy building events. We also know that mobility and lethality are hard to combine while trying toreduce our logistic footprint. So, we sacrifice heavy armor (maintaining speed and airlift ability) and mount a smaller weapon system. This fight went out a while ago. It was designed and still is capable of transport on a C130. But Black Horse hit it on the head when he mentioned it is crazy to design a vehicle around a 50+ year old frame, not to mention there is the limitation of a wing box across the center of the cargo bay. However, this limits the SBCT's, not other users. Also, the truck is transportable with the applique armor package. It is the racks that pose a problem, so we developed a TTP for that scenario too. This one isn't necessarily true. The only maintenance issues were not having a vehicle power train that was going to handle an additional 5000 lbs of armor and operate in 140 degree heat. That isn't to say the powerplant failed higher then usual, just put unclaculated wear and tear. When we brought the trucks back after two years of fighting, average miles put on the chassis were around 70,000. For any vehicle, that is serious mileage. The only piece not designed properly were the speed ratings on the tires. we regularly achieved 65-70 mph and the tires developed much more heat then anticipated. Just meant we incorporated another TTP not written about and changed tires in 15 minutes or less. Try doing that on your regular car. Already addressed by Black Horse. This one also addressed by Black Horse, but my twist is this: A normal .50 mounted on a pintle is very indescriminate. I routinely trained my gunners (TTP's) to utilize the RWS day sight and zoom in on the bad guy in the window or next to a house. Once zoomed in, burst the trigger to conserve ammo. End result was a disintegrated weapon system (using only about 10 rounds)since it's against the Geneva convention to shoot personnel with the .50 cal. A 25mm has way too much energy for that sort of sniping. This isn't to minimize the energy of a .50cal, but far less collateral damge, if any, just a nasty bloody room. Again, another false assesssment. This is based on what evidence? Is this an assumption because of the vehicles lighter armor? With it's advanced communications suite and it's more adaptive and agile mission capabilities, it is more then capable of going into unknown areas, securing them and having a greater capability of flexing combat power to areas of greater threat faster based on it's more rapid and responsive wheeled capabilites. even today, in theater, SBCT's are called upon and sought with great vigor because of their advanced communication suite, it's rapid ability to re-locate and the greatest asset which the HBCT's lack is the ability to put 11 man squads on the ground immediately. Do we lack the shock and awe effect of armor? Me thinks not. I base this on the agressive use of our vehicles, not entirely different then the older ACR's, which we gladly trace our lineage too as well. The difference here is our tanker converts in our MGS's know they have the same chassis as their Infantry bretheren and therefore are as fragile and vulnerable as the ICV, should they boldly use Cavalry panache and thrust their less armored vehicle into a bee's hive of T72's. So, it requires them to be bold and decisive thinkers that do not set the current pace of the battlefield, but rather work as a combined arms team to find, fix and destroy their common enemies. So, Jason and Jon, I apologize for not entering into a more responsive and thorough dialogue with you sooner. Unfortunately I only get about an hour or two each night to read and enjoy these threads. I do not send this reply to enrage anyone, but to dispel the myth that we are ready reserves based on a lighter armored vehicle. I am truly amazed at the depth and heat of these debates. Again, they are fantastic, but when you discount the people that operate these concepts day in and day out and base your knowledge of specualtion of left and right wing reports, there is a possibility of becoming a Rumsfeld type persona and discounting what your actual theater commanders are telling you and listening to the media instead. Also, for those that do not understand the phrase TTP, it stands for Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. These items are rarely ever reported on ut are what we do as leaders to overcome and adapt to situations. [Note - Battlefront.com edited the Quote formatting] [ August 08, 2007, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

Wow! All the armchair generals come out in full force to attack me when I try to let the subject lie. Ultimately, I defend their honor each day and did not pull out the blackmail card, but it is tied to how strongly I feel not only for the vehicle but the BDE it is designed around. The right forum, perhaps to some no, to me, yes. PS, I agree, it was becoming rather good, but no one was willing to concede their viewpoints.

Well, Jon, as to be expected from an arrogant American 1SG, I did assume that you probably didn't know much about counter-insurgency and Uncle Sam doesn't pay me enough to always be nice. So, what I'm saying is I do apologize. I would be honored to enter into a professional debate anytime. Just next time I will not enter into one so deeply heated. For what it's worth, we are (SBCT) one of the most sought after units in theater, and yes, even by the HBCT's. So, history will tell all and in the end, the vehicle will be found to have indeed been a noble mount, even if conceived in deception and politics. Thanks Black Horse and also, thank you for your service as well. You present quite the arguement as well.

Jason and Jon, I want to say you both bring quite the fight to the table of counter points opposed to the Stryker. Hell, would make great lawyers indeed. I truly hesitated to enter into the thread because I know how hot a topic this vehicle has been since inception. But I would do a dis-service to my fallen Warriors to not stand up for the vehicle and the SBCT as a whole. It was never my intention to enter into a huge debate, just defend the honor of those fallen who believed in the vehicle and the BDE's capabilities. I can say, without pause, never have I had the privelege of serving with so many brave young Warriors as I have had since serving at Lewis. The vehicle has it's faults, but so did the M1, M2, M113, M151 and even the HMMMV. I was also an advocate for at least one vehicle per platoon with a 25mm as a support by fire vehicle. But, for now, the .50 cal is mch better suited for the built up area then a 25mm ever could be, that is if we are looking to minimize collateral damage. I also think both of you relentlessly refuse to see any vision but your own as well, which also makes you unapproachable, so, I throw in my olive branch and just wanted to bring at least a user opinion to the plate versus the uninformed believe everything we read types that browse through here. Ultimately, I feel flattered that BF has greatly represented the SBCT's, and even if a bit buggy, still very playable to me.

Well 11B, I suppose you could use your newly found Montgomery GI Bill and make better statements for all.

What I see contained within this thread are some excellent researchers, bar none. However, there is no ultimate vehicle that can accomplish all. What truly turned me into this thread from the beginning is 11B's opening comments. But, aside from the obvious he know's not what he is talking about based on his inexperience, there are some great arguements contained within. Was there some political wrangling involved in the vehicle decision purchase, certainly. But name any weapon system not purchased with political influence or promise. For the record, I find the BFV an outstanding vehicle, with an outstanding weapon/sensor suite. However, it lacks a smaller squad footprint because of the amount of fuel and ammo needed to support that weapons suite. The HMMMV, also excellent as a scoutting vehicle, but again, poorly suited for anything beyond that because of inability to put substantial boots on the ground. The M113 has some good carrying capability but lacks stealth, speed and survivability. I am not stating that the Stryker is the ultimate vehicle. It can get stuck in the mud, but has an ability to self or buddy extract. It cannot load on a C130 as easily as either the HMMV or M113, but it's doable and again, not an end all decision maker. As for getting stuck because of a flat tire or tie rod...false again. It has 8 run flats capable of 35mph, if flat, for up to many miles. If a tie rod breaks, again, non-issue in theater, because you have the ability to isolate the particular axle. As for the narrow street challenge, it negotiates the theater streets as well as any Brad or M1, jsut can't pivot steer. And finally, the soft sand issue has been adressed in an improved slat armor and central tire inflation system. Back to your final comment about being neither chef, designer or director, you must have missed the part where I clearly explained I aided in development of not only doctrine, but TTP's (tactics, techniques and procedures) and vehicle design. What did you do for the history books of your country today or even yesterday? Me, just made a risky venture a more capable killing machine.

Wow! What a thread! I had intended to come on here, fully supporting my alumni and have learned there are some very well versed personnel out there. I had only wanted to blast away at 11B for his initial ridiculous comment opening this thread, but instead figure I'll step aside and let the purported professionals blast away at the Stryker BDE and it's doctrinal concepts. It is amazing how many critics we have in this thread, but alas not a one is a Stryker Soldier. Not a single pundit has served on or even fought the vehicle, but yet we come fully armed with a plethora of articles and claims both pro and con, again, from experts that usually have not fought the vehicle. I have had the blessing of spending 5 of my last 17 years at Lewis, fielding the initial interim vehicles, writing/formulating doctrine for the SBCT, fighting a platoon of Strykers and now as a first sergeant for the latest SBCT 5-2ID. My background was, for 12 years, 82nd, 101st, 25th (light/airborne for the NG guy)and AC/RC evaluating the NG. To say I was a vehicle hater was a gross understatement. I didn't trust them. To me, they were death traps on wheels, so I gave them a chance. From the begininning, we were never intended to replace HBCT's (as discussed earlier) or even light vehicles. We were intended to be a quick armored package, with credible staying power, but more importantly manueverabiltiy, situational awareness, ala FBCB2 and a smaller logistical footprint. This would provide a bigger delaying action until the HBCT's could be strategically brought into theater via sealift. We were even designed to be airlfted tactically via C130, which we can do, though it sucks! But what made the vehicle choice better then a tracked vehicle are multiple things: 1. Run flat tires-read as abiltity to survive IED/ambush and still get back home under own power. BTW, change tires in 15 minutes! 2. steath:suprise=survivability. Earned the moniker of Ghost Soldiers by locals. 3. Rapid mobility:Our BDE traversed the entire length and width of Iraq many times, being called upon by HBCT's as a QRF, due to said mobility and boots on the ground capability. 4. Speed=survival. We outperformed even the MP's and their convoy escort mission because we were the only armored vehicle that could do 65-70mph with the convoys. We then brought 2 full squads to bear onto the enemy so the bad guys could be killed rather then suppressed to fight another day. The SBCTwas never intended as an initial entry force for medium-high intensity conflicts. What it was designed to be is a unique light infantry trained hybrid, where everyone trains in CQM, shoot house drills and road marching, immaterial of MOS. Afterall, we wouldn't want another Jessica Lynch fiasco. It is designed to give the light fighter, on the ground, supreme situational awareness via the FBCB2 and Land warrior, offering a first look, first shoot capability. It is also interesting to note, that various other organizations (non-SBCT)do not grudginly accept the Stryker. They love it and it's unique capabilities and characteristics. Ultimately I think there are quite a few excellent replies as food for thought and I have to say I would probably give Black Horse more credibility then Jason, though the grey (no longer green) suits certainly have their challenged individuals too. 11B, as a side note, I think you made a very brash statement that not only was uneducated, but as claiming to be a fellow 11B made us look rather foolish collectively. Finally, to all deployed service members deployed in support of OIF/OEF, God speed and safe return.

Does anyone have a translation of the demo missions briefings? I have finally figured out how to use the various stations, but have no idea what the scenario descriptions are. Any help appreciated, sincerely..... Matt

Hi Martin, you certainly may score the compliment. Thanks for the info, I found it and it was on the IDDK/Crazy Horse website. Will just anxiously await the english release and play through the russian version till then. Cheers, Matt