LUCASWILLEN05
-
Posts
1,591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by LUCASWILLEN05
-
-
1 hour ago, luigim said:
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
-
1 hour ago, exsonic01 said:
You mean, is this reactivated? Are there any other source than southfront?
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
-
36 minutes ago, cool breeze said:
Wait i can't finish reading all the replies first I just gotta type a response. You just played the new battle pack campaign that had the M1134 in it. It was also in CMSF. I don't know how you didn't know about it.
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
-
47 minutes ago, IanL said:
Good idea. I was pondering how to look at that issue.
Interesting, I have not had that happen yet, that should be interesting.
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
-
16 hours ago, exsonic01 said:
I heard that this program was suggested back in 2012 but cancelled.... Is this program reactivated again?
Sounds like this may be the case. Given real world developments this seems to be a valid conclusion
-
14 hours ago, DougPhresh said:
I was also dragged into conversations like this when Canada stopped using flechettes and DPICM in the artillery branch and landmines and cluster munitions generally.
It's all well and good for amateurs to have opinions on these things but to talk down to people raising reasonable points, with knowledge and experience in the field (literal and figurative!
) is not condusive to a good conversation.
Personally the utlility of DPICM shredding tank columns in the Fulda Gap is not worth the risk of a child playing with them in some low-intensity backwater. That's just my opinion but I understand why policy decisions weigh more than just the tactical considerations.
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
-
2 hours ago, AtheistDane said:
Yeah, they didn't have any infantry support in Grozny did they?
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.
-
1 hour ago, Lille Fiskerby said:
Even though I am an old fart I like those Marvel movies !!
Marvel is just a bit of fun. So we are both old farts :-)
-
1 hour ago, Lille Fiskerby said:
It is a big problem, Iglas you cant do much against just hope they miss their target. Tunguskas are big and you should be able to locate them (in one mission you know from the briefing where they are located) I found out that after one of my drones located a Tunguska and was shot down I could still call precision rounds in on the Tunguska and destroy it.
That is my preferred method for dealing with the Tunguska. Locating them befre they shoot something you want down can be easier said than done though Getting ground forces into position to see the Tunguska is often not posible. Likely it is at the rear somewhere. Sending on of your limited number of drones ends up with h loss of te drone though seeing the missile contrail will give you some idea of the location f the launcher. At least hen you can target the area with artillery fire whch may hit the vehicle. Or an airstrike although that is a risky proposition for the fighter jocks :-
-
On 5/3/2017 at 9:53 PM, MikeyD said:
Oldstyle state-on-state wars are EXPENSIVE. The German invasion of France in 1940 took just six weeks. In that time Germany lost more men than the US lost in in the entire Korean war. Plus (roughly) 800 tanks and 1000 aircraft. There are few nations currently on a footing to absorb that level of loss. To quote an old political cartoon from the Spanish American war, 'Is the game worth the penny?' Putin may have his Czarist dream of a unified Slavic super-state but the costs in blood and treasure would be prohibitive for an economy the size of Russia's. How much has it cost the Russian government to date to grab a railhead at Ukrainian Donetsk for a transport link that only runs to the outskirts of Mariupol? Ukraine 2017 turned out to not be Georgia 2006.
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
-
17 minutes ago, Apocal said:
...
Someone remind me again how much integral AT firepower an old M113 or a cattle truck carried again? Anyway, the actual limit on the number of heavy brigades in the Army is budgetary, so the choice isn't Stryker vs. Bradley; it is Stryker vs. dudes in Humvees and cattle trucks.
Again misrepresenting what I have actualy been saying. Boring!¬
-
15 minutes ago, Lille Fiskerby said:
Agree 100 %.
But I would still use the Stryker as a "battle taxi" away from the frontline.
Oh yes, Tunguskas are very nasty and in missions with those "babys" they have first priority to be destroyed.
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
-
8 minutes ago, c3k said:
Kasserine Pass was being referenced to as the unit's introduction to the NTC. (If you're not familiar, search it.)
Independent Tank Battalions. Neat idea...but. Historically, independent battalions were attached to the same parent formation. It fosters all sorts of good things. And it eventually means that, for all intents and purposes, that independent battalion is now part of the parent unit's TOE.
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
-
1 hour ago, Lille Fiskerby said:
Dont put Strykers up against russian armor, got it !!!
I would rather like to talk about the US campaign in the CMBS battle pack instead. In this campaign you have to fight ENY armor with your Stryker SQDN so ...
Within the SQDN you only have two assets: The MGS Platoon (not good against ENY armor) and the Javelin (very very good against ENY armor).
Then you have support: the 155 mm. Bty. with precision ammo not that precise anymore against tanks so I use them against BMP's and use javelins on tanks.
Another support asset is Apache helicopters: very very good against anything the russians come up with.
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
-
27 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Re: Kasserine Pass
It's relived by a different unit virtually every month at NTC.
I'm really stunned by the supreme arrogance in some of the replies by a certain someone on this thread. The anti-armor capabilities, or lack therefore of on the Stryker are well established within the Army. However the solution isn't to try to make it into a Bradley because that is precisely not the missionset it was designed for.
There is a push to add some ATGM capability to the vehicle to give it a sort of "bear mace" level anti-armor capability. But speaking as someone who'd done Bradleys vs tanks in training, an ATGM really isn't enough unless you're in a good defensive posture (while a Javelin likely would work better than the TOWs I had to play with, the engagement cycle for a tank is so much faster than an ATGM, so in a "I'm moving/he's moving we see each other same time" the party in the tank will win full stop).
In more practical terms if a Stryker unit is called upon to fight around significant enemy armor, it will be augmented by armor (as in Abrams), CCA, or other assets. There's just not a lot of tools that handle tanks on the offensive as well as tanks.
Re: .50/40MM turret
Big downside to that turret is that it is not stabilized, doesn't have thermal optics, or a LRF. The RWS on the Stryker will get you first round on target, and when you're using it in overwatch or supporting positions, that's pretty valuable.
If I ruled the world:
I think the Army needs to bring back a few Tank Battalions, as in independent units. Both IBCTs and SBCTs often need armor when they're called on to do a lot of higher intensity missions. However when tank are used to augment these units, they come out of an ABCT that might like to have more vs less tanks. Having a separate tank battalion able to slice out self-supporting company sized elements (tank company+maintenance team+logpac augmentation if required) would enable giving an SBCT a lot more maneuver punch, or IBCT some close armor support without impacting ABCT capabilities (or make "Ultra" ABCTs with their three organic CABs+one tank BN). Also rounding out ABCT ARS's with a DIVCAV/ACR style D Company* would be wise.
*The old DIVCAV/ACR Squadron had three "Troops" which were a mix of tanks and scout vehicles, with a fourth "Company" that was tank pure. I'd keep the existing three troops in a modern ARS Bradley/sensor focused, but then having the tank company squadron internal would allow for non-augmented completion of the cav's "security" mission set.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
-
13 hours ago, shift8 said:
Since when Lucas do we not use APC's in conventional wars vs near-peer threats? What do you think the M3 Halftrack, M113, and BTR are? The Stryker is not a "asymmetrical" weapons system. It is a battle taxi.
The only reason anyone has ever referred to the Strkyer in the fashion you seem to think it was "meant for" is due to the fact that a unit equipped with lighter vehicles is easy to move and deploy quickly. For various reasons, it is SOMETIMES beneficial to deploy a light unit when other units cannot be there. The vehicle is meant for major wars. It just so happens that APC's are really good a people moving, which incidentally is what you end up doing alot of when you are fighting and insurgency in Afghanistan or Iraq.
No one has ever suggested that the Stryker is some kind of tank replacement. What was suggested is that Strkyer BCT's are sometimes ideal to deploy when you cannot get anything else there fast enough, and getting something there is beneficial. GUESS WHAT: we would do the same thing with M113 Battalions or any other mech units form any other era.
TL:DR
The Stryker is just a APC. Just like anything else. It is not a new type of vehicle. It is not a small war specific machine. It is literally just a 113 replacement.
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
-
22 hours ago, MikeyD said:
There's an old saying (I hope I'm not repeating something posted above) "A camel is a horse designed by committee." The impulse to turn a purpose-made design into all-things-for-all-people often results in ruination of the original program.
A dozen years ago there was a need for a little direct fire infantry support. Instead of dropping a simple Mecar low pressure gun onto a Stryker they gave us 'Stryker MGS' which very nearly received a 'combat ineffective' rating while in Iraq. That's a lot of complex vehicle just to toss a few low-pressure squash head HE rounds downrange.
Up until the last upgrade Stryker MGS was a poor performer in the game. Combining an overhead gun with a hull down command greatly helped the situation. Don't expect to win a fight against a veteran T90 with it but a hull-down MGS does have some utility.
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 :-(
-
1 minute ago, Thewood1 said:
Wow...someone sure thinks they know a lot more than anyone else. Anyone who disagrees is group think. I really thought this forum had moved beyond that kind of discussion
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 :-(
-
47 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:
and the Javelins and Anti-Armor company are...what, exactly? Honestly if you want my, honest to god opinion I think an SBCT could do with adding additional anti-armor platoons to Fire Support Squadrons and Battalions ; but the reality is that they're going to be fighting on foot more often than not and don't operate in a vaccum. Compared to their nearest peer formations they have an absolutely awe-inspiring amount of firepower.
A Russian MRR usually has to rely on its habitual Tank Battalion for FEBA anti-armor defense, because there's simply not enough in the ATGM platoon to go around. I still would assert the Stryker has more offensive capability as well (based mainly on sensor-to-shooter capabilities and weight of fire support) and its not like the Americans can't task organize with armor when conducting offensive action. Again; not seeing your point.
The addition of an actual ATGM is more of a matter of pragmatics than budget. (1) SBCTs put more boots on the ground than an ABCT, (2) the ability to do (1) would be greatly curtailed by taking up space needed for a basic combat load of TOWs, defeating the purpose of the SBCT, (3) the addition of an ATGM tends to make small-unit commanders fight their vehicle in a way that isn't smart (news flash: adding a TOW to a Stryker doesn't suddenly make it as survivable as a Bradley), and (4) You stuff enough ammo into something and it becomes a BMP-3. Ka-boom. A BMP-3 that's maybe proofed for 20mm. No thank you.
From the game perspective too I don't think I've ever had an 'oh sh*t' moment with the Strykers, probably because I handle them with care.
The issue is NOT survivability. The issue is giving Strykers something to fight tanks with. A pop gun grenade launcher or a machineggun will barely scratch the paintwork of a T90 - and that is if the T90 is in range of these weapons. A TOW on the other hand could do that T90 some serious harm. However, as you say some compromises may have to be made such as reducing the strength of a squad.
On the other hand maybe the whole concept of the Stryker is flawed and tey should have gone for the Bradley. There is however the debate around the FFV
) is not condusive to a good conversation.
Stryker - Pros and Cons
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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