Stryker Brigade ToE and vehicle variants

[RMC]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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.

Because the MGS is a no-show, the ATGM version is used in lieu of it at this time. But there is also an ATGM platoon at the battalion level IIRC.

[hellfish]

It's an AT company at the brigade level.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

It's an AT company at the brigade level.

One MGS per platoon? Theoretically, at least. Woza! (And I mean that in a good way.)

How many ATGM vehicles in that company?.. oh, I suppose I can go look that up. I just wanted to say "woza", really...

[Battlefront.com]

Someone in another thread said he thought the Stryker Battalion looked weak on paper. I don't know what he is comparing it against because I don't see it that way. Even with the MGS on hold this is a formation that has a lot of punch.

Steve

[Thomm]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

That ATGM Styker is the one we need ...

... to kill first, MUAHHAHAHHH!!! :mad:

Best regards,

Thomm

[RMC]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Even with the MGS on hold this is a formation that has a lot of punch.

Compared to a light battalion. But not compared to a mech battalion.

[hellfish]

But you can't compare it to a mech battalion - you can, however, compare it to a light battalion. If you took away all the Strykers, you'd have a light infantry battalion, almost exact. If you swapped the Strykers for Bradleys, you'd have a really big mech battalion (only 6-7 dismounts can fit into a Bradley, so you'd have to have like 5 vehicles per platoon to carry the same number of dismounts).

Strykers are upgrades to light infantry, not mech units. And they've still got some pretty decent firepower at the company level - three MGS guns provides a pretty unique direct fire capability to the company commander. Bradley companies don't have a platoon of Abrams as part of their normal TO&E, nor any other company-type in the world that I can think of.

[RMC]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

But you can't compare it to a mech battalion

Yes you can. Steve says it has "a lot" of punch. It has punch only in relation to the light battalion. The mech battalion still has more punch. So on the punch scale the Stryker is between light and mech. It has "some" punch, not "a lot."

Strykers are upgrades to light infantry, not mech units.

The first unit converted to Stryker was 3BDE 2ID, a mech BDE, and they hated the conversion. The second conversion was 1 BDE 25 ID, a light unit, and they liked it.

And they've still got some pretty decent firepower at the company level - three MGS guns provides a pretty unique direct fire capability to the company commander. Bradley companies don't have a platoon of Abrams as part of their normal TO&E, nor any other company-type in the world that I can think of.

The MGS pales in comparison to an Abrams.

A Bradley company commander gets 14 TOW launchers with his Brads.

A Troop commander in a heavy ACR gets 13 Brads 9 Abrams and two mortar tracks. He doesn't have the dismount infantry though.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by RMC:

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

But you can't compare it to a mech battalion

Yes you can. Steve says it has "a lot" of punch. It has punch only in relation to the light battalion. The mech battalion still has more punch. So on the punch scale the Stryker is between light and mech. It has "some" punch, not "a lot." </font>

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

[QB] But you can't compare it to a mech battalion -

I can compare it to the Death Star if I wish... the good one, not the wimpy Mk. 1.

you can, however, compare it to a light battalion.

OTOH, I'll say I think it should be compared to whatever formation it's role is most similar to. Which would seem to be a light battalion that's sneaked into a mech battalion's motor pool.

If you took away all the Strykers, you'd have a light infantry battalion, almost exact.

But that's just absurd, because who would want to sneak into the Stryker's motor pool and steal all their vehicles? If a light battalion did then _it_ would become a Stryker battalion, and a mech bat. wouldn't.

Get a grip, man!

From RMC:

Yes you can. Steve says it has "a lot" of punch. It has punch only in relation to the light battalion. The mech battalion still has more punch. So on the punch scale the Stryker is between light and mech. It has "some" punch, not "a lot."

And compared to the power of the Force even a mech. battalion is as nothing! ("Star Wars" references courtesy of geekoutreach.com.)

I think it's important to think of Stryker groups as souped up light formations with a lot of punch and speed. But used like a light formation. An "apples to apples" sort of comparison. They don't have the raw power or "toughness" (robustness? Imabigtankness?) of a mech formation.

Hmm... maybe a good way to put it is that the Strykers make for a light battalion with a lot of punch, or an anemic mech. battalion. So deploy it as a light battalion and you'll probably make short work of the enemy. Apply it as a mech battalion and you'll be in trouble.

Not that I'm trying to give you _military_ advice. Just rhetorical.

[MikeyD]

Battlefront writes:

"Someone in another thread said he thought the Stryker Battalion looked weak on paper."

That might've been me. What I meant by that was there had been debate among weapons analyists about Stryker trading weaponry for armor. The smaller lighter Marine LAV (and Canadian LAV III) has a 25mm Bushmaster gun and coaxial mg in a 2 man turret. M1126 Stryker has one remote .50 cal. One could point out the the Marine LAV's bigger gun is no use if the vehicle's a flaming wreck, which would be a point in favor of Stryker. Of course, Stryker Brigade's got some bite to it (any unit with .50 cals, grenade launchers and TOWs will have bite) but the debate is about bang-for-the-considerably big bucks.

By the way, purely from the perspective of gameplay I think Stryker Brigade not being 'omnipotent' is a good thing! A newbie thinking he's going to win just because he's playing American may have a shock coming to him! We, as players, will have to actually learn how to best utilize the assets we have.

[ October 14, 2005, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[hellfish]

I've been looking, but does anyone know how high the remote weapon station on the Stryker can elevate? I've been reading about how the M113 was useful in Baghdad because the unprotected flex mount for the .50 could elevate to hit the 3rd and 4th floors of buildings (whereas the M1 and Brad couldn't shoot that high) plus the troop hatch in back allowed 4-5 guys to fire willy nilly too.

[RMC]

M113 is a little underrated. When I was in training, we all wanted to train with the Brads. We liked the guns. But when it came to being a dismount infantryman, the M113 was a better deal. The SOP had most of the squad up in the hatch covering a sector. You had situational awareness by seeing where you were going and you knew what was going on when you had to dismount.

In a Brad you just sucking diesel fumes until the hatch dropped and they told you to get out.

[hellfish]

I totally agree - I'd much rather be in the hatch of the 113 than in the back of the Bradley most of the time. In my unit we fought over who goes in the 113 hatch and who stays below, as the guys below inevitably got sick and vomited everywhere. I only got to be a Brad dismount once, and that was a miserable experience - much worse than being a 113 dismount. You jump off the ramp and you just want to hug the non-moving dirt for a while.

Man... I'm getting kind of nostalgic now.

[MikeyD]

If you look at Afghanistan and Iraq photos you see there's usually a trooper with a SAW sticking out a back roof hatch of a Marine LAV or Stryker covering his rear against those sneaky RPGs. Looks like SOP to me. Of course most of those shots appear to be countryside convoys. I don't know how often they go 'heads-up' in the big bad city.

[ October 14, 2005, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Battlefront.com]

It is SOP to have 1-2 of the mounted infantry sticking out the back two hatches. This vehicle commander stays buttoned. That way if the vehicle is hit the VC is in command and not dead, yet while not under fire he has TWO sets of eyes and TWO weapons guarding flanks and rear. Most of the pics I see of Strykers on the move have at least one of the SAW gunners and a rifleman exposed.

The main problem with this, so far as I've seen, is RPG "splash". This is when an RPG hits the slat armor and sprays shrapnel all over the vehicle. Unfortunately if the hit is to the rear, that means the mounted infantry who are exposed. In order to counter this the soldiers do what all soldiers do in wartime... they improvise! They pile sandbags, equipment (like MREs and whatnot), and/or some sort of heavy rolled material around the edges of the rear section of the vehicle. Some more resourceful units have even welded armor plating around the top edge giving the upper deck a 8"-10" armored lip that can hopefully deflect/absorb the splash effect as well as light small arms fire. In at least two official unit AARs I've seen this mentioned as a requested upgrade to the vehicle. So obviously they feel that sticking 1-2 guys out the hatches is so important that the vehicles need to be modified to do it better.

Oh, and mounted infantry can fire from their vehicles in CMx2 If they are inside and there are firing ports, they can use them. Otherwise if they are positioned in hatches they can fire from there. Or a combo I suppose.

Steve

[junk2drive]

Oh, and mounted infantry can fire from their vehicles in CMx2 If they are inside and there are firing ports, they can use them. Otherwise if they are positioned in hatches they can fire from there. Or a combo I suppose.

That's good news to me.

[felixgrey]

As for Brads and Tanks serving organically together in the same company the only organization that I can think of that does it is the Cav Troop for a Mech Division. 9 M1s and 13 M3s, plus two 120mm Mortar tracks. And they get OH-58Ds assigned to them as a force modifier.

I wonder if OH-58Ds are simulated. Unlike the rest of the Helos in the US inventory - the 58 is the only one that would routinely be on a CM2 type battle field.

Scott

[BARMAN1950]

I was at a regt reunion a couple of weeks ago for a reunion of the 29th Inf Regt. The Regt is the "school" regt at Ft Benning GA. They put on a demo for us that consisted of Strikers, Bradleys and a 120mm mortar vehicle (M113's) I think.

I asked the question "what is the tactical difference between the Striker & the Bradley". I was told that the Striker was basically a troop carrier much like the HT of WW II fame, whereas the Bradley was a "fighting vehicle".

The Strikers had the 50 Cal M2 or the M19 auto-granade launcher. The way in which the Strikers & the Bradleys worked together (at least in this scenario) was VERY impressive. I am sure many of you grogs knew this, but it certainly cleared it up for me.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...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...

Styrkers in CM:SF will be simulated, problems and all.

Steve

That's good to know. I have my doubts about the Stryker brigade concept, but I am looking forward to commanding one in CMSF ... as well as lighting up a few with Syrian ATGMs.

[MikeyD]

Steve states:

"Some more resourceful units have even welded armor plating around the top edge giving the upper deck a 8"-10" armored lip..."

Ooooh, these guys are on top of the subject! I thought I was one of the few to spot that extra armor rim running around the cage edge of a few Iraq Strykers in photos. That gives me confidence that the this game is going to rock. BFC is in the process of 'mastering' the subject thoroughly.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

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?

Worse, from the Field Manual FM 3-21.9:

Leaders must consider their tactical cross-load plan when conducting operations. The SBCT rifle platoon vehicle seating capacity is 44 personnel; however, it is organized with 45 organic soldiers and one attachment (platoon trauma specialist) for a total of 46 soldiers.

[Kurtz]

Are they going to play musical chairs?

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

I totally agree - I'd much rather be in the hatch of the 113 than in the back of the Bradley most of the time. In my unit we fought over who goes in the 113 hatch and who stays below, as the guys below inevitably got sick and vomited everywhere. I only got to be a Brad dismount once, and that was a miserable experience - much worse than being a 113 dismount. You jump off the ramp and you just want to hug the non-moving dirt for a while.

Man... I'm getting kind of nostalgic now.

the early Bradleys had a large rectangular hatch on the rear - not as large as the one on the M113, but roughly similar. Has it gotten eliminated in the unholy process of "improvement" and "progress" just like the firing ports?

Reminds me that I havent seen a live Bradley for quite some time now...

[ October 18, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[flamingknives]

I've heard horror stories regarding the Warrior (British nearly Bradley equivalent) and motion sickness.

Apparently it had a translucent fuel/fluid tank so a visual check could be made from the passenger compartment. It sloshed around a bit while moving and.. Bleugh.