Battlefront.com Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Yes, the Mortar variants will allow the crews to dismount and man either the 60mm or 81mm mortars (depending on which they have). The Engineer variant will likely come with the rollers and not the plow *if* we include it. I say *if* because the campaign scenario doesn't include a lot of fixed minefields. However, I would really love to get it in there complete with its mortar deployed lane clearing explosive snake (forget the name for it right now). Super slick. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The MICLIC - mine clearing line charge. Very impressive to see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by fytinghellfish: IIRC, the MGS uses the same M68 gun that was on the M-60 and early M-1 tanks. Did those guns have a problem with unsafe decible levels too? What? Did you say something? Speak up! Ah ok, no. The 105 is ok if you’re behind the M60A1. The M2 rattles a bit also but you can still hear people if they would just speak up! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 http://www.force9.co.nz/default.aspx?bid=ws001 A very, very cool flash game from the NZ Army website. In the first scenario you have to escort some trucks to a crashed C-130 with your LAVIIIs. Once you get there, you have to set up security. It's not as easy as it looks. Give it a try! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 We like Abbott because he's funny. I SAID, WE LIKE ABBOTT... oh what's the use... Back to the MGS. The Army is comitted to figuring out how to get this thing working. It is a fairly important part of the Stryker Brigade concept and if it can't be delivered then they have some serious reconfiguring to do. My money is on "they fix it before CM:SF timeframe, but just barely". We'll of course be watching this closely and won't include it if the vehicle's chances of fielding by mid 2007 looks grim. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Aren't the MGS problems primarily weight oriented (as in getting 20 lbs of s__t into a 10 lb sack?) I know the army swore they wouldn't buy it if it wouldn't fit into a C-130 and now they're having to figure out how to cram it in when it's a tad too heavy. I'll bet that some wiseguy Army Armor bigshot will politely "suggest" that the flyboys upgrade the C-130 with underslung jet pods...MGS should fit then, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 The vanilla stryker just barely fit in a C-130 in the first place. Weight was heavier than planned and reduced the operational range of the C-130. The MGS would likely have never fit inside, never mind the weight. But the requirement for C-130 transportability, the original raison d'etre for the system, has apparently been dropped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 My understanding is once they realized the MGS was not C-130 portable that loosened up the design parameters a bit for the MGS itself. Meaning, they now have more flexibility to deal with the problem without the pie-in-the-sky C-130 requirement that was, in part, responsible for it not working in the first place. As far as I know the C-130 concept is still alive and well for all other Strykers, just not for the MGS. The roll on/off concept is, however, effectively dead due to the realistic need for slat armor. A Stryker with that stuff on certainly can't fit onto a C-130. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Right. But there was also the problem of a Stryker not being able to travel with its crew or dismount squad because of the space/weight concerns. When I was TRADOC weenie we would joke about the Army Materiel Command contractors being on the ground ahead of the Stryker brigade so the Strykers could get their armor kits bolted on as they left the airfield. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 ]If you have not read this blog you should! That was a great AAR of action at Mosul. -tom w Originally posted by Martin Krejcirik: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas: My War Stryker Blog - does anyone know where the original posts of that blog ended up? Andreas Luckily I made a mirror after his famous Men in Black post, you can find it here . [/quote My War Stryker Blog - does anyone know where the original posts of that blog ended up? Andreas [/qb]</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattwagner Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 C-130 and Strykers simply dont mix. Unless you like getting 10% of your force on the ground in a few days, but non combat ready, and the other 90% about a three weeks later by boat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattwagner Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: ]If you have not read this blog you should! Luckily I made a mirror after his famous Men in Black post, you can find it here . My buddy(as well as a bunch of other guys i used to work with) was in this same ambush and had a very similar story to tell. RPG's, shrapnel in the face, disabled strykers, rocking the .50 and thinking he was going to die, and whatnot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Thought you guys might want to read FM 3-06.11 Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrian. If you can't fine it, I would be more then happy to send it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 While searching for information about the Stryker, I came across some interesting documents, dealing with the weaknesses of the vehicle. Stryker Brigades versus the reality of war This is a document written for a U.S. congressman, who was trying to have the program killed, so you have to take it with a grain of salt. However, this second document: Initial impressions report - operations in Mosul, Iraq is an internal U.S. army report from dec. 2004 assessing how the Strykers are doing on the ground in Iraq. It confirms alot of the same problems: -the additional slat armour that was added to the Strykers only stops about half of the RPG attacks (p.48); -The weight of the additional slat armour (about 5,000 lbs.) significantly impacts handling off road during the rainy season (p.49); -The vehicle encounters soil bearing difficulties when operated off of an improved road and frequently becomes mired (p.50); -The rear hatches are over exposed to enemy ground fire (p.53); -The Stryker features a Head-Up display used by the vehicle commander. However, commanders do not use use it in potential combat situations since it has a blind spot which interferes with situational awareness and it's too large and difficult to use inside the vehicle (p.54); -The FBCB2 computer (which displays current orders and the location of friendly and known enemy units) is too slow and frequently locks up (p.56); -The digital systems overheat in the desert. Air conditioners are required (p. 56); -The Machine Gun is not stabilised and cannot be fired accurately while the vehicle is on the move (p. 58); Now some of these problems are obviously teething issues with a new weapon system, however some appear to be basic design flaws(i.e. inadaquate armour protection, poor off-road capability). I presume Battlefront will model the Stryker accurately, warts and all. It looks like the best tactic for the Syrian player will be to pick them off with RPG's once they're stuck in the sand. [ October 13, 2005, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattwagner Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 The vehicle does not do well in soft sand. It depends a bit on the driver's and vc's experience... It doesn't happen a lot, just when it's maneuvered in a bad place... like a wadi. Ahem.. hmm. Definitely can't go places a tracked vehicle can. the FBCB2 is definitely a pain in the butt at times, but its use is immense. It shows the actual location of every vehicle in the unit... providing the other vehicle's systems are working. The thing is definitely slow... programmed in Java! runs on Sun Solaris. as far as RPG's and IED's go... everyone I've known who got hit by one while INSIDE the vehicle with the hatches shut, have been ok. The vehicle on the other hand... not so ok. Plus, the insurgents weren't very good shots. Only severe casualties due to enemey actions that I know of were vc's due to being exposed. My old room mate who was a driver did have his foot messed up due to an IED, but he made it out ok. The vehicle caught fire and was toast though. Everybody else made it ok. Anyway, that stuff aside... if you ask a Stryker soldier whether they'd rather be in a hummer or a stryker.. well... im sure you can guess the answer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Originally posted by mattwagner: Anyway, that stuff aside... if you ask a Stryker soldier whether they'd rather be in a hummer or a stryker.. well... im sure you can guess the answer. Funny, I was just talking about the Stryker with a guy who was with 1st Cav in Iraq until a few months ago. As a battalion S-3, he said he'd rather have 3 uparmored HMMWVs than 1 Stryker. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Why Stryker Succeeded October 12, 2005: When the Stryker wheeled armored vehicle was introduced three years ago, it promptly became a criticism magnet. That’s not unusual. There hasn’t been a new armored American vehicle in the last three decades that was able to enter service free of savage criticism. The Stryker had an advantage, as it was able to go off to war as soon as the first Stryker units were formed. Even most critics agree that combat is the final arbiter of which weapons really work, and which don’t. The Stryker promptly became enormously popular with its users. What made the Stryker a battlefield success was; speed, stealth, protection, maintainability and gadgets. Most critics, especially civilians, underestimated, or were simply clueless about, the importance of speed. Being a wheeled vehicle, the Stryker could run down cars and trucks, something even a fast tracked armored vehicle, like the M-2 Bradley, could not do. In Iraq, where many of the bad guys rolled around in SUVs, the Stryker could keep up. Not only that, but the fast moving Stryker could get to places more quickly, and, in effect, make more “appointments” with the enemy in a day. It’s what they call a “force multiplier.” Stealthiness was another thing civilian critics had no clue about. In Iraq, the quiet Stryker could, literally, sneak up on the enemy, especially since so many of the raids are conducted at night. American troops quickly adapted their tactics to take advantage of it, and these stealthy Strykers quickly put fear in the hearts of the enemy. Much of the criticism aimed at the Stryker had to do with it’s vulnerability to enemy fire. In actual practice, this turned out not to be the case. The troops have high praise for the Strykers ability to take hits, and keep on going, or at least protect its passengers. For older troops who had served in M-2 Bradley mechanized infantry units, it was quickly obvious that the Stryker was a much easier (and less time-consuming) vehicle to maintain and keep going. That meant you had more vehicle ready to roll at any one time. That makes a difference in combat. And then there were the gadgets. The Stryker was loaded up with communications gear, remote control system , networking stuff and new weapons. Most of it worked, but the young troops, raised on gadgets, found the Stryker an entertaining vehicle to work in. And many of the gadgets made the troops more effective or, failing that, less likely to be bored.From http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20051012.aspx 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Hhmm, it's an interesting concept for a company ToE. I still don't like the settings but these are some cool toys to play with, especially if engineering, dismounted mortar stuff and the sniper team are all there. On another note, this also shows that even a battle at single company strenght would have plenty of stuff to command around. Especially if the Rifle Squads can also be split in teams. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Oh, that Congressional bitch-a-thon... I knew that would surface sooner rather than later It is akin to the people whining about the modern setting because they really like WWII. They'll list off 2 dozen reasons why going modern is a big mistake, but most are highly flawed lines of argument, ignorant in some cases, and not compared against the downsides of the other thing that is supposedly superior. In other words, it's all emotional or hidden agenda line of argumentation, not an honest assessment. The December 2004 report is, however, something to look at. When you check it out (and you should) you'll need to know that many of the things brought up have been addressed already, either in the field or with upcoming upgrades. All new systems have teething problems. What the Stryker critics fail to note is that the Bradley was hated by M113 supporters and it too had all sorts of teething problems. Now nobody wants to go back to the old M113s in place of Bradleys. Some people only know how to react to the present and not to project into the future. Styrkers in CM:SF will be simulated, problems and all. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce70 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Originally posted by mattwagner: programmed in Java! OMG!! Well at least it's something I can add to my Java lectures! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSY Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 There are some really nice pro-Stryker quotes from the Blog that Andreas and Martin Krejcirik linked to (on the first page of this thread). Here is CBFTW's "My War Blog" in response to a question on Stryker effectiveness (CBFTW is part of a Stryker Brigade in Iraq): I remember shortly before our deployment here to Iraq, the Washington Post printed a huge article on what a piece of overpriced **** the Stryker was and how the armor couldn't protect against anything. Which wasn't really an assuring thing to read prior to coming to Iraq. Soldier Of Fortune also tore apart the Stryker in their current issue. These people have no idea what the hell they're talking about. Here's the deal, before deployment, if you would have asked me what I thought about the Stryker, I would have told you: No Comment. In fact a lot of soldiers would have told you that. But now that we've been out here and its been combat tested, and we've seen what it's capable of doing, and how it can withstand anything that's thrown at it, I will never say negative thing about the Stryker again, ever. In fact, no lie I don't know of a single person in my Brigade who has anything negative to say about the Stryker anymore. Even people I know who hated it and bad mouthed it every chance they had, talk very highly of it now. Yea, Stykers are kind of an RPG magnet, but it can take a hit, and EVERY vehicle here in Iraq is an RPG magnet. For what we're doing out here, they're perfect, they're extremely mobile, quite (sic - quiet), high speed, the armor works, and it's reliable. People I know who came from a light unit love it, and people who came here from 11Mike world, love it. Tracked vehicles suck in urban environments, too slow, too loud, and they always break down. The big advantage with the Stryker is that it's not a tracked vehicle, which allows it to be extremely mobile and fast. Which is what you need here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Hey, call me stupid, but does the sketch on the first page not indicate that out of 21 strykers only 3 (the MGS) have a direct-LOS weapon heavier than a MG??!??? Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Seems correct. Also...if every Rifle Platoon has three Rifle Squads, a Weapons Squad and a Platoon HQ, then how do they all fit into just 4 vehicles/Platoon? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 What about these two M1131 Stryker FSV - Fire Support Vehicle M1134 Stryker ATGM - Anti Tank Guided Missile That ATGM Styker is the one we need and I don't see it in the Company Org chart for the ToE of the Stryker company. and I understand the MSG Strykers are not ready for prime time. (still having problems like some one here reported if you point the gun sideways and fire it the recoil tips the Stryker on its side??? :confused: Is that true?) interesting -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Does every platoon have a forward observer? (The "FO" in the PLT HQ). According to the organization chart, it looks like 3 men in the rifle platoons have to walk? Weird. All rifle squad vehicles are full (2+9), it look like the only seats left (2) are in the weapon squads's vehicle. And this is what you do until the MGS is ready: Until the MGS fielding, however, tactical missions will be met with Stryker anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) vehicles. The ATGM mission is to provide a tank- (or equivalent vehicle) killing capability. The in-lieu-of ATGMs, used by the first and second brigade combat teams until the fielding of the MGS, will fire a TOW bunker-buster missile to meet the MGS capability. The current TOW missiles do not provide that capability. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-atgm.htm 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.