Battlefront.com Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Flamingknives, Let's not forget that the Mech Infantry Platoon is broken up far worse than a Stryker Platoon, plus it has fewer men to dismount. Therefore, while the Stryker is not ideal in terms of loading, it is an improvement over the current fleet of Bradleys, which in turn are an improvement over the original ones. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 I know, the Bradley Organisation (FM3-21.71, Appendix A) is a real cluster-fudge, with squads split between vehicle But at least they've got the room to transport the troops that they are assigned. Going by the TO&E, the Strykers have to have two men hanging off the running boards. Presumably the numbers so rarely meet the TsO&E that it isn't a problem, or you can squidge an extra bod in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 squidge I wish people using obscure military terms or acronyms would explain them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Think squash but less permanent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Originally posted by flamingknives: Think squash but less permanent. Will the effects of body armor on squidging be portrayed in the game, Steve? This is something the Syrians may actually be able to beat the Americans at, all other things being equal. (Like, actually having a vehicle to squidge troops into.) Will squidged troops suffer a morale penalty? Will leaders have a "Squidge" modifier, like for Command or Stealth? Could come in handy. A leader with a high Squidge could fit 80, 90 Hamstertruppen (from the appropriate Module) in a Stryker, I think. Squidge, squidge squidge squidge! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Originally posted by Soddball: How many tyres can you shoot out before it is unable to move? Originally posted by flamingknives: All of them, twice. Surprisingly enough, the designers thought of that and installed runflats. I thought only two of the four axles were equipped with runflat-tires. :confused: which was one of the issues with the heavy MGS - two axles just aint enough for the MGS's weight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander: Found an awesome site about Stryker Brigade http://strykernews.com/ great site indeed. in a PRAWDAesque kinda way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 A decent, though dated, article that explains a lot about the Stryker Brigade concept and how it was envisioned to function in Iraq prior to deployment: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1003/101003nj1.htm Steve [ October 28, 2005, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Just out of couriousity why is the Stryker mortar carrier not using a more modern breech loaded type? Is it just a cost savings? Which is actually more efficient as the Brits uses the breech loading variant. On the MGS I doubt they'll ever get it to work unless they make it into an assault type vehicle with a fixed gun. Besides the MGS can't fight modern MBT's except from ambush positions. They do have the ATGM variants and javelin's to tackle heavy tanks so a high velocity 105 seems pointless. They could make do with a low velocity 105 for bunker busting only. All best Patrick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 The British army don't use breech loading mortars. The heaviest mortar in British service is the 81mm L16, which is used in US military service as the M252 (IIRC). The turret systems for the 120mm breech loaders (I'm not aware of any breech loading 81mm types) are pretty heavy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 The 120mm mortar used in the Stryker is identical to the standard M121 120mm used by everybody else in the US military. One thing the US military has been much better about recently is standardization. I think they should keep it that way The MGS was always designed to be a "bunker buster", never designed to take on heavy armored vehicles. That is the role of ATGMs and airpower. From what I can tell the MGS has made large improvements over the last year. Now that they ditched the C-130 transportation requirements they were able to fix a lot of the problems they had previously done to reduce weight and profile. It appears the vehicle is nearly ready for mass production and is slated to be available in the field by 2007. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 Steve , Is there any word on more ammo storage? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Fot the MGS? No, I think it is still at 18 rounds IIRC. For its intended role this is adequate since generally only a couple of rounds each would be necessary for even a tough nut to crack. As long as there was a resupply source somewhere within reasonable distance I don't see the number of rounds being a problem Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 It would be interesting if CMSF could replicate a re-supply of troops during combat. Supposing when the troops have expended their ammo during a 20 minute firefight and are surrounded by hostiles it wouldn't be that easy to rescue or re-supply as in Blackhawk down. It would also expand the detail of CMSF if that could be coded in for supply drops or Stryker supply and rescue run. All best Patrick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Could be fun One thing to remember is that in CMx1 games there was no negative for blowing through your ammo. In CMx2 that won't be the case in some ways. We really do hope we can end the days of "hey, there are 5 turns left and I have all this ammo... might as well shoot at stuff!" type gameplay. It is important to remember that a single Stryker MGS, with even its small load of ammo, is capable of destroying the better part of a dense urban city block. That is a LOT of firepower. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 A recall awhile ago someone on the board suggested units could maybe be able to share/redistribute ammo (I thought it was a bad idea at the time). Extending that to resupply, that might mean if *anybody* manages to come into contact with a severely depleted unit then the ammo supply could even out between them. Maybe you could even send out an individual 'runner' from a depleted unit to shuttle ammo stocks from a nearby full-up unit. Ah, but that implies 1:1 control, which we don't have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 While I am disappointed that WWII will not be first, all-in-all I agree with the decision to do a current war scenario to start off with. Like Steve said, by designing the CMII system to be able to handle any and all modern weapons, communications, etc. this guarantees that CMII will be able to handle anything WWII can throw at it perfectly. And it gives Steve and Charles a chance to recharge their batteries, take a breather from WWII for a bit and then come back fresh to hit WWII full tilt for CMII Western Front. And it will be interesting to see an M1 in action, etc. Though fighting the Syrians, while very plausible, is kind of funny. I think a reporter asked during a military briefing on t.v. if we had to take out Syria (due to their letting terrorists use the country as a base to attack us in Iraq from, etc.) what the campaign would be like, how U.S. forces would do, how the Syrian military would stack up, how long would it take us to beat their military and so on. The answer was it would take about 20 minutes, and 15 were for coffee. haha I mean, at least during the first gulf war Iraq had a large military to deal with, so the air campaign lasted a bit, and the ground war was a swift crushing defeat, but Syria? What have they got in terms of quantity or quality that can really compare with the U.S. in terms of equipment or, more importantly, highly trained and motivated soldiers? It seems that the only realistic way this will be at all competitive is if U.S. troops are heavily outnumbered in the scenarios created, and one has to wonder how often a situation like that would ever be allowed to happen in a real invasion, or many scenarios are limited to small units of infantry fighting it out in a city. In either case, it would seem the options are pretty limited in scenario design since there is no comparison between U.S. and Syrian forces. By the way, will things like superior U.S. unit experience and training levels of both the units themselves and their commanders be modeled in CMII? One would expect lots of veteran and elite units on the U.S side and plenty of platoon, company and battalion commanders that have high positive combat, C&C, and morale modifiers to be present. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Lee, check out the many threads on this topic. The questions you have asked are answered and elaborated on in quite a bit of detail. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted November 3, 2005 Author Share Posted November 3, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Fot the MGS? (snip) I don't see the number of rounds being a problem Steve Got it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Steve: Well, the first question was more or less rhetorical, since it's obvious the Syrians can't take us on head to head and not get totally owned, so scenarios will have to be specifically designed around that in one way or another. As far as the modifiers, I've read quite a few threads and did a search even but have seen nothing on that mentioned yet. Anyhow, I'll just assume you guys have that covered, since you always do cover such important things. But finding out for sure is always nice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Things that aren't modelled in CM that have much to do with US military strength: *Strategic airpower *Relative tactical skill *Logistics *Operational art Things that are modelled in CM that can be used to create an artificial play balance *Troop quality (Crack/elite Volksturm?) *Points values *The capacity to assign more armour (for the sake of example) units to a side than ever existed (Sturmtigers?) *The omission of key combined-arms units (artillery, CAS) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 *Test. The first post-consolidation posting to see if it still works. By the way, Where'd BFC get hold of scale Stryker plans to do their polygons from? Unlike Greyhounds and Staghounds, Stryker drawings don't exactly seem to be readily available at your local hobby shop. But then again, if the BFC guys were allowed to sit-in on Javelin live fire tests perhaps they have more friends on the inside than we do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 We didn't get any scale stryker diagrams Like you say, they just don't exist. Or at least we haven't found them yet. We used some very good straight on photos for the most part. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 From: Jane's International Defence Review, Vol. 38, Dec. 2005: Stryker prepared for production verification The much-delayed Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) for which [...] General Dynamics Land Systems received authorisation [...] to transition to low-rate initial production (LRIP) in September 2004, was due to begin contractor shakedown trials in November. These trials, involving the first two of 14 LRIP vehicles, are a prelude to government production verification testing which should clear the way for a Milestone 3 (full-rate production) decision in August 2007. [...] Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Well, I was wondering what that new Stryker mortar carrier roof would look like: Mortar Carrier roof closeup Mortar Carrier rear shot mortar Carrier 3/4 front 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.