Stryker Brigade ToE and vehicle variants

[Battlefront.com]

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

[flamingknives]

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.

[Tarquelne]

squidge

I wish people using obscure military terms or acronyms would explain them.

[flamingknives]

Think squash but less permanent.

[Tarquelne]

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!

[M Hofbauer]

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.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Found an awesome site about Stryker Brigade

http://strykernews.com/

great site indeed.

in a PRAWDAesque kinda way.

[Battlefront.com]

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 ]

[lucero1148]

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

[flamingknives]

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.

[Battlefront.com]

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

[Abbott]

Steve ,

Is there any word on more ammo storage?

[Battlefront.com]

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

[lucero1148]

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

[Battlefront.com]

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

[MikeyD]

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.

[Lee]

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.

[Battlefront.com]

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

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Fot the MGS? (snip) I don't see the number of rounds being a problem

Steve

Got it.

[Lee]

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.

[flamingknives]

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)

[MikeyD]

*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.

[Battlefront.com]

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

[Thomm]

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

[MikeyD]

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