Stryker - Pros and Cons

[c3k]

11 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

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.  

In wartime, the waivers are usually pretty broad. It's got to do with warranty and maintenance on the aircraft. Contract stuff rather than bent metal.

As well, there are other limits which sometimes aren't adhered to too closely. In wartime, if the Army fits it on and it will fly, it goes.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

3 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

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.

My point for the umpteenth time is at "the next war" may well be a high intensity armoured conflict of the type we see in CMBS. 

If that turns out to bbe the case I suggest you rad up on what happened at Kasserine where he US army went into battle with unsuitable equipmetnt and, at least in the early phases got their asses handed to them

The risk of something similar happening in a future war against Russia applies today Even Trump thinks there are problems. t may well be that Mattis and McMaster have raised issues with Tump. Even though the military may well be training hard does not preclude deficiencies in certain areas that do need to be dealt with.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-army-combat-readiness_us_57f25436e4b024a52d2fa563

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-us-army-getting-ready-the-unthinkable-war-russia-or-17267

[Thewood1]

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

[Thewood1]

14 minutes ago, c3k said:

In wartime, the waivers are usually pretty broad. It's got to do with warranty and maintenance on the aircraft. Contract stuff rather than bent metal.

As well, there are other limits which sometimes aren't adhered to too closely. In wartime, if the Army fits it on and it will fly, it goes.

14 minutes ago, c3k said:

In wartime, the waivers are usually pretty broad. It's got to do with warranty and maintenance on the aircraft. Contract stuff rather than bent metal.

As well, there are other limits which sometimes aren't adhered to too closely. In wartime, if the Army fits it on and it will fly, it goes.

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.

[Rinaldi]

1 hour ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

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

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.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Rinaldi

[Thewood1]

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.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

33 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

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

No. But I do not have the time to deal with what is very obviously classic groupthink. I  can and will make use of the ignore option though 

[HerrTom]

28 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

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.

 

I agree with you on the rest, but I'm a bit confused on this bit. A BMP battalion has as many ATGMs as BMPs, plus the AT platoon. If it's made of BMP-2s, the Konkurs can even be dismounted.

BTR formations used to have a Metis in every platoon, but I'm not sure if that's still the case, plus the weapons platoon carrying a few heavier ATGMs.

It seems like a lot of anti tank capacity to me. Though it's similar to the firepower in a Stryker unit, with slightly longer range.

[Codename Duchess]

If you say anything less than "I agree completely." to Lucas you will encounter exactly what is going on. 

Lucas, the primary weapon system of the Stryker is it's infantry squad and all their weapons. I highly recommend you check out "Pentagon Wars."

[LUCASWILLEN05]

23 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

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.

Or in the real world something went horribly wrong.It is an unfair fight. However,  if the SBCTs and  other light forces are committed to combat because you could not wait for the heavy armour for whatever military/political reason that and probably a mauling is what you can expect. One wonders what might have happened in August/September 1990 had the Iraqis come across the Saudi border. That doesn't mean you lose. Just that a lot of US soldiers get killed,  wounded or captured  And if they don't have the best possible equipment the price of that is to be paid in blood whether the reason is politics. money or military arrogance and complacency. Sometimes I think that the US military deserves a beating on the battlefield - I am reminded of those arrogant Prussian officers sharpening their swords on the steps of the French embassy before marchng of to a couple of places called Jena and Auerstadt. Maybe the US army will meet a similar debacle n Ukraine or the Baltic States before the institution learns a necessary lesson in humility - as it had to learn the necessary lesson at Kasserine n WW2

[Rinaldi]

31 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I agree with you on the rest, but I'm a bit confused on this bit. A BMP battalion has as many ATGMs as BMPs, plus the AT platoon. If it's made of BMP-2s, the Konkurs can even be dismounted.

BTR formations used to have a Metis in every platoon, but I'm not sure if that's still the case, plus the weapons platoon carrying a few heavier ATGMs.

It seems like a lot of anti tank capacity to me. Though it's similar to the firepower in a Stryker unit, with slightly longer range.

My bad, I definitely spoke imprecisely. I was referring to the BTR MRRs; and I think the salient response would be in mobile firepower; shoulder-launched Javelins don't go as far as a Kornet but they set up a hell of a lot faster and let a crew back out much faster too . You're correct viz. the AT-13 btw, which is the only shoulder launched system to my knowledge in service at the company level that's relatively modern.

My overall point is; BTR MRRs have repeteadly proven themselves in conflict on the scale from low-intensity to high-tempo, and as you point out they're not dissimilar to a SBCT. I suppose ultimately who has more aggregate firepower is academic, since they're near enough in philosophy and application.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Rinaldi

[Thewood1]

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

[LUCASWILLEN05]

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

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/06/08/army-ffv-future-fighting-vehicle-bradley-bae-requirements-abrams-stryker/28535079/

[Rinaldi]

Sorry, Lucas, I must continue to disagree. The issue is very much survivability. If a vehicle is expected to fight enemy armor than it must be able to survive the battlescape long enough to do so and then either break contact or re-acquire contact. Bradleys can do so; an IBCT Anti-Armor unit can theoritically do so through stealth (re: Humvees are a damn sight easier to miss than a Stryker), its ability to reach out and touch someone (TOWs have about twice the effective range of the Javelin) and  through its ability to dismount the systems, which speak to both of the above.

Since the entire reason d'etre of a SBCT is to be more mobile than a IBCT, and less heavy than an ABCT, we don't have much further wiggle room here to improve on its firepower without hamstringing its main assets. Its why, like the M113 before it, the Stryker has an entire family of vehicles based around its chassis. Its a smarter move than trying to have one vehicle do everything.

I won't even address whether the Stryker concept is flawed from top to bottom, though I will be fair to you and say that you're not the first or the last person who will hold that view.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Rinaldi

[LUCASWILLEN05]

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 :-(

[Thewood1]

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.

[Thewood1]

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

Edited May 18, 2017 by Thewood1

[Thewood1]

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.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

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 :-(

[shift8]

2 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

My point for the umpteenth time is at "the next war" may well be a high intensity armoured conflict of the type we see in CMBS. 

If that turns out to bbe the case I suggest you rad up on what happened at Kasserine where he US army went into battle with unsuitable equipmetnt and, at least in the early phases got their asses handed to them

The risk of something similar happening in a future war against Russia applies today Even Trump thinks there are problems. t may well be that Mattis and McMaster have raised issues with Tump. Even though the military may well be training hard does not preclude deficiencies in certain areas that do need to be dealt with.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-army-combat-readiness_us_57f25436e4b024a52d2fa563

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-us-army-getting-ready-the-unthinkable-war-russia-or-17267

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. 

[shift8]

1 hour ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

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

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/06/08/army-ffv-future-fighting-vehicle-bradley-bae-requirements-abrams-stryker/28535079/

We buy APC's and make them are they are because we need a cheap better-than-a-truck method of moving around infantry. Key abilities are capacity and being cheap. It need to be cheap because you dont want your hauler being 9 gazillion dollars. If I wanted a hauler that cost as much as a bradley: I would just build a Bradley. 

You keep making the assumption that the budget exists to make some kind of super stryker. Except that the specific reason we dont just make a ALL-IFV force is because this is too expensive for the number of mangs you need to haul. IF that kind of money existed, we would just make more Abrams and Bradleys.  

[Thewood1]

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.

[cool breeze]

Makes a lot of sense but I can't help thinking the 30mm Stryker is COOL, and its probably even helpful to have some of 'em.  I think the BTR-82 is one of Russia's best IFVs, seems legit to try out our own version.  I get that the turret is more of a problem for us than them because of out strategic airlift goals but its besides my point.

Oh and I'll add that I think the cannon is a better addition than the ATGM.  I don't find IFV's super helpful against tanks no matter what the armament, the Javalins already make the Strykers great vs tanks as is, but more anti-infantry and anti-IFV firepower from the Strykers would sometimes be pretty handy.  I don't really feel great about shooting IFV's with the Javalins if I think there might be tanks coming.  I do it, but I'd rather shoot 'em at the tanks.  Would be nice to take some of 'em out with 30mm.

Edited May 18, 2017 by cool breeze

[DougPhresh]

I don't know what else can be said. This is the kind of thinking that leads to doctrinal failure. You can't jam every weapons system into every role. An APC is not an IFV let alone a tank. Nor should it be! That's all there is to it.

Procurement is a mess already, designing anything on wheels or tracks to take on the latest generation of MBT is foolish in the extreme.

[db_zero]

The debate rages...I think you would be better off putting the money and resources in arming the grunts that ride in Strykers with more javelins and other AT weapons than spending the money and resources into trying to turn the Stryker into a tank.

In my laymans mind the Styrker is a fast high tech battlefield taxi who's main task is to deliver the infantry close to, but not into a battle. Aside from its strategic mobility, its wheels also affords great operational mobility. Once it drops off the infantry close to the battle line the infantry scouts and detects threats while the Strykers provide supporting fire to the infantry. if the threat is deemed to be a high threat to the Strykers and/or infantry the infantry mounts up and the Strykers will leave the scene or call up tanks, airpower or ICM to deal with an armored threat.

The Stryker also has a low sound signature.

What it is not is a tank and arming it like one always runs the risk of a commander thinking it is a tank and trying to use it like one.

From what I've heard the Rangers and Special Forces have taken a liking to the Stryker, but that's outside this discussion.

I saw a while back an attempt to find a 30mm system for the Stryker that is under consideration to arm some or all of the force eventually.