Man, I would KILL to have these in game...

[BlAin]

Shadow RST-V Reconnaissance Surveillance Targeting Vehicle; and although the US army has none of the following, we could add a twist where the Italian government kindly asked the U.S. government to field test in "harder battle conditions" their B1 Centauro IFV/A-TV Centauro Wheeled Tank Destroyer, Italy.

What do you think?

[SlapHappy]

That Centauro vehicle doesn't vary too much from the 105mm Stryker variant does it?

What would it bring that is substantially different to the table?

[JonS]

Man, I would KILL to have these in game...

Get rid of Dorosh, then we'll talk.

[R33GZ]

Ha ha! that Shadow RST-V Reconnaissance Surveillance Targeting Vehicle looks a bit like the batmobile from Batman Begins

[birdstrike]

I dunno. Does it come in black?

[BlAin]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

That Centauro vehicle doesn't vary too much from the 105mm Stryker variant does it?

What would it bring that is substantially different to the table?

At first look, both seem very similar, yet we couldn't be further from the truth.

The B1 Centauro, from the info I gathered from Global Security is a tank destroyer/wheeled tank with garanteed protection against 14.5mm and between 25mm and 30mm for the frontal arc (depending whether added armour was bolted on or not). It has an excellent power-to-weight ratio whereas its weight does not and the structural frame for which it was designed does not hamper the horsepower provided by the engine (hence slowing down its reaction time to threats). It's main armament is a 105mm recoilless fire-on-the-move gun system (a Centauro version with 120mm GS is in DEV. as we speak). It can carry a crew of 4 infantry soldier. [Operational. range of 800km]

So, if we compare this to the M1128 Stryker MGS, you'll be surprised to see how this Stryker variant is inferior and not well suited to the similar role that was given to the B1 Centauro, although it is hoped it would do just that:

Again, from the info collected on Global Security, the MGS Stryker "is not a tank replacement, but it gives a direct fire capability to support the infantry elements. The principal function of the Mobile Gun System (MGS) is to provide rapid and lethal direct fires to support assaulting infantry." It is equiped with the same gun caliber as the Centauro as well as similar shoot-on-the-move functions, in it's current version however, the Stryker frame was not designed to go over 17,300 metric tonnes and the MGS version weighs almost 1,400 mt more than the maximum spec. (not taking into account crew or troops w/ gear in weigh-in amount), which before weight reduction attempts in 2002 was by ~3,200 mt. Most significantly, the Stryker armour cannot at present protects its crew against calibers above 0.50 and add-ons (which would load on extra weight) are in development to withstand 14.5mm caliber. Slat armour does provide effective protection (as proven on the battlefield) but against tank-like rounds, it would not protect the main hull from being pierced. [Operational range of 500km; 300km less than Centauro...] Here's a quote to summarize the Stryker MGS design: "Caught in-between the weight restrictions and the desire to protect against ATGM threats on the future battlefield, the MGS is suffering an identity crisis."

NOTE: IMHO, were the U.S.A planning an attack on Iran (or even Syria) in a near future (more or less 5 years), much like when the U.S. Navy has identified a "cruiser gap" in its available ships in the '80s, the U.S. Army has a "tank destroyer gap" which needs to be addressed. Main battle tanks or costly and are high-maintenance, especially in an attacking stance. They are not as mobile, cannot regroup as easily and their supply lines are vital for their survivability. On the other hand, a wheeled tank destroyer with sufficient armour and cross-county mobility would have an easier time to outflank a tank position and evade or fall back strategically. A longer war (like it would presumably happen in Iran) would render this concept wheeled tank destroyer beneficial to army troops as ground air support will have a difficult time to cope with better AA and AAGM from the Iranian side.

[ August 07, 2007, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: BlAin ]

[Huntarr]

NOTE: IMHO, were the U.S.A planning an attack on Iran (or even Syria) in a near future (more or less 5 years), much like when the U.S. Navy has identified a "cruiser gap" in its available ships in the '80s, the U.S. Army has a "tank destroyer gap" which needs to be addressed. Main battle tanks or costly and are high-maintenance, especially in an attacking stance. They are not as mobile, cannot regroup as easily and their supply lines are vital for their survivability. On the other hand, a wheeled tank destroyer with sufficient armour and cross-county mobility would have an easier time to outflank a tank position and evade or fall back strategically. A longer war (like it would presumably happen in Iran) would render this concept wheeled tank destroyer beneficial to army troops as ground air support will have a difficult time to cope with better AA and AAGM from the Iranian side. /QUOTE]

I feel that a Tank Destroyer is unnecessary due to our use of M1, M2, Strykers, Arty, but primarily Apaches and Fixed wing assets

[Sergei]

AIUI currently Strykers have protection against 14.5mm caliber.

Tank Destroyers were a stop gap measure already in WW2, but especially today. Generation X infantry ATGM's and all that.

[SgtMuhammed]

I have always had a soft spot for this little Swedish number.

S-tank

[Sequoia]

Heck BlAin THIS is what you really want.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/dpv.htm

[Sergei]

I think S-tank is a bit of a bad translation. Stridsvagn 103 as it's officially called, Strids means battle and vagn vehicle. Not in service anymore.

[Battlefront.com]

I've been inside a S-Tank. All I have to say is... what a great vehicle to sit in! It is like being in the cockpit of a plane, not a tank. Super comfortable too. I think the Swedish politicians that allowed these things to be metled down should be exiled to Finnland (a Finnish company did the scrapping, IIRC, so they deserve 'em!).

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I've been inside a S-Tank. All I have to say is... what a great vehicle to sit in! It is like being in the cockpit of a plane, not a tank. Super comfortable too. I think the Swedish politicians that allowed these things to be metled down should be exiled to Finnland (a Finnish company did the scrapping, IIRC, so they deserve 'em!).

Steve

Just remember, if you ever plan to make a Cold War game then Finland had StuG III's in inventory longer than any other nation!

[MikeyD]

What this game needs is a Stryker with a 120mm gun, turret, tracks, and heavy armor

[TRintala]

Just remember, if you ever plan to make a Cold War game then Finland had StuG III's in inventory longer than any other nation!

Hey, Finnish Defence Forces are auctioning out some Stug wrecks later this year if someone wants to buy one and who wouldn't want to have his own Stug.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by TRintala:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Just remember, if you ever plan to make a Cold War game then Finland had StuG III's in inventory longer than any other nation!

Hey, Finnish Defence Forces are auctioning out some Stug wrecks later this year if someone wants to buy one and who wouldn't want to have his own Stug. </font>

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I've been inside a S-Tank. All I have to say is... what a great vehicle to sit in! It is like being in the cockpit of a plane, not a tank. Super comfortable too. I think the Swedish politicians that allowed these things to be metled down should be exiled to Finnland (a Finnish company did the scrapping, IIRC, so they deserve 'em!).

Steve

Just remember, if you ever plan to make a Cold War game then Finland had StuG III's in inventory longer than any other nation! </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:

Just remember, if you ever plan to make a Cold War game then Finland had StuG III's in inventory longer than any other nation!

Longer than the Syrians had Panzer IV's ?(which was 1967 I think) </font>

[Beastttt]

carrying 4 soldiers in place of 2/3 of your ammo I see as a waste of space

now being able to carry people if you need to bug out and have them under NBC coverage

that is more like it since you figure some vehicles may be lost and being able to carry some of those who might have to hump it back to a ralley point

[BlAin]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

I feel that a Tank Destroyer is unnecessary due to our use of M1, M2, Strykers, Arty, but primarily Apaches and Fixed wing assets

Originally posted by Sergei:

AIUI currently Strykers have protection against 14.5mm caliber.

Tank Destroyers were a stop gap measure already in WW2, but especially today. Generation X infantry ATGM's and all that.

Huntarr ==> I beg to differ on that one, especially in desert settings. Would the U.S. Army be involved in a war against a potent adversary (on all aspects) in the Middle East, Abrams will have it hard if the only gun support is the MGS Stryker. Furthermore, too much strenght and stamina is expected from the U.S. Helo force, though they are quite vulnerable to ground to air attacks and air-air attacks. So if the air force of that country is overall above average in a a defending stance, they won't give away that easily. Any battle is won (in a broad perspective) on a ground setting, although Navy, Air and Armor forces provide crucial support, it is at the infantry level that a conventional battle can be brought to its end; and the closest thing to the infantry is the armor divisions. One country cannot rely solely on armors once they engage, obviously, and now that they are less dominant on the battlefield as they used to be in WWII, they need to be wisely deployed and re-affirmed at the ground level with mobile, versatile and effective wheeled armors support which can play the role of tank destroyers/MGS, not solely the latter.

Sergei ==> For sure, I guess the article about the Stryker in GlobalSecurity dates back to a couple of years, but it is still very low armour protection against tanks for the Stryker MGS version. Actually, the WWII tank destroyer was a cost-effective alternative to full-fledge tanks and decent infantry support in the combat zone. Nowadays, a tank destroyer design, while being as cost-effective, needs to be as versatile as possible, ensure the survivability of its crew and engage in a shoot-and-scoot type of way when its complement is complete enough to inflict serious damage versus mild losses.

[BlAin]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com and sgtgoody (esq):

I've been inside a S-Tank. All I have to say is... what a great vehicle to sit in! It is like being in the cockpit of a plane, not a tank. Super comfortable too. I think the Swedish politicians that allowed these things to be metled down should be exiled to Finnland (a Finnish company did the scrapping, IIRC, so they deserve 'em!).

Steve

Wow, you lucky b... Yes, since I saw the Discovery Channel "Best tank ever" countdown, I feel that this tank is really top-notch in a defensive stance. If you read the wiki article about it (HERE IS the Stridsvagn_103), it definitely rules. Although, some mentioned they were being scrapped, Sweden put a great many in storage, kept the latest vehicles in museum display (and still in working order on top of that) and would assuredly sell those to a country to a relatively low price. Syria could even be interested. Face it, a tank like this in Syrian hands instead of T-55s in static position would seriously hamper an enemy advance if they use them to their advantage.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Sergei:

They were in normal service until 1966, after which they were dug in as 'pillboxes' for airfield defence.

No turret and no ability to rotate when dug in - doesn't sound very effective!

[Huntarr]

Blain I suggest you read this article it dates back to 91'. We learned along time ago how a desert engagement is about Air Support and Maneuver Warfare.

Epic Little Battle of Khafji

Now I don't argue with all of it, especially the trivializing of the Marines here. We were in my opinion critical to it’s success. (bias: was there )

[Battlefront.com]

The inability to move the gun independent of the hull was the S-Tank's (as everybody outside of Sweden calls it ) main design flaw. IIRC it also had some powertrain or powerpack problems, can't remember which.

Still, it is one slick little vehicle. The Abrams guys I was with when I hopped in LOVED the thing. Oh, and the one I saw had the "top secret" slat armor on it.

Steve

[BlAin]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

Blain I suggest you read this article it dates back to 91'. We learned along time ago how a desert engagement is about Air Support and Maneuver Warfare.

Epic Little Battle of Khafji

Now I don't argue with all of it, especially the trivializing of the Marines here. We were in my opinion critical to it’s success. (bias: was there )

Interesting article, but Saddam's initiative was doomed to fail because of no Air cover from his air force. You can't just throw in all your armors. Actually, this aspect was quite obvious, even before Khafji, already in 1944 when Germany's air power was waning. Panzers needed to be heavily camouflaged with bushes and branches because they did not have air superiority anymore over France and their own territory.

I am sure that if any enemy can counterbalance with decent air support (think of the Falkland war and the numerous successes Argentinian pilots had over British warships) their tank divisions, well, it could very well mean that a tank destroyer solid and steady design could make the difference. In the end, we'd never know, would we?