Thewood1

btw, he should have known about it because it was directly pointed out to him yesterday. But he doesn't read posts.

No it doesn't. No dismounts IIRC. It defeats the entire purpose of the Stryker.

Found this thread from BGG. Former M-113 driver and some ex-scouts discussing the M-113. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/838001/stryker-ifv-vs-upgraded-m113 Note the comments about using APCs to fight armor.

It should also be pointed out that the M-1134 loses its dismounts. So its not like you can just stick a TOW launcher on it and away we go. Also note that the TOW launcher is retractable due to transport considerations, but even then , is not rated for C-130 loading.

My understanding was the Stryker vs M-113 was for several reasons that combined. 1) Cost of refurbishing M-113s that had very high mileage 2) Upgrading M-113s with new electronics and a RWS would have been expensive and cost a few dismounts 3) The maintenance and fuel costs of the M-113 was still much higher than the Piranha III, that was used as the basis for comparison. 4) Protection level of the M-113 was less than an off-the-shelf Stryker 5) Road mobility is better for a Stryker. In hindsight, I think the M-113 rebuild might have been a more competitive solution that it was at the time. But its a better comparison than an idiotic comparison to a Bradley.

" 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. " This guy mentioned humility. Note that most of the comments come from "civvies" just like you. Maybe we know more than you. How do you explain that?

Proof positive this guy is not all there. I posted this yesterday in direct response to your comment about the MGS. Do you even read the posts? Are you having some kind of cognitive issue. Again, doesn't read posts, hates when people use his own quotes against him, and I think doesn't read his own posts. I just don't get it.

one word...oblivious. This kind of reminds me of the really old BFC (BTS) forums before Steve purged a few people. The endless circular debates where almost every single person could see how wrong a single person was and there wasn't anything to do about it, except hope BFC stepped in and cleaned it up.

I am amazed that the guy won't answer questions, doesn't read posts, and gets upset when you show him his own quotes. Maybe there is something wrong with his browser.

Can I ask what the point of having the Stryker would be if you make no easier to transport than a Bradley? Maybe logistics and maintenance? Again I ask, is it the doctrine, the vehicle? Should we worry about the middle ground strategic mobility between HumVee and Bradley?

You mean something like this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1134_Anti-Tank_Guided_Missile_Vehicle

If you just looked at a few of the responses, you'll see all of this was covered and we even have pictures...of the 30mm-armed Stryker

I think there are some Iraq maps in there. Not sure how urban plays out because I have never done it. I would suggest a temporary license. It is a big investment for someone who isn't sure.

Garviteam has the Angolan wars covered, that kind of fits in here. Steel beasts has Toyota technicals with RCL, DshK MG, and a mortar. They also have African infantry, regular and irregular, with T-55s, BTRs, BMPs, and T-72s.

And that is why I hate seeing Strykers getting all tricked out. It will take budget away from the stuff that can go toe to toe with the big bad T-XX. If you want heavy iron to slowly arrive, then send heavy iron. Don't send a tin can with a big gun that can't get there any faster than the big iron and requires as much support as the heavy iron.

Just to reiterate...It was stated several times very clearly that it might be policy at issue. The Stryker is a good fit for what the policy is currently. The policy is to not send M1s and M2s. The policy is get mobile first. Is that the right policy? You might have a case on that one. But telling us that a Bradley is what fits current policy is not going win any one over.

Where is the evidence? I have seen all opinion so far. Is that what you call evidence?

Strykers have that. Its called the Javelin. Now you might be getting somewhere...maybe its the policy that is flawed. Did it take 5 pages of you not reading other people's posts to realize that? It was stated 3-4 times over this discussion. Holy cow...I really can't believe you just said that.

4.019. While still focused on training tankers, its added a lot of features to make it more wargame-like. Making any judgement on SB from 2001 is like judging all CM based on CMSF 1.0. There are good things and bad things about it, but overall, I play it more than CM right now, by far.

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

Agreed on game-based handling. In both SB and CM, if I have BTRs, LAVs, or Piranhas trading shots with T-anything, I have made a big mistake or the scenario designer is setting something up.

One thing to keep in mind... If you want to completely pre-plan your units and offer alternative actions as the enemy responds, you can go to town scripting left and right. But if you play it more as a wargame where you potentially drop orders on all units throughout the game, it can be very much like CM, in real time. I have played both ways and it's fun to see how the plan plays out and if you can account for major changes that you didn't foresee.

Yeah, figgered that. But only so much. As is, it was already reducing the operational range of the aircraft. And they still couldn't fit the infantry load, including equipment on board.

But can you still go back and answer the questions, or do they make you uncomfortable?

btw, I think getting the weight of three Strykers into a C-17 was already requiring waivers for take off weight from the Air Force. It included leaving supplies and infantry/crew behind. I expect that the turret addition will now drop the number of Strykers down to two, the same as the Bradley.