Stryker - Pros and Cons

[DougPhresh]

I mean if we're just slapping firepower on platforms and hoping for the best...

[sburke]

4 hours ago, Erwin said:

Yeah this is a problem with the relatively small maps featured in CM2.  CM1 was better in being able to feature longer range fire on its 8Km x 4Km maps.

The Stryker's issue isn't that we can't utilize long range fire, it is operational mobility.  An 8x4 map doesn't demonstrate that much better than a 4x6 in CMx2.  Wake up Erwin, we are talking Styker's not Elefants. 

[JUAN DEAG]

1 hour ago, DougPhresh said:

I mean if we're just slapping firepower on platforms and hoping for the best...

For pic 4 are you trying to tell me that ZU-23-2 is too much firepower? Or even the 30mm on pic 5? If you don't have at least an auto cannon you can't fight even the lightest armored vehicles beyond 500m. IFVs and APCs aren't some rear vehicles that just need an MG for self-defense.

[Michael Emrys]

12 hours ago, c3k said:

Whether you call it irony, being sardonic, or an example of sarcasm, I think you missed it.

Yes, that whizzing sound you hear is kraut's attempt at subtle humor going over my head. I guess I was not fully awake yet.

Michael

[LUCASWILLEN05]

17 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

You really ought to do more researching:

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/army-to-upgun-all-strykers-30-mm-javelin/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19710/army-stryker-vehicle-weapons/

Like I said, the conventional aspect of Stryker Brigade operations has come a long way over the last four or so years.  I'd assumed you'd educated yourself, somewhat, but apparently not.

You shouldn't ever be going toe to toe with armor in an IFV or ICV anyway.  The missiles are there to give some AT capability, but on an armor-centric battlefield, if you're rolling Stryker pure, you done screwed up A-A-Ron.  

 

 

If I had to visualize technology and weapons systems, it'd be a "maturity wave" in which equipment goes from "novel, but totally outside of being militarily useful" to a peak of optimal efficiency (strong compared to peer technology, reliable enough for common employment)  before trailing off into obsolete and lowered readiness due to system age.

Picking where your country rides that wave is tricky, as you don't really get to ride the wave nearly as much as you pick a spot where you get to dwell until the next major weapons procurement cycle.  You're also competing with peer threats who are trying to pick their spot to dwell for the same reasons.  Pick a spot too soon, and your stuff is immature and breaks often/doesn't live up to full specs.  Pick a spot too late and you're fighting against someone who's had the capability for a few years, or after the technology was at peak relevance.  

Precision fires, and automated gun laying is almost certainly the way of the future, as is smaller gun crews.  If those trends are at a point where the technology reliably supports it, or it is realistic given modern capabilities of course, is an open question.  I would contend the M777 is somewhere near the wave as it curves towards "mature" but it hasn't quite gotten there yet relative to the capabilities of conventional towed artillery units.

 

The 120 MM isn't a bad idea at all!  It's just I don't think it's as probable in the current generation of AFVs.  If whatever AFV for IBCTs that gets kicked around as a loose concept every few years kicks off, I think that might see a turreted 120 MM mortar, or whatever AFV happens after the next generation will likely have the mortar carrier with a turret.  

My point is really a very basic one. If you go up against a Main Battle Tank a machine gun or a grenade launcher clearly are not the tools for the job. Even this civilian amateur can see that. Yes, ideally APC's and IFVs shouldn't be going toe to toe with MBTs but we both realize hat sometimes, in the real world bad things happen. In theory the other solution might be to attach MBTs o the Strykers but that is clearly often going to be impractical for obvious reasons. Altering the weapons on the Stryker (adding an ATGM capability) may be the next best option

As you say however there may be very good reasons why this cannot be done with the Stryker such as the procurement issues you mention or that there simply isn't the budget to upgrade he whole fleet. If that is he case maybe there are other ways to do it for instance one vehicle per platoon or one platoon per company which would grant you some capability which would be better than nothing.

Or as you suggest a future Stryker replacement might include such capability. Perhaps what we are really talking about is whether an APC like Stryker or an IFV like Bradley is better. Personally I prefer Bradleys :-)

That said thank you for the links which I am sure will be as educational and informative as always. I will study them latter in the week when I have a bit more time. Right now however I have real life assignments to complete :-)

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by LUCASWILLEN05

[Thewood1]

I am the rankest of rank amateurs, but this comment from above gets to the heart of it...

"Personally I prefer Bradley"

If logistics and speed to zone are of no consideration, then maybe we could all say that.  The Bradley and the Stryker aren't built for the same job.  Its like saying you prefer a Bradley over a HumVee.  To me, a Stryker is a big HumVee that can provide a little more protection and carry more troops than a HumVee.  One of the best comments I saw was that the Stryker was a modern equivalent of an M3 halftrack.  I think for those stuck in a WW2 and "big battle" mindset, its the best way to look at it.

Strykers were built to fill a perceived gap between the HumVee and the Bradley.  Now you can easily argue that the money spent on Strykers could have bought more Bradleys.  But the goal was to convert infantry units into highly mobile infantry units with vehicles that could provide some basic small arms and and shell splinter protection.  And by highly mobile, it means "to theater mobile" and "in theater mobile".  If you think that was a bad goal, then stop arguing about Stryker vs Bradley.  Argue about policy and logistics.  If someone is just into grog porn and always lusts for heavy iron, then the amateur starts to show through.

As to the argument that you should always be prepared to face a T-90...does that mean every HumVee should have an AT weapon also?  Should we load an AT weapon on every possible unit that might, even through poor planning and misuse, face a T-90?  I don't think many military people would agree with that.

 

 

[DougPhresh]

6 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

For pic 4 are you trying to tell me that ZU-23-2 is too much firepower? Or even the 30mm on pic 5? If you don't have at least an auto cannon you can't fight even the lightest armored vehicles beyond 500m. IFVs and APCs aren't some rear vehicles that just need an MG for self-defense.

I just posted examples of failed AFV programs that tried to cram as much firepower onto a platform as possible. The BTR-94 obviously has it's share of problems, otherwise they would be more widespread than 40 with the Iraqi police. Ditto the BTR-90, which is in use only with the MVD. The EFV was an attempt to combine the roles of AAV and Bradley, and it ended being unable to do either.

Thewood1 understands what I'm talking about. If you've never served you never see the downsides to the latest and greatest kit. All the time you spend keeping it operational, or kicking it down to first or second line maintenance is time you aren't doing your job. Likewise the Styrker eliminated much of the need to have divisions worth of POMCUS parked in any possible theatre. There isn't much point having every brigade equipped with Bradleys if they're still in the states when the war ends. For reference, the Russia-Georgia war lasted 5 days, how many Bradley-equipped units could be combat ready and deployed in that time?

[Erwin]

9 hours ago, sburke said:

The Stryker's issue isn't that we can't utilize long range fire, it is operational mobility.  An 8x4 map doesn't demonstrate that much better than a 4x6 in CMx2.  Wake up Erwin, we are talking Styker's not Elefants. 

Yes..., MOBILITY.  CM2 maps rarely give opportunity for vehicular mobility.  As someone pointed out a Stryker is more like a halftrack than a tank and has little or no place in CM2 scenarios cos by the time one gets into the short range firefights of CM2, the "Stonkers" would be in the rear.

[DougPhresh]

13 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Yes..., MOBILITY.  CM2 maps rarely give opportunity for vehicular mobility.  As someone pointed out a Stryker is more like a halftrack than a tank and has little or no place in CM2 scenarios cos by the time one gets into the short range firefights of CM2, the "Stonkers" would be in the rear.

That also applies to BTRs, MTLBs, trucks, etc. Heck! It even applies to Recce companies and battalions!

[Thewood1]

That is why I always wondered why BFC went to such lengths to incorporate recon units like Fenneks and Stryker recons.  They have all the weaknesses of light armor and armament and none of the abilities of a what they should be used for...long range recon.  Same with engineering units that can't perform basic engineering functions.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Thewood1

[Sgt.Squarehead]

You don't HAVE to use the whole battalion in a battle. 

This thread doesn't actually seem to be going anywhere at all, some people just don't like Strykers much.....So what? 

[DougPhresh]

49 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

That is why I always wondered why BFC went to such lengths to incorporate recon units like Fenneks and Stryker recons.  They have all the weaknesses of light armor and armament and none of the abilities of a what they should be used for...long range recon.  Same with engineering units that can't perform basic engineering functions.

With the hull down command, I would really like to see mast-mounted sensors in play. With EW and UAVs simulated, it seems like a sensible addition.
 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

4 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

I am the rankest of rank amateurs, but this comment from above gets to the heart of it...

"Personally I prefer Bradley"

If logistics and speed to zone are of no consideration, then maybe we could all say that.  The Bradley and the Stryker aren't built for the same job.  Its like saying you prefer a Bradley over a HumVee.  To me, a Stryker is a big HumVee that can provide a little more protection and carry more troops than a HumVee.  One of the best comments I saw was that the Stryker was a modern equivalent of an M3 halftrack.  I think for those stuck in a WW2 and "big battle" mindset, its the best way to look at it.

Strykers were built to fill a perceived gap between the HumVee and the Bradley.  Now you can easily argue that the money spent on Strykers could have bought more Bradleys.  But the goal was to convert infantry units into highly mobile infantry units with vehicles that could provide some basic small arms and and shell splinter protection.  And by highly mobile, it means "to theater mobile" and "in theater mobile".  If you think that was a bad goal, then stop arguing about Stryker vs Bradley.  Argue about policy and logistics.  If someone is just into grog porn and always lusts for heavy iron, then the amateur starts to show through.

As to the argument that you should always be prepared to face a T-90...does that mean every HumVee should have an AT weapon also?  Should we load an AT weapon on every possible unit that might, even through poor planning and misuse, face a T-90?  I don't think many military people would agree with that.

 

 

Well #I would rather have a Bradley than a Humvee :-) Yes, Stryker is intended to be rapidly deployable but given that a lot of armies in the world do have tanks it should be obvious that, even in an intervention scenario your SBCT likely will face tanks. In the CMSF scenario that can range from the T54/T55 up to the T90S export model. However in the Ukraine scenario your SBCT is facing Sir Russian. The big boys :-) In a high intensity war against a Great Power opponent - not a COIN or a mid to high intensity war against a second or third rate power. In the Great Power War scenario and in the scenario of armoured combat against say Iran or North Korea that ATGM capability would be preferable. Instead of one Javelin ATGM launcher you could have both that and a vehicle mounted TOW launcher doubling your long range AT capability. And before we start objecting that you are carrying two different ATGM types this is currently what is done in the case of the Bradley - hence anyone who objects on those grounds is making a bit of a straw man argument IMHO. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

25 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You don't HAVE to use the whole battalion in a battle. 

This thread doesn't actually seem to be going anywhere at all, some people just don't like Strykers much.....So what? 

My view is why not consider adding an ATGM capability to some or all Strykers in the real world. It should be obvious this would improve capability against heavy armour.  For the same reasons that the Bradley was better than the M113. Given the geopolitical changes of the last few years it can be argued that priorities need to change as well such hat the army can be regard to fight a range of conflicts from COIN to high intensity armoured combat against another Great Power. We  really don't know for certain who the next War will be against. It might be against an opponent like ISIS, t might be North Korea , Iran or Syria. Or in might be against another Great Power - Russia or China I would not expect a SBCT to fare too well in high intensity armoured combat against the modern tanks of another Great Power unless they get the ATGM capability which will give them a fighting class.

Otherwise the SBCT could find that the first battle of the war turns nto a nasty little Kasserine - by which time it is a little late 

[Erwin]

"...adding an ATGM capability to some or all Strykers in the real world."  This makes so much sense that one wonders if it's a political issue - as in we don't want to be appearing to copy the Russians with their powerful BMP's (and thus acknowledge they may have superior ideas even in some cases?).

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

Yes..., MOBILITY.  CM2 maps rarely give opportunity for vehicular mobility.  As someone pointed out a Stryker is more like a halftrack than a tank and has little or no place in CM2 scenarios cos by the time one gets into the short range firefights of CM2, the "Stonkers" would be in the rear.

To a certain extent Stryker gives greater mobility and t is less vulnerable than a truck. It does however lack the AT armament the Bradley has. The Stryker's armour does give some limited protection against small arms fire and maybe against anything other than a direct HE hit, So does Bradley. As I keep saying to you it is the lack of ATGM capability that seems to be Stryker's biggest drawback

[Erwin]

BTW:  Re modern warfare, re my theory that we won't even get to the above sort of conflicts due to new systems...  Here's a game from Matrix that seems to deal with this:

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/693/details/Command.Chains.of.War

"Think the new war in the Pacific will be just like the 1940s but with better bullets? Think again! All-new systems and technologies radically change the face of modern high-level conflict. Network and cyber attacks pull apart carefully constructed communications networks, leaving forces in the field blind and separated from their consorts. Electromagnetic pulses delivered from high-altitude nuclear detonations or tactical EMP weapons fry vulnerable electronics, disarming powerful units in a split-second. Massive anti-ship ballistic missiles threaten to turn aircraft carriers into sinking, burning hulks. Railguns deliver accurate, punishing fire at long ranges, challenging the post-WW2 reign of guided missiles. Anti-satellite weapons disrupt the critical communications & intelligence nodes orbiting high in the stars. High-energy lasers burn their targets with intense beams invisible to the naked eye. Are you ready for the intricacies of 21st century war ?"

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

4 minutes ago, Erwin said:

"...adding an ATGM capability to some or all Strykers in the real world."  This makes so much sense that one wonders if it's a political issue - as in we don't want to be appearing to copy the Russians with their powerful BMP's (and thus acknowledge they may have superior ideas even in some cases?).

 I agree with you there. It could be a political issue. It could also be a procurement issue. Quite possibly it may be both of the above

[FoxZz]

Strykers carry infantryman which themslves carry Javelin.

Why do you want to expose the vehicle to tank fire, when you can dismount the infantry and set up a discreet anti-tank positions a few hundred meters away.

However, something like the Spike NLOS could be interesting to strap onto some dedicated Strykers (not all Strykers need it).

But when it comes to the breand and butter APC, it doesn't need more than a 12,7/Mk19.

Remember that adding more powerfull weapons often means adding a turret, which increases weight, reducce the number of infantry-man carried, increases the cost. A turret is the most expansive thing in a vehicle (about 2/3 of the cost). Furthermore, optimal fire support positions are often not at all optimal for unloading the infantry.

In the end you end up with the worst of both worlds, or a vehicle which is much more expansive.

Edited May 18, 2017 by FoxZz

[Rinaldi]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You don't HAVE to use the whole battalion in a battle. 

This thread doesn't actually seem to be going anywhere at all, some people just don't like Strykers much.....So what? 

No but you don't understand, its simply their opinion. Now pass me that rod so I can beat the horse's corpse too.

17 minutes ago, Erwin said:

"...adding an ATGM capability to some or all Strykers in the real world."  This makes so much sense that one wonders if it's a political issue - as in we don't want to be appearing to copy the Russians with their powerful BMP's (and thus acknowledge they may have superior ideas even in some cases?).

I actually laughed out loud. People in the office are staring. This is nearing tin-foil hat terrain; also I love the subtle comparison of the Stryker to a BMP, rather than to something that actually mirrors its doctrinal use. This kind of talk is the exact reason why no one is taking this thread seriously.

I wonder, if I created a thread whining that the BTR82A is no match for a bunch of Bradleys and Abrams firing on it from 1500m, what type of mockery would I invite? This is essentially what is happening in this thread.

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Oh dear. More Groupthink! That often is what leads organisations into big trouble

You often get the war you do not expect. For the past few decades mos conflicts have bee COIN with a smattering of high intensity armoured conflicts such as the Arab Israeli Wars, the India Pakistan Wars, Desert Strm. Until he end of the 1980s most peopl expected the big one to be a high intensity armoured war in Central Europe (at least until it went nuclear .

Prior to 1914 everyone expected small colonial wars and maybe short European Wars such as the Franco Prussian War.

In 1914 the war that we actually saw was a Great Power World War.

History has a way of surprising us and we don't always see the kind of war we thought was going to happen. Yes we might see more of the same. However. looking at the changing geopolitical scene we might find that the next conflict is actually a high intensity Great Power affair or perhaps another World War If that turns out to be the case we cannot afford the luxury of being equipped for a COIN only. The price of that would be paid in blood and at least early battlefield defeats 

[Rinaldi]

You've been repeatedly shown that wheeled APCs are not only suited for COIN style operations. You've blithely ignored that info every time. Your problem, asides from general amateur ignorance (which is a forgivable offense) is that you really can't think in anything past the micro. You say "SBCT this" and "SBCT that" but have only really talked about the vehicle, as if it does all of the formation's fighitng for it, rather than the actual nature of the organization and its doctrine.

Has the thought occured to you that wheeled-APC equipped units train and prepare for the worse-case scenario (an armored unit thrusting down their throat)? If it has, you haven't given it nearly enough thought. There's no one at Fort Benning sitting there going "Strykers will only fight these formations all of the time."

Also; tell me, where is this armored juggernaut that can have superiority in armor at all places at all times that a Stryker unit can never operate for fear of encountering a tank battalion around every bend in the road? Where is this mighty military, I want to ask them some questions about their budget.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Rinaldi

[FoxZz]

You have some serious scale issues. The type of armament carried by a troop transport is technical, tactical at most. The war of the future is in the strategic/doctrinal scale.

I don't think adding an atgm on all the vehicles of the US army will help the US winning the next war. Be serious. Furthermore, if the next war was really something unpredictable, then, what makes you believe that more AT weapons will be of any use ?

And Prior to 1914 every european country was training for the next European war, otherwise instead of huge conscript armies, everyone would have switched to small professional armies like the British.

There is no Group Thinking here.

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by FoxZz

[LUCASWILLEN05]

5 minutes ago, FoxZz said:

Strykers carry infantryman which themslves carry Javelin.

Why do you want to expose the vehicle to tank fire, when you can dismount the infantry and set up a discreet anti-tank positions a few hundred meters away.

However, something like the Spike NLOS could be interesting to strap onto some dedicated Strykers (not all Strykers need it).

But when it comes to the breand and butter APC, it doesn't need more than a 12,7/Mk19.

Yes I know. That is also the case with the Bradley as I made very clear in an earlier post. With all due respect that is not a intelligence test anybody should fail!!!

However, as I myself said earlier you don't necessarily have to add an ATGM to all Strykers. Maybe just one platoon per company or one vehicle per platoon. However the deal would be each vehicle having the ATGM in addition to the grenade launcher or the machine gun. I kind of assumed everybody would know that it is sensible for any armoured vehicle to have an anti infantry defense in addition to AT capability.Again I kind of assumed I would not have to spell that out to anybody.

[FoxZz]

2 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Yes I know. That is also the case with the Bradley as I made very clear in an earlier post. With all due respect that is not a intelligence test anybody should fail!!!

However, as I myself said earlier you don't necessarily have to add an ATGM to all Strykers. Maybe just one platoon per company or one vehicle per platoon. However the deal would be each vehicle having the ATGM in addition to the grenade launcher or the machine gun. I kind of assumed everybody would know that it is sensible for any armoured vehicle to have an anti infantry defense in addition to AT capability.Again I kind of assumed I would not have to spell that out to anybody.

This is already the case.

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/m1134_stryker.jpg

And I think the Javelin is very widespread in the US Infantry.

But if you know all that, what's the point ?

Edited May 18, 2017 by FoxZz