John Kettler Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 1. Is the Stryker antiRPG birdcage armor add-on being modeled? If yes, will mobility and handling be penalized? 2. Will irregulars be able to perform such real world nastiness as firing 57 & 80mm air-to-ground rockets by propping them in drainage ditches and conducting unmanned mortar strikes by wedging a round in the barrel--with an ice cube, which later melts? Got these from my brother, who did a Stryker Brigade deployment in northern Iraq, and had those plus mortars up to 120mm and 122mm RAP (very exciting, even with impact 1400 meters away) fired at him and his fellow soldiers in their encampments. 3. Will we see kamikaze cars and light trucks? 4. Has any thought been given to modeling the effects, given the heavily cybernetic nature of today's Army, of things like TOC hits? Seems to me that one mortar round or one rocket, in the right place, could wreck so many displays and radios (each with specific, even mission critical functions), that even if the personnel survive intact, combat effectiveness may be drastically impaired. Comment I do NOT understand why, given the proven antiarmor (killed T-55s in the Gulf War) and antipersonnel effectiveness (15? meter casualty radius) of the 25mm Chain Gun, the Army made the primary Stryker armament a .50 caliber MG. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillweed Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 1)yes 2) kinda 3) no 4) prolly Comment: Amen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 The Mortar War in Iraq Remote mortars don't seem common enough to warrant inclusion, plus if it was used it would be more likely to be a tactic to attack static allied bases. A third terrorist technique seems improbable, but its use has been rumored. This is probably an urban legend, but it does contain a grain of reality. Reportedly, the terrorists place the mortar round in a mold of the appropriate caliber. The round is then frozen, presumably in such as way that the base and arming pin are exposed. The round can be transported in an ice chest. When needed, the base of the round can be fitted into the muzzle of the mortar tube. The arming pin can then be pulled. With its “jacket” of ice, the round will not slide down the tube immediately. This allows the mortar team to get away. Naturally, in Iraq’s heat, the ice will soon melt. This allows the round to drop down the tube, and it will fire. Coalition response will destroy the mortar, but none of the Insurgents will be hurt. There seem to be several problems with this reported technique. Perhaps the most serious is that the ice will not melt uniformly, so rather than sliding down the tube with force sufficient to fire the round, it will just slip down so slowly that it may not go off. The story persists, as such fanciful tales tend to do during war time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 I do NOT understand why, given the proven antiarmor (killed T-55s in the Gulf War) and antipersonnel effectiveness (15? meter casualty radius) of the 25mm Chain Gun, the Army made the primary Stryker armament a .50 caliber MG.Because the Stryker is a troop carrier, not a fighting vehicle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted October 23, 2005 Author Share Posted October 23, 2005 Wicky, I took the info straight from my brother's letter to me while in Iraq, and it only mentioned wedging the round in the muzzle with an ice cube, not the elaborate approach you describe. Forgot to mention that he also talked about light mortars and rockets fired from visually covert (until firing) technicals. I tend to take his information very seriously, considering that he buried a bunch of buddies (learned this the hard way when I sent him Mom's (former Korean War Marine staff sergeant) funeral flag as a remembrance after he got back to the States), and others were hit as follows: a)shot through the teeth, bullet lodged in tongue, shot in the head, close range MG ambush, c) frag hit from below rim of Kevlar, through brim, into Kevlar (avoided sure kill, but lost eye and suffered facial damage from smaller frag face hit); my brother was himself nearly blown up by a roadside IED. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konstantine Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 It would be cool if we could have "technicals" for irregular Syrian forces in urban warfare (a la Battle of Mogadishu) --i.e. recoilless rifles, large caliber MGs mounted on 4x4s, etc. Ignore if this has been suggested already. edit: as per the above post, also let's see mortars or rockets mounted on technicals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Originally posted by flamingknives: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I do NOT understand why, given the proven antiarmor (killed T-55s in the Gulf War) and antipersonnel effectiveness (15? meter casualty radius) of the 25mm Chain Gun, the Army made the primary Stryker armament a .50 caliber MG.Because the Stryker is a troop carrier, not a fighting vehicle? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Originally posted by John Kettler: I do NOT understand why, given the proven antiarmor (killed T-55s in the Gulf War) and antipersonnel effectiveness (15? meter casualty radius) of the 25mm Chain Gun, the Army made the primary Stryker armament a .50 caliber MG.I read recently (although now I can't find it)that the decision to go with the .50, as for example the decision to leave out air conditioning, was part of the overall plan to keep the strykers' weight down so it would be airportable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 A 25 mm turret takes space inside the vehicle (=less dismounts), will probably need a dedicated gunner, weighs a lot and increases the size and cost of the vehicle. It's a trade-off. All vehicles can't have all features. The M1 tank has a big gun and lots of armour, but you can't airlift it in a C-130. Originally posted by MikeyD: in this thread I've had occassion to drawn up scale plans for both and the differences are substantial! Stryker's MUCH bigger. Its got larger diameter road wheels. Its got a ceramic armor package that make's LAV's armor look like tissue paper by comparison. Its also a gas hog and tends to tip over in a sharp turn. And Stryker doesn't float. LAVs got the 25mm gun because it doesn't have the extra armor. Strker's got the extra armor because its not carrying the big gun turret. I believe they've both got a 40m turn radius (and the M1117 4x4 AC as well). I believe the stowage bins running along Strykers sides are plastic, in a desperate atttempt to shed excess pounds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 John, Can you be more specific of what you know of how irregulars employ remote mortars. In your brothers experience are remote mortars used against static bases or mobile foot patrols/Stryker patrols? How often and how effective? Is it harrassment or part of wider planned operation? From the article I linked to, the tactic of using remote mortars is used to counter US countermeasures presumably from established bases with supporting radar nets, computers and preplaced retaliatory artillery. If irregulars aren't attacking such a defensive net then there seems little reason for them to go to such lengths to avoid casualties. I still don't see how modelling remote mortars is applicable in the context of the game in which, BFC blurb states, "The player is in command of one of the more interesting missions - to slice through the center of the country and join up with other coalition forces around Damascus." A common tactic of the insurgents in Iraq is to set up a mortar (often in a residential neighborhood), quickly pop off a few rounds at an unsuspecting US or Iraqi military base , and then get out of the area before any response can be made Cheers [ October 23, 2005, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Wicky ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rai kitsune Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Originally posted by Preserved Killick: It would be cool if we could have "technicals" for irregular Syrian forces in urban warfare (a la Battle of Mogadishu) --i.e. recoilless rifles, large caliber MGs mounted on 4x4s, etc. Ignore if this has been suggested already. edit: as per the above post, also let's see mortars or rockets mounted on technicals. Just one thing in the battle of Mogadishu there we actually no technicals used all of them had previously been destryoed by US and UN forces or abandoned by their owned due to making them easy targets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Technicals are an important part of many militiaries in the world, from Africa to the Middle East and parts of Southeast Asia. I imagine they'll be included in CMSF in many varieties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Originally posted by Sergei: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I do NOT understand why, given the proven antiarmor (killed T-55s in the Gulf War) and antipersonnel effectiveness (15? meter casualty radius) of the 25mm Chain Gun, the Army made the primary Stryker armament a .50 caliber MG.Because the Stryker is a troop carrier, not a fighting vehicle? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Russia and Israel, the two I presume you are referring to John, bought their heavy APCs (BTR-T and Achzarit respectively) out following prolonged, and in some cases intense, FIBUA against insurgent-type forces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Here are some photos of Israeli heavy APC I wander if up-armored trucks will be in the game 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 The Merkava 4 can reportedly carry up to 8 soldiers, which I think would make it the most heavily armored IFV ever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: The Merkava 4 can reportedly carry up to 8 soldiers, which I think would make it the most heavily armored IFV ever. And quite probably the smelliest, as well... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 4 Soldiers I'd believe. To get 8 in you have to have them sitting in awkward places like being the breech and in ammo stowage. edit: The second and third Israeli APC pics are based on an ap-armoured M113 chassis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 What's the deal with the "spikes" in the first pic? Is it just to make it look meaner? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 They look like brackets for fitting mesh screens to, so that the glass doesn't get damaged by flung stones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konstantine Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Just one thing in the battle of Mogadishu there we actually no technicals used all of them had previously been destryoed by US and UN forces or abandoned by their owned due to making them easy targets. I'm interested to know your source. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted October 24, 2005 Author Share Posted October 24, 2005 Wicky, The former. We're talking everything from a simple temporary static position where the troops live in tents and foxholes to the sprawling behemoth of Camp Anaconda, as featured in the PBS Frontline episode on private military contractors in Iraq, and where senior noncoms rated trailers with blast walls around them. Didn't save one guy my brother knew, for the round landed in the scant few feet between the trailer and the blast wall. The way I look at this issue from a CM:SF perspective is that any static unit of any size is fair game for such an attack, with the rear echelon making far and away the best target of all. So many things to hit. As noted before, TOCs and similar are high leverage targets. While we can certainly conduct C4ISR on the move, the reality is that the full potential is only realized when there's time and space to properly set up and run all that marvelous high tech gear. My brother, for example, who ran several TOC radio nets and data links, had a Hummer which carried a big AC unit for the TOC and towed a generator, with fuel for same on said Hummer. No AC=overheated computers=potential disaster. Don't know how much redundancy there is, but I'd guess that losing that one Hummer could cause real pain to the affected unit, Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Warrior Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Perhaps one of the reasons Israel and Russia employ heavy APC's because they don't have to deploy them globally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander: Here are some photos of Israeli heavy APC That is about the ugliest damn thing I've seen in a few moons. I suspect the design could use a little refinement. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Looks like a new bike tire with all of the little rubber sprues still on. Are the bumps on the glacis points for attaching reactive armor? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.