According to CMSF2 lore vs Civilian-Military casualties & Political factor?

[LongLeftFlank]

10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Abandoned?  Huh?  The US Army has expanded the number of brigades and is in fact now in the process of developing the third generation Stryker vehicles:

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/9/18/army-begins-fielding-upgraded-third-generation-strykers

Not what I'd call abandoned.

Steve

I stand corrected... kinda.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/us-army-moves-ahead-with-stryker-hull-modification-06308/

...My CMSF experience left me a little 'meh' though regarding the Stryker's capability in either ranged combats or MOUT. Hence, my 'fish nor fowl' comment on these Jack-of-all-trades platforms (cf. the LCS or the F35). But I claim no expertise. Time will tell, I suppose.

P.S.  It looks like foreign buyers to date are mainly focused on policing within their own borders. So yeah, I'll just leave that there, dangling awkwardly.

Brazil, Colombia, and Peru are all looking to upgrade their armored fleets and the Stryker is seen as an attractive capability that will help with countering threats from “illicit networks” within their borders. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by LongLeftFlank
Foily

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I stand corrected... kinda.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/us-army-moves-ahead-with-stryker-hull-modification-06308/

No, wrong there too.  The vulnerability of the original Strykers to IEDs is well known and not unique to it.  The whole reason for MRAPs being introduced was NOTHING the US military had as transport was up to the challenge of IEDs.  Not even Bradleys.  Doesn't indicate a particular failing of the Stryker, but just about all military vehicles in NATO inventory prior to Iraq.

Similarly, offroad mobility issues are more inherent to the Stryker's wheeled nature than something specific to the Stryker. Just like the limited operational range and tactical speed of a Bradley is inherent to a heavy tracked vehicle.  Every system has its pros and cons.

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

...My CMSF experience left me a little 'meh' though regarding the Stryker's capability in either ranged combats or MOUT. Hence, my 'fish nor fowl' comment on these Jack-of-all-trades platforms (cf. the LCS or the F35). But I claim no expertise. Time will tell, I suppose.

Prior to Strykers most infantry engaged the enemy in Humvees.  Tactically, the Stryker is vastly superior to the Humvee platform in nearly all ways.  Operationally the Stryker is vastly superior to the Bradely.  Vastly easier to get into theater, support once there, and redeploy as needed. Soldiers who have to live in their vehicles day in and day out speak very highly of the Stryker.  Bradley grunts do not speak as lovingly from what I've read. 

None of these things are simulated in CM, but they are never-the-less massively important considerations in the real world.

The US Army has expanded the number of Stryker brigades and is upgrading the fleet for a third time.  Hardly abandoned

Steve

[danfrodo]

Either this Admin feller knows his stuff or he is a persuasive liar.  Either way, at least shows talent.

I just want striker w some like a 50mm autocannon.  That would be cool. 

[The_Capt]

I gotta say that on the whole "Medium Weight Theory" I am somewhat undecided.  Logistically and production-wise medium wheeled forces make a lot of sense.  They are far more mobile than heavy, and Light for that matter when one factors in operational ranges.  They can hit and they can take hits to a point but here they remain untested really.  Stryker/LAV etc have not really had a chance to be tested in a stand-up near-peer fight.  There were rumors that the US was leaning to that COA in OIF but in the end went with armor.  They definitely have been employed in small wars (e.g. COIN) and had pluses and some minuses [aside: the IED thing is a red herring really, I have seen an MBT taken out by one, MRAPs too...just need more boom boom.].  

Then how much is real and how much is culture?  Conventional western militaries are addicted to steel and mass, and despite a sense of growing unease at the long term utility vs vulnerability, we cannot seem to get off them.  In then end a military out there somewhere is waiting in the wings to break the paradigm with synthetic-mass through Light forces (unmanned, mini-Iron Dome and cloud-based Joint fires) and then we will all flip out.  The real question is exactly at what point can such an approach be counted upon?

 

[chuckdyke]

Lol they were peeling potatoes for a few months.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

14 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Royal Doulton

More Heresy! 

I'm from Worcester. 

[domfluff]

I'm fully onboard with the Stryker concept, at least with the core vehicle itself - a light infantry transport with excellent optics, comms and networking makes a ton of sense to me. It's not a front line fighting vehicle, and isn't intended as such. 

Certain aspects of it haven't worked out - the supporting weapons (TOW Strykers, MGS) seem a bit lacklustre or awkward, and the air mobile part of it (similar to the earlier CVR(T) concept) hasn't really played out. It's also far easier to see how the formation works in defence than an offensive action - the latter still being a mostly unsolved problem, as I understand it.

I'm less clear on the wheeled/tracked choice. One of the more amusing things that happened to me after the release of Cold War was that for the first time I caught myself sounding like a reformer. I was playing a CMSF match, and one of my Strykers bogged in a really awkward place, on a random patch of sand. "This wouldn't have happened if that was an M113" was what I caught myself thinking, which made me giggle. I've also had far more luck with the M150 in Cold War than the Stryker TOW Variant. I think part of that might be the speed it can reverse, popping smoke, dropping behind cover and keeping itself alive longer. I have a terrible track record with the M1134 TOW.

The wheeled/tracked argument is primarily a logistical one, and therefore mostly out of scope for CM, outside of campaign scripting. I know I'd rather have tracks on the tactical level.

The Stryker's performance in CMSF seems to match up well to accounts from Iraq. Like many things in Shock Force, that means that it teaches bad habits, and some of those are that you can roll up your Stryker to outside RPG range pretty safely. This isn't something you can get away with in Black Sea, which the battle pack Stryker campaign does a really good (and challenging) job of illustrating. I don't think that CMBS campaign is a mark against the Stryker, so much as it's the game punishing you for doing things badly.

Edited August 29, 2021 by domfluff

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

the Stryker

The Stryker takes off from the Humvee which was not robust enough for urban warfare. You don't make yourself very popular with the locals if you rip their infrastructure up with tracked vehicles. It is fair comment to say it doesn't matter in CM but for the sake of history Strykers were used with this consideration in mind. Air portability is another consideration. I think it is one hell of a system. 

[Battlefront.com]

The major influence on US military thinking about moving to wheeled armor traces back to Kosovo.  The US needed to get an armored force deployed very quickly.  Snarky paraphrasing follows:

PRESIDENT = we need to do something about Kosovo right away!!

PENTAGON = not a problem, we're super awesome and wicked capable.

PRESIDENT = I don't want us to lose anybody because people are wary about going in there at all.  Can we get something deployed that is intimidating as well as capable?

PENTAGON = sure can!  We can create a fully Armored BCT and get it over there right away.  Tanks and everything!

PRESIDENT = awesome! By "right away", you mean this week?

PENTAGON = not exactly.  It's a land locked location and we don't have direct access to it by rail or even road.  It will take a week just to figure out how to get everything deployed. 

PRESIDENT = OK, so how long after the paperwork gets sorted out can we have tanks in theater?

PENTAGON = about a month.

PRESIDENT = you're kidding?!?  What if we put all assets into the mix and ran deployment ops 24 hours a day at maximum capacity?

PENTAGON = that is already assumed in our estimate

PRESIDENT = this sucks

PENTAGON = yup, but on the bright side you didn't ask us to deploy more than 3000 soldiers, because we've got all our logistics committed to just the 2500 planned

PRESIDENT = what would happen if we needed a larger force deployed?

PENTAGON = do you remember Desert Shield?

PRESIDENT = that sucks times two.  Maybe we should figure out how not to take a month to move a rather small armored force from bases in Europe to another spot in Europe using all our logistics capabilities on the assumption that we have nothing else that needs doing at the same time?

PENTAGON = yeah, we're kinda thinking the same thing.  We'll get back to you

 

And thus, the beginning so a Medium BCT was born.  Here's some good reads on the topic:

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=441636

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mr1406a.12?seq=22#metadata_info_tab_contents

 

Time and time again history has proven that logistics win wars.  The Sherman was a decent tank, but inferior to the Panther and Tigers.  In CM you might very well conclude that the Panther is a superior tank.  However, if you were a soldier on the Western front you'd more likely be happier to be a US infantryman being supported by decent tanks than a German infantryman relying upon a Panzerfaust because there wasn't a Panther anywhere to be seen.  Germans in WW2 were thinking more like a CM player and we all know how that turned out

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

 Germans in WW2 were thinking more like a CM player and we all know how that turned out

Steve

And thanks to CM Professional militaries throughout the West will be thinking like CM players too!

Wait.... whos side are you on, Steve?

Edited August 29, 2021 by Vanir Ausf B

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The major influence on US military thinking about moving to wheeled armor traces back to Kosovo.  The US needed to get an armored force deployed very quickly.  Snarky paraphrasing follows:

PRESIDENT = we need to do something about Kosovo right away!!

PENTAGON = not a problem, we're super awesome and wicked capable.

PRESIDENT = I don't want us to lose anybody because people are wary about going in there at all.  Can we get something deployed that is intimidating as well as capable?

PENTAGON = sure can!  We can create a fully Armored BCT and get it over there right away.  Tanks and everything!

PRESIDENT = awesome! By "right away", you mean this week?

PENTAGON = not exactly.  It's a land locked location and we don't have direct access to it by rail or even road.  It will take a week just to figure out how to get everything deployed. 

PRESIDENT = OK, so how long after the paperwork gets sorted out can we have tanks in theater?

PENTAGON = about a month.

PRESIDENT = you're kidding?!?  What if we put all assets into the mix and ran deployment ops 24 hours a day at maximum capacity?

PENTAGON = that is already assumed in our estimate

PRESIDENT = this sucks

PENTAGON = yup, but on the bright side you didn't ask us to deploy more than 3000 soldiers, because we've got all our logistics committed to just the 2500 planned

PRESIDENT = what would happen if we needed a larger force deployed?

PENTAGON = do you remember Desert Shield?

PRESIDENT = that sucks times two.  Maybe we should figure out how not to take a month to move a rather small armored force from bases in Europe to another spot in Europe using all our logistics capabilities on the assumption that we have nothing else that needs doing at the same time?

PENTAGON = yeah, we're kinda thinking the same thing.  We'll get back to you

 

And thus, the beginning so a Medium BCT was born.  Here's some good reads on the topic:

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=441636

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mr1406a.12?seq=22#metadata_info_tab_contents

 

Time and time again history has proven that logistics win wars.  The Sherman was a decent tank, but inferior to the Panther and Tigers.  In CM you might very well conclude that the Panther is a superior tank.  However, if you were a soldier on the Western front you'd more likely be happier to be a US infantryman being supported by decent tanks than a German infantryman relying upon a Panzerfaust because there wasn't a Panther anywhere to be seen.  Germans in WW2 were thinking more like a CM player and we all know how that turned out

Steve

Heh, well probably not too far off the mark.  There was a cultural shift occurring in the US Army as well as everyone was going all maneuver-madness.  Basically Gulf War worked much better then anticipated so the speed and precision crowd had taken the high ground.  Add in “cheaper” (theoretically) in the post Cold War love-in and “bam” the stuff careers are made of.  Another good read from 2002.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2002/MR1606.pdf

I am not sure how this thinking carries forward to today though.  Ukraine had some scary observations and in ‘03 OIF went in pretty heavy.  A major ground war between global powers would probably drive everyone back into tracked steel but then again what are the odds of that?

I think the concept is ok so long as one does not as Medium to do a Heavy or Light job, that is where the wheels start to come off (hah).  The there is air/info superiority, or lack there of, another place Medium has not really been tested.  I guess we will see, for the record I am on the Light team but we are in the minority.

[Erwin]

In addition to the transportability advantage, this seems like it's part of the stealth elimination of heavy vehicles (tanks) for most tasks due to their vulnerability to cheaper and more numerous ATGM's.

[Battlefront.com]

17 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I think the concept is ok so long as one does not as Medium to do a Heavy or Light job, that is where the wheels start to come off (hah).  

Agreed.  The problem that US military, in particular, is called upon to do a wide variety of tasks on relatively short notice.  Prior to the Stryker concept when there was a "medium" need they often had to send in "light" forces because that's all that could be deployed.  Or they put in a more expensive, difficult "heavy" force simply because the "light" force wasn't strong enough.  The two possible criticisms I can see about Strkyer implementation is:

1.  Is too much of the active component of the US Army "medium" in the event of a near peer conventional armed conflict?

2.  Is the specific makeup of the Stryker Brigade structure sufficient to handle a near peer conventional war?

For the first, I don't think it's a problem in any practical sense because I don't see a scenario for a near peer conflict that would give the US time to deploy large amounts of heavy forces within a timeframe to matter.  For the second, I think a SBCT would fare very well against a near pear heavy force.

I'm a long term strategic thinker.  I think overall the US military is better off having a significant amount of medium capabilities for reasons of sustainability and logistics. 

17 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The there is air/info superiority, or lack there of, another place Medium has not really been tested. 

If the US is in a near peer conflict without air superiority... well... a lot more than Strykers will find themselves tested.  The entire US military, from frontline to rearline, is built on the presumption of air superiority.  More than a few military thinkers have pointed out that might not be such a great assumption to make.

17 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I guess we will see, for the record I am on the Light team but we are in the minority.

Yup, the Stryker (medium) concept has not been tested in conventional warfare in a near peer conflict. Except in CM   However, the Soviets and their proteges had this concept implemented on a massive scale in real life.  The only combat instances of such forces (at a large scale) were in the Middle East and therefore not really applicable as they were totally over matched at all levels and, basically, didn't stand a chance.

Steve

[chuckdyke]

I go for the Stryker as conflicts are mostly in or around urban environments. 

[The_Capt]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The two possible criticisms I can see about Strkyer implementation is

I have a few more questions than these two to be honest but the reality is that the concept will be here to stay for some time as a tool in the toolbox, most of the issues surround just how useful that tool is going to be.  Questions/Issues from my seat:

- Logistics Conundrum.  Logistics arguably exist in three main plains, Info, Capability and Will.  Most military thinking centers on Capability (Force Sustainment and Generation), materiel, trained people and equipment...stuff.  Here Medium lives in a precarious space.  First off the Capability logistics advantages, which are solid, only really apply in a near-peer sustained conflict.  These speak to an overall attrition approach of simply out-producing an opponent, which was how we won both world wars...fundamental industrial age warfare approach.  Ok, but for wars of intervention, small wars and COIN this factor does not apply as well.  We have not been able to (or needed to) attrit an opponent thru superior logistics since WW2 (and as a factor during the Cold War).  Lower energy wars have not really been decided by Capability logistical factors but instead Info and Will logistics have been primary, as demonstrated on the news this morning.  And here Medium has issues.  The lower survivability of Medium means that it will strain Will much faster than Heavy or Light, who both have offsets.  Casualties impact that Will power and Medium doesn't really do well as a compromise in these spaces...it is why we keep "armoring up".  So the conundrum is that Medium can project fast and hit hard but its main logistical advantages (capability) in the longer term vis a vie attrition strategies only really apply in the setting that is a questionable fit for the force itself...sustained high intensity warfare against a near peer.  OR Medium can be used for rapid intervention in the worst fit scenarios that have never really been decisive and where logistics of Will become a primary factor for which Medium is full of dangerous compromises and it main advantages get effectively truncated. 

- The size of the niche.  Militaries have a really bad habit of oversubscribing.  They have to make really big arguments at the political level to spend a LOT of money on capability, so the pressure to actually use that capability is immense even when it is not necessarily a good idea.  So for Medium an unvarnished view the size of its niche will be critical or it risks creeping into dangerous spaces.

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

For the first, I don't think it's a problem in any practical sense because I don't see a scenario for a near peer conflict that would give the US time to deploy large amounts of heavy forces within a timeframe to matter.  For the second, I think a SBCT would fare very well against a near pear heavy force.

So this kinda reinforces the point.  If a near peer opponent has no interest in allowing a slow build up of heavy, then the answers seem pretty clear..1) don't go, 2) be already 'there' or 3) rely on strategic deterrence.  #1 is a workable option, basically what we did in the Crimea and Ukraine but there will come times when it is a deal breaker.  #3 is also workable but really...really dangerous [Cold War nuclear exchange models could take climate crisis to school].  SO we are left with #2...already being forward deployed in places that we see as non-negotiable...already happening in the Baltics.  So what? Well if the strategy of global intervention from NA is dead then we are going to probably see Heavy in forward locations because "why go Medium?" when we can deter with heavy metal?  So this would see Medium regulated to "the interventions that fit the force" as opposed to being able to fit the force the intervention we are stuck with.  Workable but not optimal.  This all leads to a question "where does Medium fit and when?"  which I am not sure we have totally figured out.

- When Gravity Shifts.  So before anyone think the ol Capt is trying to sink Medium and champion Heavy, quite the opposite.  I have concerns about Medium but in the evolutionary pantheon of military capability (and we have three buckets here when in fact it is really more of a modular spectrum with a lot of flex..e.g. Marines), Heavy = dinosaurs, Medium = mammals and Light = insects.  Looking forward, in my opinion, the main competitor for Medium is not Heavy, it is Light.  So, for example, the two snakes of Lethality and Survivability will continue top wrestle but passive survivability and defence is on the losing end, mainly due to physics; we are running out of runway for what steel/ceramic/Godzilla scales can do for us in comparison to Lethality.  Don't believe, look at what the other team has (and is) doing with HE and cellphones, let alone what military complexes are going to do with nano-treated explosives....Heavy is just that but also Concentrated, and as such a very expensive and increasingly vulnerable beast, that is slow to project and costly to feed and water.  So I think we will see active survivability systems continue to rise and then Medium and Light, even in near-peer start to look a lot more shiny.  Then we run into, at what point is Medium the new Heavy and we can do with Light in its place?  I mean science fiction has this already with Starship Troopers and The Expanse and force development is not saying "no" from what I have seen.  Medium might be simply overtaken by events depending on how fast thing develop but I am sure we will likely see a more gradual transition over time.

So what?  Well one area I think we can total agree on is simulation, experimentation and exploration.  Believe it or not one of my first "a ha" moments on Medium was playing the Canadians in CMSF, LAVs vs BMPs did not go well...got me wondering.  We need simulation to challenge assumptions, introduce new equipment and concepts as oppose to validating what we already have, it will probably be the only way to keep up. 

Military forces are simply an extension of the strategic environment and the people who pay for them that live in that environment.  And that environment is at about Sea State 7 on the turbulence scale, so in the end it may be agility in scalability that wins the day and one can scale upward but scaling downward is a lot more problematic (Light can fight like Heavy but Heavy really can't fight like Light)...either way it is going to be an interesting ride.

  

[Lethaface]

While being at best am amateur on the subject, imo the "medium" option is a good option to have.

Even in a near peer full spectrum conflict, not every area is going to be full of enemy tank brigades. So perhaps it is rather a question of opportunity costs; having something in theatre is better than having nothing. Of course that is assuming that "medium" has advantages over "light", which I think it does even if only going from my CM 'experience'.

The alternative to having a medium option is to not have it, imo. What are the alternatives? Going full heavy/light?

[LongLeftFlank]

On 8/28/2021 at 12:26 PM, Battlefront.com said:

No, wrong there too.  The vulnerability of the original Strykers to IEDs is well known and not unique to it.  The whole reason for MRAPs being introduced was NOTHING the US military had as transport was up to the challenge of IEDs.  Not even Bradleys.  Doesn't indicate a particular failing of the Stryker, but just about all military vehicles in NATO inventory prior to Iraq.

Similarly, offroad mobility issues are more inherent to the Stryker's wheeled nature than something specific to the Stryker. Just like the limited operational range and tactical speed of a Bradley is inherent to a heavy tracked vehicle.  Every system has its pros and cons.

Prior to Strykers most infantry engaged the enemy in Humvees.  Tactically, the Stryker is vastly superior to the Humvee platform in nearly all ways.  Operationally the Stryker is vastly superior to the Bradely.  Vastly easier to get into theater, support once there, and redeploy as needed. Soldiers who have to live in their vehicles day in and day out speak very highly of the Stryker.  Bradley grunts do not speak as lovingly from what I've read. 

None of these things are simulated in CM, but they are never-the-less massively important considerations in the real world.

The US Army has expanded the number of Stryker brigades and is upgrading the fleet for a third time.  Hardly abandoned

Steve

Well noted on speed of deployment and sustainability, Steve, thanks. Sounds like @The_Capt has some of the same questions, but he speaks for himself well enough.

It's great that it can get on the ground quickly, but what does it **do** once it's there?

1.  Uncle Sam hasn't contemplated airlifting Army brigades to be sacrificial speed bumps against heavy armour since the Cold War. In 1990, they stuck a brigade of the 82nd in Saudi (I know an S-2 who was there) to warn off Saddam until the heavies got there. But in this day and age, no President will sacrifice 5000+ Americans overseas (hmm, Korea).

2. In a built-up area, *all* AFVs are vulnerable to mines/IEDs and flank shots (as you noted). But you still want a mobile platform that can overwatch streets in defilade for the infantry. And that means having enough frontal protection to shrug off RPG shots for long enough to kill shooters. Stryker (and Hummer) won't stand up to this job, as all CMSF players know, and as the Filipinos found out with their LAVs in Marawi in 2016. Bradley will do it.

3. In your Kosovo type intervention, where you're looking to face down a militia or a weak and disorganized army unable to field its own coherent armoured units, or deploy advanced ATGM, ok, I get the Medium concept. Dense forest/jungle aside, light armour totally dominates firefights in populated zones. It's hard to reach out and touch it.  Useful, provides economical dominance and infantry protection.

... But then the partisans retreat into rugged/forested areas and towns/cities. You then have Grozny (see point 2). But at least you've secured the countryside.

So plans to field more than 1-2 Stryker brigades seems to assume the Army's future wars could include occupation of larger countries with weak regular armies whose mech can largely be disabled with airpower. There's a long list of countries I could see fitting that bill.

But as@The_Capt astutely notes, is the Will there? Sounds like more Team America: World Police to me, and popular support is wearing pretty thin for that kind of mission. But then I suppose that isn't the Army's concern: they want the capability to execute the missions they're ordered to perform.

Edited August 31, 2021 by LongLeftFlank

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

2. In a built-up area, *all* AFVs are vulnerable to mines/IEDs and flank shots (as you noted). But you still want a mobile platform that can overwatch streets in defilade for the infantry. And that means having enough frontal protection to shrug off RPG shots for long enough to kill shooters. Stryker (and Hummer) won't stand up to this job, as all CMSF players know, and as the Filipinos found out with their LAVs in Marawi in 2016. Bradley will do it.

A reason for a new type of relatively inexpensive, smaller but heavily armed vehicle that can withstand (as much as possible) "mines/IED's and flank shots" but that does not require all the expensive bells and whistles of a current MBT.

If one strips away the MBT role, a smaller vehicle could be created that only requires 3 crew - only expected and only sufficient to throw large HE rockets/shells like the SturmTiger or Brit Engineer tank of WW2, or have one or more MG's for overwatch.  

Am theorizing that such a vehicle, even though more heavily armored, would be much cheaper to produce as well as smaller and lighter so could be more easily air transported. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Erwin

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'm having trouble reconciling this:

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

a smaller vehicle

With this:

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

like the SturmTiger

[Erwin]

I think you are missing the point.  How about the size of a SturmPanzer then?

Sturmpanzer
Length	5.93 metres (19 ft 5 in)
Width	2.88 metres (9 ft 5 in)
Height	2.52 metres (8 ft 3 in)

 

 

M1/IPM1	M1A1
Length:	32.04 FT	32.25 FT
Width:	12.0 FT	12.0 FT
Height:	7.79 FT	8.0 FT

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'm mostly only teasing.....What you are describing sounds not unlike the BMPT (Terminator) concept. 

Rather than having a silly calibre launcher it uses guided missiles with thermobaric warheads to clear out structures.

The current Russian BMPTs are a bit perplexing.....They seem to have a couple more crewmen & weapons than they probably really need and it's not at all clear how they will be deployed/utilised in armoured formations.

PS - Allegedly Algeria intend to make Mini-Terminators out of old T-62s:

https://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2021/08/blog-post_46.html

PPS - Yes, I know the hull in the picture is that of a T-55.....And no, I have no idea why they used it. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Aleksandr2033]

I would like to slightly redirect the topic since the thread already went full off-topic...

 

Does anyone know a good manual or thread or anything to learn how to effectively use German and other NATO infantry-only units against Unconventional enemies?

I already behave pretty good role-playing a section-company of German paratroopers clearing small villages, towns and even cities taking little casualties and always coordinating with Tornados and mortars(no big guns available for paras). But nevertheless, I would still like to hear some recommendations, tips, anything to get more experience and skill at this.

 

What I still haven't tried though is to fight a German Fallschirmjäger vs Syrian Army... Mechanized forces are harsh to confront heads on if not ambushing in the Western paratrooper doctrine.

[dan/california]

 First post in forever but  this is one of my little hobby horses. Stryker development should concentrate in indirect fire, not better direct fire on a platform that is made of spun sugar. If the bad guys ever get to see the Styrker you are doing it wrong. To be specific, they need a vertically launched Javelin equivalent, and the need either an AGL or  a 60mm mortar that every squad leader can call on for indirect fire in about thirty seconds. For extra points said mortar/grenade launcher should use electromagnetic propulsion instead of gun powder to give full, and complete control of the trajectory. It only needs a range of a ~2000 meters. Think about the absolute rain of devastation that Marine 60mm mortars cause in CMSF. You have the 120mm for longer range targets. And for the love of god please tell me they are working on a way to shoot down small drones wholesale. because the other side is going to bring them by the container load.

[civdiv]

I don’t see dirty bombs as being much different than 9/11. Sure, it would likely have a bigger economic impact but at the end of the day we have the Afghan scenario. It isn’t a war on the Syrian people, it is basic regime change, because they will not give in to our demands, and fighting an insurgency. And while we certainly killed a lot of civilians, 99.9% of the time it was not on purpose.