LUCASWILLEN05

Regarding tactical cyber attacks drone hacking at least can almost certainly be done now. Maybe hacking into command networks ia also quite feasible http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wondering-how-hack-military-drone-its-all-google-1500326

When you mentioned the MGS I interpreted that as meaning the M1126 Stryker and that was what probably caused confusion and acrimony. Also some of the other people involved do come across to me as being overly arrogant professionals which is a trait I really dislike and tends to bring out the worst in me - which probably didn't help. Upgunning all Strykers probably does depend on issues such as budget and procurement It might well be that expanding the M1134 capability such that, for example, attaching platoons to all Stryker companies might well be far cheaper and achieve a similar effect to a more expensive upgunning of the whole Stryker fleet That being said I was thinking of a capability that Bradleys have

I would not place too much trust in Russian sources like Sputnik although some of the information may still be accurate. Jusy consider that a "health warning" to regard all sources with a degree of cation - including any I might post! :-) Nevertheless thanks for the input

I am not sure. You certainly seem cautios abut it - and you could be right.Perhaps right now we should say "may be reactivated" Let us see what we can both come up. I did do a quick search on artcles over the last month quickly coming up with the infonapalm article posted above but this might be something one might see in a Maskirovka, hence I would not regard this one as strong evidence for the BV program being resumed I did however find this though I am not convinced in regard to the reliability of the source so we may need to continue rating this one with some caution until we can further corroborate however, if accurate it might give some indication at least http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/26/t80bv-main-battle-tank-enter-service-2017.html

Never encountered this vehicle in the campaign although, being busy with a TEFL course right now I do have real life to worry about right now. What does surprise me is that nobody else mentioned it either. However, quite a few people have ended up on my ignore list over the last few days. I just feel I don't have the time to deal with certain individuals at this time. Anyway, I think we can agree that the M1134 does cover the issue to a reasonable extent - though perhaps the army would love to have more of them. I do intend to replay the campaign after I finish my course. Perhaps more scenarios in CMBS might include them. Maybe it is time for us to draw this one towards a close though

Yes there is a lot we should be considering here before we reach any conclusions. The issues raised by Holman,Slysniper and myself all consider a number of different angles in what I think we all realize is a highly complex issue. Holman, in his post just ow mentions a veteran unit. He mentions HE and nearby rifle fire and that this unit was involved i its' first action of the scenario, hence suppression level should be quite low. I would agree that does look a little strange - not a result I would have expected with a unit that is good quality and good morale in a not too pressured combat situation. We may be looking here at some unintended consequences of a well intended software change. However, while accepting hat possibility I would remain cautious at least until we have the results of more testing as I suggested earlier. I think all of us would agree with that

Taking a historical example albeit from Desert Storm there are many examples of low grade Iraqi infantry units putting up some resistance, then getting up out of their trenches and surrendering. There are also similar instances from the early days of the Battle of the Bulge where units, perhaps including large numbers of replacements or simply redeployed to what had been considered to be a quiet sector considering the parameters of slysniper's experiment using a platoon with low morale and relatively poor leadership we might interpret the results in the light of the above. One caveat though unis that h does not give us the troop quality. Was the platoon in this experiment for example a conscript unit (eg a unit which includes a large number of new replacements) o were they a unit comprised of battle weary veterans. Could I ask slysniper to re-run the experiment but this time assuming a variety of troop quality levels. To what extent could troop quality make a difference to the way units behave? It may be a software issue as has been suggested but I think the above should either confirm this to be the case or perhaps rule it out.

Stryker however continues to evolve on the basis of experience albeit n the COIN environment. jhowever optmization for COIN oes not neccessarily equate to suitability for high intensity combat. That sad, the M1134 variant noted earlier is clearly suited for such an environment Perhaps the questions should actually be about organization in a high intensity war. Should the M1134 variant be more widely available? One could form these vehicles into a company size formation at battalion level for administrative purposes but attach platoons to company level for combat.Should there be a permenent attachment of one platoon per company with the option of attaching 1 x M1134 to each platoon per company? This way units can train and work together long term.Is there a case for company commanders keeping this capability concentrated in a tactical overwatch position. The latter option may well make more tactical sense than penny packetng vehicles out to platoon level http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/US-Army-Moves-Ahead-with-Stryker-Hull-Modification-06308/

However there are also other possibilities. One must also consider that the Russians are very good at Maskirovka, hence we should not rule that possibility out. Nor however can we rule out that several things could be going on here and that all the above could be going on to some degree https://informnapalm.org/en/russia-amasses-decommissioned-t-72b-and-t-80bv-tanks-at-ukrainian-border/

Sounds like this may be the case. Given real world developments this seems to be a valid conclusion

To talk down to someone because you are a professional and the person raising the point is not is also unacceptable. A civilian also can have informed insights. Not respecting a civilians views (ven if wrong or incomplete is also not conducive to a good conversation and, worse can result in that civilian losing respect for the military (or just the US military) Further, as Military History has shown arrogant officers who, for example don't listen to the opinions of others can result in a situation where the entire institution becomes arrogant, resisting or not even implementing necessary change - and that has been known to contribute towards battlefield disasters - which are for keeps and which often cost many lives. Perhaps some military types would do well to adopt a little bit of humility and acknowledge that "civvie" may have a valid point even if you don't agree with it. If you do that you may find that you will get a lot more respect in the long run from civilians in general. In an atmosphere like that it s more likely that the military and civilians can have pen, honest and mutually respectful conversations On this forum and elsewhere. That is just my opinion.

So, what's this then?. That's right. A Stryker variant with a TOW that is actually n service. It not only can be done. it has been done! The M1134 variant of Stryker. Case closed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1134_Anti-Tank_Guided_Missile_Vehicle http://www.military-today.com/missiles/m1134_stryker.htm

Indeed the issues in Grozny my have been more to do with bad command decisions, poor coordination, conscript crews and infantry supports. the point is that the Russans seem to be updating their T80s to the most modern standards rather than replacing the whole flet. Rather like the way the US upgrades the Abrams.

Marvel is just a bit of fun. So we are both old farts :-)

State on state wars still happen - and let's just say that I have a feeling times may be changing - and could change quickly, It may well be that the next great power war wil be quick and by "quick" I mean several months. However, as happened with the case of the Iran - Iraq War it s possible that Great Power conventional war could drag on for far longer particularly if everyone is too scared to use nukes. Maybe we consider this unlikely. However, both sides in 1914 expected the war to be "Over by Christmas" Furthermore the Wehrmacht in WW2 was built for short Blitzkrieg Campaigns. The Germans did not expect the six year attritional struggle WW2 became. Likewise we should not confidently assume that the next Great Power Conflict will necessary be a short conflict. It will very likely be high intensity and high casualty but what happens supposing there is no decisive battlefield result, no political solution and th nukes stay in the silos (at least for the time being) Then we might have a situation looking like a 21st Century version of the 1915 "Shells Crisis" Maybe not WW1 style trench warfare but certainly a temporary stalemate while both sides recruit new armies and search for new ways to break the deadlock. I am not saying it will happen like this but i is interesting to consider the implications.if it did.

I wonder whether it might be an idea to create a separate subforum for discussions concerning real world equipment. There is always a strong possibility that such discussions may touch upon political issues at some stage for instance budget, procurement and the politics around that. While such discussion is often relevant to the game not everybody iss likely to b interested in such issues. Much the same view might be taken concerning the geopolitical issues. Maybe also a reading recommendations forum perhaps divided into factual and fictional sections. In this case it would simply make rlevat material much easier to find. Just a couple of ideas which may improve the site or at least the CMBS part of it

Again misrepresenting what I have actualy been saying. Boring!¬

It is certainly a campaign I found difficult. As you say, given the capabilities of the Stryker they must be used differently than the Bradleys I am used to. If I think I am going to be facing Russian Armour this, in CMBS is very different to the Syrians and the terrain is likewise completely different than the Middle East - which changes the considerations on both offence and defense In Ukraine I tend to find that dismounting infantry fairly soon into the game heels but, when using he HBCT you may use the Bradleys as anti tank overwatch which s an option you don;t have with the SBCT beyond the MGS platoon if they are present. Destroying Russian air defenses can also be problematical. For starters you need o locate them. Doing so with drones can result in the loss of your drone and Tunguskas tend to remain safely at the back where t s often hard to spot them - other than finding em the hard way. On top of that s the Igla dismounts who are even harder to spot until they shoot. As always what we have is a combined arms problem - and it can be like trying to unpick the Gordian Knot at times

Also early US tanks such as th M3 Lee had certain deficiencies and were being replaced by the Sherman. The Red Army in 1943 also did not like this vehicle calling it "a grave for sx

And that campaign I would suggest does highlight the drawbacks of Stryker that I have been talking about. I really felt the lack of heavy armour support and had problems adjusting to that. In an ideal world, yes. You should avoid going up against enemy tanks. In the real world however you may not have a choice - the enemy does have a say :-) Arguably the campaign demonstrates he problems a SBCT is likely to encounter in a high intensity armoured combat environment Yes the Apache Gunship is a good antidote to tanks but is vulnerable to SAMs And those Tunguska are actually pretty nasty :-) Regarding precision artillery fires again yes with the real world caveat that there is something called Counter Battery Fire which is not covered by CMBS but s important in the real world In regard to the MGS platoon, yes that is helpful to some extent with the 105mm gun but maybe an ATGM option would be better considering the light armour. Ideally equipping each Stryker with its' own ATGM capability would be ideal but I accept there will be some sacrifices that will be necessary n order to do that

The point about Kasserine Pass was that o ne of the reasons for the US defeat was entering WW2 with substandard, undergunned, under armoured vehicles. I am appalled at the arrogance of officers like yourself who cannot accept that the US army might have deficiencies. Sheesh, that reminds me of Fetterman who believed he could ride through the "whole Souix Nation (add ended up riding smack bang into an ambush that got him and his entire command massacred to the last man) Or those arrogant Prussian officers in 1806 who failed to realize the deficiencies in their own army - deficiencies that led directly to the disasters of Jena and Auerstadt. Even US Generals acknowledge that the US army is not as prepared as it needs to be for a war with Russia. Are your top brass also "wrong" Note that the defense officials qouted in this article also indicate that the US army cannot count on air dominance in a war with Russia - a matter we have argued about in the past. Do you think these guys in the Pentagon are "wrong" as well? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/pentagon-fears-it-s-not-ready-for-a-war-with-putin Do you think that Mattis and McMaster who have both commanded in combat are "wrong" http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/05/how-pentagon-preparing-tank-war-russia/128460/ I predict that with arrogance like yoursthe US army is going to pay a price in the first battles at least of the next Great Power conflict wherever it takes place. Some military defeats may be exactly what is required to teach people like yourself a little humility. Unfortunately the price that will be paid for failing to learn lessons in peacetime is paid in blood in war. You should understand this but, with all due respect, this and other conversations we have had tell me very clearly that you don't have the humility to listen to the opinions of others simply because they are civilians. That is why I am done with you

You obviously did not read my post properly. What I said was that Stryker (and for that matter other APCs) are more vulnerable in a high intensity armoured warfare environment. We aare NOT talking about a COIN environment in this case we are talking about a Great Power conflict or a conventional war against a well equipped second rate power like Iran or Syria. This kind of conflict still happens you know.Strykers could benefit from having some AT capability if only for self defense even if their primary function is moving troops. This is the benefit of usng IFVs which both move troops and can fight tanks if they have to

At least in the CMBS/SF gaming simulation we can safely experiment with Strykers. the MGS etc. It is because of gaming with the SBCT in CM that I favour Bradleys over Strykers. I might hope to defeat that T90 with a Bradley/Javelin combination but am ess confident with a Stryker/Javelin combination. Maybe I play with Bradleys more than I do with Strykers but I must say I had problems in he new campaign hat came with the latest update. Lack of tank support was part of it but certainly not all. Maybe, when I have completed my current course I will have a bit more tie to replay that campaign and maybe this tim do better than I did. I lost. Badly :-) Having said that I have no had much time for gaming this year being on a real life training course for one thing and, sadly, my Father's passing at the end of January :-(

Or some people just choose t disagree with someone who dissents from the generally accepted consensus. Despite the dissenter offering evidence against that consensus,. If you look up the definition of groupthink the above meets the criteria. Oh well, I am going to have to use that ignore button :-(