CM:SF grog questions

[Battlefront.com]

The decision to stick the .50 on the Stryker that has no fire on the move capability (worth a darned) originally confused me too. I understand the difference between an IFV and an AFV, along with their different doctrine, but still didn't get why they couldn't have added a few more goodies like a laser range finder.

I asked a trusted contact who worked on the 25mm experimental system for the Stryker, which was officially rejected in favor of minor upgrades to the current system. There are several reasons:

1. Weight. Self explanitory if you understand that the Stryker is designed to be C-130 portable. Even though this spec is compromised to some degree, it is still possible to do. The 25mm would kill it completely, IIRC.

2. Weight. Even if the C-130 spec is tossed out the window, there is the problem of moving around with all that extra weight. The slat armor is considered standard equipment now, and the vehicle is just about maxed out with this new load. From what I gather it simply can't handle the bigger gun *and* the slat armor. So it's an either or situation.

3. Cost. The vehicle, although expensive, was built on a budget. The cost of adding all that armament stuff was seen too expensive for the intended role.

4. Redundancy. The kind of things the 25mm can do is what other weapons systems and dismounts are supposed to do. So it isn't necessary to have that kind of firepower.

5. Doctrine. The Strykers are not supposed to be assault vehicles. They are supposed to be "battlefield taxis". In that way they aren't any different than a 2.5 ton truck and a .50 mounted on a ring. They are designed to get the troops from A to B as quickly and easily as possible, then pull back. But unlike the truck they are supposed to be able to offer the infantry some degree of support fire and (of course) protection. Which means that operationally the Stryker is like a truck, tactically it is more like an APC, but in reality it is both and neither at the same time.

6. Built in limitations. I would think, and this is speculation, that if the Stryker commanders had the big ass gun mounted that they'd be tempted to put themselves in harm's way a lot more than they should or are designed to be. It's like arming a guy with a pistol vs. a M4. The guy with the pistol is capable of self defense, but you won't see him anxious to storm an enemy 50m away and dug into a bunker with just a 9mm in hand!

When you look at all the above reasons you can see logic behind the choice of weapon and the limitations on the RWS (Remote Weapons System) capabilities. Having said that, it does appear that the soldiers are in favor of some improvements. The two I keep seeing are a laser range finder and stabilizer system. I forget what the planned upgrades are supposed to add (in my notes somewhere), but for the coming years that is all that is going to happen.

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Sounds to me more like knowing the difference between an IFV and an APC. If you try playing tanks with an APC, you are likely to come unglued quite quickly; if you do so with an IFV you might get away with it for a bit.

I thought that was the point with Stryker; that it can out-do an Abrams.

[Battlefront.com]

To answer John's other questions:

1. Is the Stryker antiRPG birdcage armor add-on being modeled? If yes, will mobility and handling be penalized?

Yes and of course. When have we ever modled something like this without modeling the side effects? Or have you never tried to move a King Tiger around in the mud in CMx1?

2. Will irregulars be able to perform such real world nastiness...

Yes to things that are relevant to attacking a mobile attacking force, no to things that are only relevant to static stability and counter insurgency settings. The unmanned mortars are a perfect example of the latter.

3. Will we see kamikaze cars and light trucks?

Same as above.

4. Has any thought been given to modeling the effects, given the heavily cybernetic nature of today's Army, of things like TOC hits?

Yes, breaks in C&C are simulated. However, the Stryker's net is setup in a way that doesn't make it easy to disrupt on a large scale during tactical ops. This is because each Stryker has basically the same communications systems as every other Stryker. Lose one and you don't lose the network. Losing certain command vehicles will cut off forces from communications with other forces, but this isn't the type of thing that would have a dramatic effect on tactical operations within a particular scenario.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I thought that was the point with Stryker; that it can out-do an Abrams.

No, not at all. This is the self made argument of the Tread Heads (aka Stryker Critics). The Stryker never was, and is not now, intended on replacing Heavy units (Bradleys and Abrams). It was instead designed to be a Medium unit to handle traditional Light and Heavy roles in different ways. The SBCT is designed to pack more of a punch than a Light unit, yet have the ability to be deployed faster and sustain itself longer than a Heavy unit. It is, in short, a hybrid unit in terms of mobility, sustainability, protection, and firepower.

To think about it another way... the SBCT is not designed to replace either Light or Heavy units themselves, just some of the previous assignments these units were used for but not well suited to handle.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Note that the Stryker ATGM in the second picture is outfitted with the ERA addon armor that was rejected very early on in the program. At least that is what I think that is since I've only seen some fuzzy pictures of.

(additional note) The fate of the ERA addon armor is not known to me. Initially it was passed on in favor of the slat armor. I'm not sure if the ERA is still in development or not. Considering how little ERA you can get onto a Stryker for the same weight, and superior coverage (though not effectiveness necessarily) of the slat armor, I'm wondering if ERA has been dropped.

Steve

[ October 23, 2005, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Sergei]

That I can understand, but given the premise that giving such a light vehicle a 25mm chaingun would result in heavy losses because it'd be put more in the harm's way, then why give it a 105mm gun?

[Gpig]

So Steve, are these SBCT's kind of like the Brit "JOCK COLUMN" of CMAK fame? (ACs, Troop transport, Towed Guns and light tanks.)

Cool.

Anyone else ready to go "swanning about" in the desert?

Gpig

[Battlefront.com]

That I can understand, but given the premise that giving such a light vehicle a 25mm chaingun would result in heavy losses because it'd be put more in the harm's way, then why give it a 105mm gun?

Because the MGS (105mm) is not a troop transport. It is a support vehicle designed to take out fixed, hard defensive points. The vehicle would only be brought into the fight when a target was already known and the area generally secured by dismounts and the infantry Strykers. Think of it as the German SPW 251 and 250s that mounted the 75mm gun. They were no more designed to replace King Tigers than the Stryker MGS was designed to replace the Abrams. Likewise the US 75mm M8 Stuart and M105 M4 Shermans were not supposed to replace M5 Stuarts and other M4 Shermans.

Gpig, in a way I suppose so.

Steve

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[Thomm]

Originally posted by WineCape:

Function before form. In this case, I wonder about the former ...

Panic room!

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Which means that operationally the Stryker is like a truck, tactically it is more like an APC,

...and in reality it *will* be used as an IFV, I promise you

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

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.

...it just occurred to me plain as daylight...remember when they said iraq won't be another vietnam, since iraq - devoid of djungle - *cant* be another vietnam ?

its probably been obvious to most of you all along, but it just struck me how very much the above (mortar harrassment, 122mm rockets) *does* remind me of the situation in Vietnam, what with VC mortars to harass the GIs in their camps, VC creativity as to "ideas" for traps and attcks, the overall situation with no light at the end of the tunnel, stories of the daily attrition wearing down the US soldiers, atrocities on both sides (My Lai - Abu Qreib)...today's djungle is the iraqi populace.

sorry for stating the obvious...