Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

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

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

You don't read, do you?

A single platoon of folks who train once a month kept the entire Battalion, even with AT Strykers and MGSes totally bottled up.  That some of the Strkyers had AT missiles was irrelevant.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

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

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

Um, yeah, pretty much all of us knew that...?

There was a mission in CMSF featuring the AT platoon of a Stryker Bn versus attacking Syrian armor in fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stryker is designed to occupy the middle ground between full scale all out war and small scale insurrections. It filled the need to give the Army enhanced strategic mobility.

In an all out war against a power like Russia who presumably will field large number of tanks and other fighting vehicles the primary weapon will be infantry teams armed with Javelins. A typical Styrker brigade has about 90 Javelin launchers. In built up or other favorable terrain I also wouldn't discount the capabilities of infantry armed with other hand held AT weapons. You don't need to completely destroy an enemy fight vehicle to be effective. 

The Russians know this and would use artillery to suppress the infantry, so really the primary danger to a Stryker Brigade may not be tanks, but artillery. What sane Russian commander knowing the capabilities of a Stryker Brigade and its Javelin armed infantry would send tanks straight into a Stryker brigade without serious artillery prep? As a counter to this a Stryker brigade can use the mobility of the Stryker to move around using its mobility and armor give a good degree of protection from artillery.

Also keep in mind the Stryker is just one piece of the puzzle. A brigade will also have its own organic artillery and could call on air support to help deal with tanks.

The military even in these times does not have unlimited money to buy whatever it desires.

The concept of independent tank battalions is an interesting one and could give some useful punch in a European style fight against Russia. A Stryker Brigade with an attached heavy tank battalion would be pretty formidable.  If I were King I would also add independent armored engineer companies with CEV's to the mix. and if money were no object an attached AA company and electronic warfare assets....

Edited by db_zero
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2017 at 9:32 AM, Thewood1 said:

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" 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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Independent Tank Battalions

It's really just formalizing what is already done.  I never had the pleasure but COIN or the drive to Baghdad, it was commonplace to see armor borrowed to augment the light formations, and later Strykers, and coming out of NTC, that's pretty much what the plan is for SBCTs facing tanks, is to augment them with armor.

I just believe having some pool of tanks to draw from that are not at the expense of other armor units would be wise.  Not to mention they'd be handy to make "heavy" armor units.

If they wound up being a division level asset (like MRLS or rotary wing), that's fine too.  I'd envisioned it being something like an "armored regiment" who was a non-deploying HQ unit that would hold the 3-4 tank battalions for the US  Army, and keep them trained and ready.  If we stuck the whole unit out at NTC too, they'd basically have a massive amount of "play" time while also getting to train with a wide variety of different kinds of units (or perhaps even attaching at NTC and following the trained unit home for pre-deployment activities).  Fort Lewis might work as a home station too, just with the armor living out at the Yakima Training Center (the facilities already exist thanks to the old 81st BCT's footprint, and there's a Marine Reserve armor unit that uses YTC too).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

@panzersaurkrautwerfer, you'd need to manage these "independent tank battalions" in peace time one way or another. Like hire/fire people, pay salaries etc. Making "independent" support functions for each "independent" battalion would be an overshoot so you'll inevitably end up pooling them together in some division-level structure or attaching them to an existing one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And why not return the brigade to APC M113, mobility and patency at the level of Bradley. M113 can be strengthened by armor and weapons. These APC in warehouses will suffice for several world wars.

Edited by HUSKER2142
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

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

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You get a couple of 'em in the first mission of the campaign.  I don't know about the rest because I haven't finished the first yet.  You start with 'em on map holding down the far flanks of your formation.   I think no one brought em up because we assumed you knew about em.   I kinda brought 'em up indirectly when you were referring to the MGS as if it were the AT Stryker, but I didn't spell out m1134 by name.  No harm in not knowing about this stuff because your busy with real life or any other reason, but the reason you got on ignore lists and added people to your ignore list is that you started attacking the people whos real life is working on this stuff.  Not a great idea when you don't have the time to read the wikipedia articles.  This does seem like about the close but I'm sure that upgunning the Stryker (or m113 ;) ) will remain a discussion in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand one of the biggest features of the Stryker is under the hood. It takes advantage of the revolution in advanced microchip, display, interface and networking technology. Like warships many look at a US Navy warship and compare it with a Russian one bristling with guns and missiles and comes to the conclusion that the Russians seriously outmatch us. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The Javelin is also another example of a system that is a product of the revolution in advanced microchip tech.

I would also venture to guess that the US Army and Marines while desiring new or improved weapon systems are placing as great a need for small, mid and large unit cyberware specialists who are adept at offensive and defensive cyber warfare and capable of deploying in combat and support units. Like the private sector the demand for such personnel is tremendous and growing.

The recent ransomeware attacks and theft of sophisticated hacking tools from the intelligence agencies is making this a high priority everywhere...

Re-Independent tank battalions: Almost sounds somewhat similar to the independent tank destroyer concept in WW2, then again there were lots independent tank battalions and some if not all US armored divisions were divided up into separate combat commands-CCA/CCB/CCC or something like that. I haven't kept up with things lately so I don't know if the Army still uses a divisional or brigade type org. I think the Marines use the regimental system?

A few independent battalions at the NTC is an interesting concept. I would also have them rotated to Europe a year or 2 at a time as that's presumably where they would end up be needed. I also believe that the Europeans need to step up to the plate and provide a few independent armored units if they are going to be serious about defending NATO.

Perhaps some creativity can be utilized. Perhaps the West can train some specialized tank hunter infantry units and arm them with Javelins or similar weapons to supplement AT capabilities. 

Of course the best approach would be diplomacy. Come to some sort of mutual understanding and agreement. The last thing anyone wants is a real hot war between the West and Russia, but at the same time you do need a credible deterrence to back diplomacy up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

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 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2017 at 9:55 AM, FoxZz said:

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_

 

oh yeah here it is page 4

 

Edited by cool breeze
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

You get a couple of 'em in the first mission of the campaign.  I don't know about the rest because I haven't finished the first yet.  You start with 'em on map holding down the far flanks of your formation.   I think no one brought em up because we assumed you knew about em.   I kinda brought 'em up indirectly when you were referring to the MGS as if it were the AT Stryker, but I didn't spell out m1134 by name.  No harm in not knowing about this stuff because your busy with real life or any other reason, but the reason you got on ignore lists and added people to your ignore list is that you started attacking the people whos real life is working on this stuff.  Not a great idea when you don't have the time to read the wikipedia articles.  This does seem like about the close but I'm sure that upgunning the Stryker (or m113 ;) ) will remain a discussion in the future.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, db_zero said:

From what I understand one of the biggest features of the Stryker is under the hood. It takes advantage of the revolution in advanced microchip, display, interface and networking technology. Like warships many look at a US Navy warship and compare it with a Russian one bristling with guns and missiles and comes to the conclusion that the Russians seriously outmatch us. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The Javelin is also another example of a system that is a product of the revolution in advanced microchip tech.

I would also venture to guess that the US Army and Marines while desiring new or improved weapon systems are placing as great a need for small, mid and large unit cyberware specialists who are adept at offensive and defensive cyber warfare and capable of deploying in combat and support units. Like the private sector the demand for such personnel is tremendous and growing.

The recent ransomeware attacks and theft of sophisticated hacking tools from the intelligence agencies is making this a high priority everywhere...

Re-Independent tank battalions: Almost sounds somewhat similar to the independent tank destroyer concept in WW2, then again there were lots independent tank battalions and some if not all US armored divisions were divided up into separate combat commands-CCA/CCB/CCC or something like that. I haven't kept up with things lately so I don't know if the Army still uses a divisional or brigade type org. I think the Marines use the regimental system?

A few independent battalions at the NTC is an interesting concept. I would also have them rotated to Europe a year or 2 at a time as that's presumably where they would end up be needed. I also believe that the Europeans need to step up to the plate and provide a few independent armored units if they are going to be serious about defending NATO.

Perhaps some creativity can be utilized. Perhaps the West can train some specialized tank hunter infantry units and arm them with Javelins or similar weapons to supplement AT capabilities. 

Of course the best approach would be diplomacy. Come to some sort of mutual understanding and agreement. The last thing anyone wants is a real hot war between the West and Russia, but at the same time you do need a credible deterrence to back diplomacy up. 

Regarding tactical cyber attacks drone hacking at least can almost certainly be done now. Maybe hacking into command networks ia also quite feasible http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wondering-how-hack-military-drone-its-all-google-1500326

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

×
×
  • Create New...