HIFV

[Holo]

Any opinions on the "heavy concept" of IFVs, like BMT-72 based on T-72, BTMP-84 based on T-84, though these are more like crossbreed between MBT and IFV? It seems that this concept gives same protection and firepower as modern MBTs, while having additional infantry support (5 infantrymen in compartment in addition to crew of 3). I don't know if IDF's Nemmera is also a crossbreed, or just using chassis of Merkava. Though, all of these variants must be much more expensive then Stryker and such.

[oren_m]

They might be more expensive, but they'll keep you alive longer.

I see the Stryker as a light vehicle for urban use only, i really cannot see the stryker taking part in large scale offensive.

In Iraq i guess the Stryker gets hit mostly by the RPG-29 or RPG-7, while in a Syrian war they will have to deal with advenced ATGM's, that will totally destroy Strykers.

The qusetion is, does the US army has anything better then the Stryker?

Oren_m

[flamingknives]

Bradley?

[hellfish]

Yeah, the Bradley. The Stryker is just an APC, its not an IFV.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Bradley?

But the Bradley is also vulnerable to any tank gun or serious ATGM. Come to that, it's hard to know of any vehicle that wouldn't be. More armor gives more protection, but there are weapons that will defeat any existing armor. The question becomes one of who has them and will we have to fight them.

Michael

[MikeyD]

The problem is unless its a quick war the enemy's going to adapt ,regardless of how heavy your APC becomes. I heard awhile ago that the numbers of K.O.'d Abrams were up to about 60-ish, K.O.'d Bradleys were around 80-ish. K.O. Strykers were around 20-ish. The smaller number for Strykers reflects the smaller number in-theater. it may also reflect Strykers being a less valuable 'trophy' for insurgent to dedicate thier resources towards.

In other words a heavier APC means bigger bombs. But then again how many wars are planned to grind on for 3+ years? The trick is to get your wars done and over well before the bigger bombs start showing up!

[ August 24, 2006, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[oren_m]

Maybe this is the solution :

TROPHY

I know that part of the conclusions of the recent war in S. Lebanon, the IDF has started buying this system.

Oren_m

[LongLeftFlank]

Oof! So the IDF is moving away from infantry carriers based on fully armored MBT chassis back to pimped out purple heart boxes?

That's a TERRIBLE mistake IMHO.

[Beastttt]

see the need for lg rng lt cannon to scrub off sensors

unless there is a sensor out there that can take a 20mm to 40mm auto cannon hit

in this scenario just plain old HE should do the job

or use an anti-radiation prox fuse weapon standoff range 100'

it will be like using EMCON in a modern naval battle

have it active you most likely will see it coming unless they spoof you but they will know where you are exactly

don't go active harder to find you but much less time to react to attacks

[rudel.dietrich]

I think the problem is misconceptions about just what APC's are supossed to do. They were designed as a way to move men and equipment quickly around the battlefield and keep them safe in transit.

They were never intended to support that infantry or fight by themselves.

But some commanders decided to stretch the concept to places it was never intended to go.

In CM:SF I plan on using my M1125s as fast mobile transportation. They will transport and supply my infantry but nothing else, they will defend themselves in attacked but will not support offensive operations.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:

Oof! So the IDF is moving away from infantry carriers based on fully armored MBT chassis back to pimped out purple heart boxes?

That's a TERRIBLE mistake IMHO.

Israel isn't using Strykers if thats what you mean. They did evaluate them, however. They still use M113s and tank based APCs.

[oren_m]

I dont know, i dont see any reason why not to put a Stryker on a street corner and use it as supressing element for my advancing infantry.

Ofcours not with the advancing forces, but still, not just as a bus/truck utility.

Oren_m

[oren_m]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

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

Oof! So the IDF is moving away from infantry carriers based on fully armored MBT chassis back to pimped out purple heart boxes?

That's a TERRIBLE mistake IMHO.

Israel isn't using Strykers if thats what you mean. They did evaluate them, however. They still use M113s and tank based APCs. </font>

[rudel.dietrich]

They were testing the Puma right as I left the BW. Very exciting project and probably the best APC in the world.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by oren_m:

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

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

Oof! So the IDF is moving away from infantry carriers based on fully armored MBT chassis back to pimped out purple heart boxes?

That's a TERRIBLE mistake IMHO.

Israel isn't using Strykers if thats what you mean. They did evaluate them, however. They still use M113s and tank based APCs. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

The way I see it is this. If you have a military force that is only ever going to be stationed at home and only ever go a few hundred miles at the most, then build up the heaviest force you possibly can. It can be slow, a maintainence nightmare, impossible to transport in a reasonable time, have a logistics "tail" like a brontosaurus, etc... it doesn't matter. Those things are not major considerations for such a force.

Israel, obviously, fits this definition So if I were them I wouldn't be looking at Strykers or even Bradleys. I'd probably go with better versions of what the IDF already has. Good use for captured ex-Soviet tank chasis at the very least!

Steve

[lucero1148]

Bradleys are being outfitted with slat cages like the strykers so for close in ambushes they would be well protected against rpgs and 1st & 2nd (?) gen ATGM's. Against MBT's they've done quite well fighting against the Iraqi's with their bushmasters and tows as its all about getting the 1st shot in on target.

IMHO CMSF will come down to what we just saw happen in Lebanon to the Israeli armor. Syrian armored forces won't have a chance in a stand up fight and will have to resort to RPG/ATGM ambushes. With the US army's ability to locate enemy armor well beyond the range of the Syrian tanks a smart player would use tanks as bait for the AT missile troops.

The point is there is only so much defensive armor you can put on a IFV, MBT or a soldier before it becomes impractical. Having a comination of slat and trophy defences would certainly increase the odds for armor but how effective it will be in the real world means using good overwatch tactics to ensure surviability. That means having JSTAR's, helicopters or micro UAV's overhead with the capability to attack in an instant of a missile launch. Certainly the way things are going tech wise its almost a certainty we'll be seeing that soon.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, there is another way and that is the way the US is going... unmaned ground vehicles. FCS (Future Combat Systems) has a big part of their attentoin focused on such things. Of course, the program is behind schedule and costing too much for things that probably will never see the light of day, but what else is new

Steve

[Holo]

I can see the point in the "light" aproach with more active protection. But (and I may be awfuly wrong here) the whole thing of US vs ______ consideres only countries that are much inferior military, giving wars comparable to Hitler invading Poland (in military terms). What about some "more serious" scenario, something that is more like WWII Germany vs USSR? I don't want to go into ____ vs ____ trap here, just pick any two large, more or less equaly equiped armies, and imagine some lot more serious conflict (I know it's hard to imagine the way the things go, but I highly doubt that most of Europe thought in 1930 that in 9 years they'll get to witness interlude to world war).

[hellfish]

The only country that could meet that definition is, IMHO, China. I'd love to see a China vs US game, even if I don't think we'll actually go to war anytime soon. Just an interesting mix of units and weapons and doctrines.

[luderbamsen]

Now we're cookin'!

You know, Steve, there are some pretty serious issues being raised here, gaming-wise.

Is CM:SF a Stryker-sim or a modern military sim, i.e. can you "simply" replace Strykers with Abrams and Bradleys without taking anything away from the game?

Does CM:SF address the equal vs. lobsided battle scenarios (i.e. win at any cost against equal opponent vs. win with few/no losses against much weaker opponent)?

[Holo]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

The only country that could meet that definition is, IMHO, China. I'd love to see a China vs US game, even if I don't think we'll actually go to war anytime soon. Just an interesting mix of units and weapons and doctrines.

Yeah, pretty much what I had in mind, though if you look at USA, EU, Russia (+ Ex USSR), China, any two of these confronted could give interesting (in game/simulation terms) war. Not that is very likely to happen, but then again....1929, Hitler, WWII

[Thomm]

Helmoed-Römer Heitman sayz:

"Asymmetry works both ways. There is nothing quite as asymmetric as a tank driving over an infantryman."

Jane's Defence Weekly, 23 August 2006, p. 23.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Helmoed-Römer Heitman sayz:

"Asymmetry works both ways. There is nothing quite as asymmetric as a tank driving over an infantryman."

Jane's Defence Weekly, 23 August 2006, p. 23.

One of my favorite authors.