striker mgs spotting

[ishfar94]

Can anyone tell me how good the striker mgs is at spotting. Right now i am playing the us campaign(the one with all strikers) and i cannot seem to spot enemy tanks (t72b3s in this case) before they spot me. In one situation i had the striker behind a small hillock with the gun sticking out looking down a road(i checked los and yes i could hit anything down the road). t72b3 rolls into the road, sees me fires a shot, hits the hillock, reloads and then fires another and takes me out. my striker got a possible contact on the t72 but didn't even spot it properly  so yeah how bad is the striker's spotting? been having the same issues with the other mgs. Now i don't know much but i thought us vehicles normally had better spotting than russian vehicles/

 

Thanks

[MikeyD]

In the real world Stryker was nearly withdrawn from service after its first year in Iraq with claims of it being 'combat ineffective'. Crews complained bitterly that nothing worked on it. The electronics were known to overheat, shutting down the commander's and gunner's optics and communications. If you shut down the wide field of view camera up top the vehicle is practically blind. Stryker MGS performs better in CMSF2 because they're facing a lower quality opponent. In CMBS, though, the enemy is bringing their 'A' game.

[Erwin]

So, in the ME heat was a problem.  That should not be such an issue in the Ukraine.  Plus this takes place years after CMSF2 era - one would imagine improvements have been made. 

So why so poor at spotting?  If this was WW2 it would be better to be unbuttoned.  But in modern era, it's usually best to be buttoned as the electronics should be superior.  Could just be another vagary of the CM2 system where LOS and spotting is sometimes wanky.  

[Howler]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

So why so poor at spotting?  If this was WW2 it would be better to be unbuttoned.  But in modern era, it's usually best to be buttoned as the electronics should be superior.  Could just be another vagary of the CM2 system where LOS and spotting is sometimes wanky.  

True but, I try to keep my non Abrams vehicles unbuttoned until contact is made. With the MGS, spotting is better unbuttoned. The Russians need all the help they can get with spotting so, I'll even dismount the tank HQ unit to help the platoon... YMMV.

Abrams are scary...

[Attilaforfun]

Strykers go unbuttoned until bullets fly.

[Erwin]

9 hours ago, Howler said:

I try to keep my non Abrams vehicles unbuttoned until contact is made.

IIRC a discussion about this that concluded that one has better spotting potential by keeping a vehicle with advanced tech buttoned.  In the case of BMP's and perhaps BTR's one should try and mount an extra man or two in the unbuttoned vehicle for best spotting chance.

[Howler]

14 hours ago, Erwin said:

IIRC a discussion about this that concluded that one has better spotting potential by keeping a vehicle with advanced tech buttoned.  In the case of BMP's and perhaps BTR's one should try and mount an extra man or two in the unbuttoned vehicle for best spotting chance.

At night yes. Otherwise, even coalition forces benefit from being unbuttoned. The difference just doesn't warrant them exposing themselves once the shooting starts. Everyone spots better in the day by eyeball. Period. Again, Abrams are the only vehicle I don't bother with. The others get buttoned once there's the slightest chance of mayhem. The RUS, UKR and SF2 forces benefit more from it.

The Javelin CLU is an awesome spotting tool and no unit should ever leave home without it.

The OP was inquiring about the MGS. It's worth popping the hatch for - at least until the lead flies.

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, Howler said:

Otherwise, even coalition forces benefit from being unbuttoned.

This is interesting as I bought into the idea that the tech is now so good that tankers stay buttoned up and look at everything via thermals as it's easier to spot the enemy regardless whether it is day or night.  Or, are you saying that is only accurate for Abrams and all other NATO vehicles (and Red of course) should be unbuttoned as long as is safe for best spotting?

[Attilaforfun]

Erwin...most of our activity occurs in urban areas. There are civies EVERYWHERE. So what you are thinking of as spotting is very different than what occurs. Empty battlefield (of civies) is the exception one I only experienced once (Tal Afar). We would still ride unbuttoned to contact even then. Stryker ATGMs are front and center with 240 and M4 in the thick of it.

[Erwin]

Thanks for the RL clarification.  (Am primarily concerned about how the game handles these features rather than RL.)

[Splinty]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

This is interesting as I bought into the idea that the tech is now so good that tankers stay buttoned up and look at everything via thermals as it's easier to spot the enemy regardless whether it is day or night.  Or, are you saying that is only accurate for Abrams and all other NATO vehicles (and Red of course) should be unbuttoned as long as is safe for best spotting?

Bradleys have similar sighting and IR systems to Abrams. I leave them buttoned as well.

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Splinty said:

Bradleys have similar sighting and IR systems to Abrams. I leave them buttoned as well.

We better clarify that we are talking about the game, right?  Attilaforfun is talking about RL situational use.

[Splinty]

17 hours ago, Erwin said:

We better clarify that we are talking about the game, right?  Attilaforfun is talking about RL situational use.

I'm talking about RL and in game. I'm a former Bradley gunner.

[Attilaforfun]

1 hour ago, Splinty said:

I'm talking about RL and in game. I'm a former Bradley gunner.

Still a crunchy. :)    (19k here)

[Erwin]

Juts to clarify:  You advise that it's best to leave Bradleys and Abrams buttoned up at all times.  But, other vehicles benefit from being unbuttoned (if safe) for situational awareness/spotting(?).  

[Attilaforfun]

Just so you don't think I'm totally FOS...

 

[Splinty]

22 hours ago, Erwin said:

Juts to clarify:  You advise that it's best to leave Bradleys and Abrams buttoned up at all times.  But, other vehicles benefit from being unbuttoned (if safe) for situational awareness/spotting(?).  

Yes, exactly.

 

[Erwin]

Very helpful info.  Thanks.

[MikeyD]

It should be noted that Stryker MGS is not an anti-tank vehicle, its a close infantry support weapon system that's usually tasked with firing low velocity squash head rounds at buildings. Its anti-tank capabilities are marginal against modern tanks, more of a last-resort self defense feature than a serious capability. Stryker MGS does get more anti-tank rounds in CMBS than in CMSF2 because CMBS is such an armor-rich environment. The downside is each APFSDS round carried means one less HE round carried. Stocking up to fight against tanks effectively neuters it for close infantry support.

[DerKommissar]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

It should be noted that Stryker MGS is not an anti-tank vehicle, its a close infantry support weapon system

Couldn't have said it better, myself. The L7 was designed to take on T-55s, T-62s, and maybe early/export T-72s. Any 3-rd generation MBT, should shrug it off (provided its not flanked). The MGS was simply not designed to engage modern tanks. It was fashionable to ignore conventional peer-opponent requirements, at the time.

Edited March 3, 2020 by DerKommissar

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Agreed.....MGS isn't exactly overloaded with ammo to start with and it's job is definitely not hunting for modern main battle tanks.