Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

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.

Rinaldi I have repeatedly said that the issue is not wheels or tracks. It is Anti Tank capability. All I am saying is that if you go to war against an enemy with a large tank force (like Russia, China, North Korea, Syria) you can expect to face tanks!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 minutes ago, FoxZz said:

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 addin an atgm on all the vehicles of the US army will help the US winning the next war. Be serious.

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.

 

Yes there is Those who forget their History are doomed to relive it. You are again foolishly missing the point which is that the next war might we;l NOT be a COIN but rather a high intesity armoured war against either a second rate power or another Great Power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to now know what you might face, that is true for any unit and formation.  The Stryker formation is built to get there quickly and hold the line until heavier stuff is needed, if needed.  That is why the US Army has multiple formation types.  

Again, is it the Stryker you don't like or the concept of the faster deployability of a mobile infantry unit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you read above...the Stryker units were built for high intensity warfare, it was shoehorned into COIN.

So let's start from the beginning...how would you design a cost-effective, high strategic mobility unit, with high tactical mobility.

Edited by Thewood1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FoxZz said:

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 ?

The point should be perfectly clear. Bradley has a TOW ATGM plus the portable Javelin ATGMso why ot do something si milar with some or all of the Strykers 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

Stryker AT already exists, plus the Javelins are very well represented in every 1126.  There is probably more AT firepower in a Stryker Company than in an Abrams company.

The MGS which is a long way from ideal,general firepower. We are talking AT capability. Specifically! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

God, you're stubborn

Once again, Strykers and Bradleys don't have the same mission ! Strykers belong to motorised troops while Bradley are mechanized. The difference is that one fights mainly mounted, the other mainly dismounted.

Furthermore, many people question the relevance of having TOW vehicles on Bradleys.

The MGS isn't the AT platform of the Stryker Brigade !! The MGS is an assault gun meant tu suport infantry by blowing out combat positions and so on.

This is !

Stryker_ATGM_Anti-Tank_Armoured_Vehicle_

 

Edited by FoxZz
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

The MGS which is a long way from ideal,general firepower. We are talking AT capability. Specifically! 

Hold on a minute...where did MGS come from.  Do you even read posts or just assume you know what they say?

btw, this is beyond what I saw.  Not sure where fundung is.

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

The MGS isn't the AT Stryker.

Exactly...seems some people that are debating here are really lacking in being able to gather information.

btw, just saw the first prototype of a turreted Stryker was out in January of this year.  The main issue to me is that it kills a part of the strategic mobility piece because it will now only fit in a C-17.  Anything smaller than a strategic lift transport will no longer be able to carry the Stryker.

 

edit...So now, by the time you get a full Stryker unit in theater, you might as well have sent Bradleys.  By adding that turret, you have killed a key capability of the Stryker units.  That is called politics hurting capability.

Edited by Thewood1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread looks like a dialogue of the deafs.

One asks a question, gets an answer, but he's not happy with it so he asks the same question after calling for bad group thinking that will cause the end of the US because they didn't see the next high intensity war coming.

Yet he doesn't know what a Stryker Brigade is made of.

Edited by FoxZz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall an article awhile ago that said during one training exercise a large percentage of Bradley TOWs fired failed to hit the target, and a larger percentage of commanders attempting to fire their TOWs failed to get them to launch at all. Stryker MGS was plagued by electronics overheating and shutting down, including its vital surveillance camera. Adding 'stuff' to a vehicle often only gives the appearance of fixing a problem. If the 'stuff' doesn't work properly or the crew is insufficiently trained it only compounds their problems. Plus there's the psychological issue of commanders thinking their tarted-up APCs are tanks and placing them into harm's way needlessly. The more your vehicle looks like a tank the more a foolish commander will use them as tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MikeyD said:

I recall an article awhile ago that said during one training exercise a large percentage of Bradley TOWs fired failed to hit the target, and a larger percentage of commanders attempting to fire their TOWs failed to get them to launch at all. Stryker MGS was plagued by electronics overheating and shutting down, including its vital surveillance camera. Adding 'stuff' to a vehicle often only gives the appearance of fixing a problem. If the 'stuff' doesn't work properly or the crew is insufficiently trained it only compounds their problems. Plus there's the psychological issue of commanders thinking their tarted-up APCs are tanks and placing them into harm's way needlessly. The more your vehicle looks like a tank the more a foolish commander will use them as tanks.

And the more the ennemy will target them with heavy weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this turret is unmanned and doesn't penetrate into the vehicle though. So it might be possible to move around the Stryker and the turret in 2 differant C130, even though it is more complicated.  Or the US can buy some A400M to carry their bigger vehicles while keeping the tactical capabilities of the C130 ^^.

I'm wondering what will be the role of those new vehicles. Will they replace the MGS ? Will they be recon vehicles ? I doubt all the Srykers will be converted to this standard.

Edited by FoxZz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Obviously, it they could make the turret mounted be on hydraulics so it could be LOWERED into the hull, it would solve the transportability issue!

I'm off to the patent office...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I saw a picture that shows the commander with his head out of the turret hatch, so it might be manned.  I'll see if I can find it.  I would think if it was unmanned, it would look like most external mounts for small caliber cannons.

 

This is what I saw.  It was just a set of hatches open on top.  Might just be maintenance hatches.

The U.S. Army has received its first Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles with 30mm cannons. (U.S. Army)

Edited by Thewood1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

stryker-1-5-l.jpg

This is the prototype.  Tell me that helps a Stryker brigade do its job.  With the original Stryker, the RWS was relatively easily and partially disassembled to fit in smaller transports.  Don't think that will be the case here.

So expain this then

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/army-manufacturer-face-criticism-over-combat-vehicle

In particular this with the caveat that Iraq was COIN. not armourd warfare

"The whole basis for the Stryker was the fundamentally false assumption that you did not need heavy armor and you did not need direct, organic firepower," retired Col. Douglas MacGregor, a military writer and analyst, told Cybercast News Service. "The idea was that you would know where the enemy was and the enemy would not know where you were. This is hardly the case in Iraq."
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

So expain this then

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/army-manufacturer-face-criticism-over-combat-vehicle

In particular this with the caveat that Iraq was COIN. not armourd warfare

"The whole basis for the Stryker was the fundamentally false assumption that you did not need heavy armor and you did not need direct, organic firepower," retired Col. Douglas MacGregor, a military writer and analyst, told Cybercast News Service. "The idea was that you would know where the enemy was and the enemy would not know where you were. This is hardly the case in Iraq."
 

You are making my point.  As you said, you fight the war in front of you.  The Stryker was in development before Iraq.  It was forced into that role and did a good job.  What am I not getting here?  Is it me?  Or is it him?  I mean, its him, right?

Now lets go back.  Can you please read the posts above and respond with a coherent answer.  Lets stop moving off the question each time its asked.  Can you please respond to the multiple questions above  I think that would help everyone to see what point you are making.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I recall an article awhile ago that said during one training exercise a large percentage of Bradley TOWs fired failed to hit the target, and a larger percentage of commanders attempting to fire their TOWs failed to get them to launch at all. Stryker MGS was plagued by electronics overheating and shutting down, including its vital surveillance camera. Adding 'stuff' to a vehicle often only gives the appearance of fixing a problem. If the 'stuff' doesn't work properly or the crew is insufficiently trained it only compounds their problems. Plus there's the psychological issue of commanders thinking their tarted-up APCs are tanks and placing them into harm's way needlessly. The more your vehicle looks like a tank the more a foolish commander will use them as tanks.

Come on, Do we really expect anything like ideal advertised performance on the test range let alone the battlefield. TOW failed on this occasion but it has been tried an tested in combat on many occasions since the early 1970s Sure there are issue with trainng and maintenace. So address those issuesToW is certainly not the only option but it is at leas tried and tested. A known quantity. We don't know what issues Javelin might have assuming it can be vehicle mounted

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...