Will the Stryker die a lot?

[hellfish]

Or a 2000lb bomb.

[Battlefront.com]

Hoolaman... you started a good post, so dunno what you're going on about, m'boy

Sixxkiller... unfortunately, I am painfully aware that CM:SF might hit too close to home for some. Back in the early 1980s I went paintballing (back when there were 10 shot Sheridan pistols only!) with a Vietnam veteran infantryman. We all had a great time and he dropped the other team like flies. All was fine until he went to sleep, then... well, let's just say his wife didn't let him play with us any more.

As for the types of IEDs... there are so MANY different types because of the "I" part of "IED". We are going to have a variety of sizes and types with different methods of detonation. We can not get into the nitty gritty of counter measures since there are many. So instead we are going to go with a more abstract treatment. Basically this means:

1. IEDs will be completely invisible to the US player. We aren't going to have piles of dog poop, trash barrels, cars at the side of the road, false brick in a wall, etc. for the IEDs to be camouflaged in. This means the US player has no way to guess, with his own two eyes, where the IEDs are. Instead, depending on the type of IED and where it is placed there is a chance that it will suddenly appear to the US player. He can then avoid it or try to detonate it by direct fire or disable with Engineers. The more likely thing, within the scope of a short firefight, avoiding it will be the norm.

2. There will be a chance that command detonated IEDs will fail to work (for that matter, there is a small chance that they will simply fail on their own) because of a simulated US counter device. "Doorbell" type direct command detonated IEDs have a lowere chance of being screwed with than "Garage Door Opener", "Radio", and "Cell Phone" types. Direct pressure IEDs have the lowest chance of failure, but of course offer the least amount of control for the Syrian player.

3. The size of the IED is only one factor of importance. The other is how it is constructed. There is a big difference between a bomb made out of 2x155m HE rounds and a carefully constructed EFP.

4. Each IED is set off by a unique method. Excepting direct detonated IEDs, a Syrian "Triggerman" can set off any IED that he has a trigger device for. The rules for distances and chance of failure are specific to the type of device.

How many of these types we get in, and to what degree they are simulated, is still up in the air. This is a VERY complex simulation within a simulation and, as important as it is, we can't afford to get sucked into dong this in detail. DoD sim guys are getting paid millions of bucks to do just IED stuff, so it's kinda silly to think we can match that level of detail.

Steve

[dan/california]

Will the speed of advance or other aspects of the of the U.S. players approach affect the IED detection probability?

Any chance the Syrian player will occasionally off his own team?

[Battlefront.com]

We aren't sure how we are going to do the detection abstraction yet. It might just have to be a more simplistic scenario wide spotting modifier. I'm hoping for a lot better than that (like Experience of individual units coming into play), but we'll just have to see. For sure this is one area tht we could refine for years, so I expect that we will be making improvements to IED modeling after the initial release.

Probably no chance of accidental friendly detonation. It is hard to imagine how we could do that since the player has God Spotting. When we get into CoPlay we might be able to mess around with this some.

Steve

[vincere]

Steve, great bone about IEDs. Glad to hear they are in and the bones keep coming.

By the way

We aren't going to have piles of dog poop

I think that you'll find the the correct terminology is "Heavy duty dog do-do."

[c3k]

Hmmm, IEDs... Will the OPFOR player be able to place a trigger zone AROUND IEDs? I'm thinking about an IED planted at an intersection (just for example). The controlling unit is 100 meters away, with good LOS (action point to action point, that is). I want the controlling unit to detonate the command action IED when a U.S. unit enters the intersection. How do I make that desire get translated into the game interface?

Using an analogy to CMx1 (however inappropriate THAT may be), I want a "Covered Arc" command, but NOT centered on the unit, rather, centered on the distant IED. Could I do that? Draw a 20 meter circle around the IED, if the controlling unit is in good order with LOS, it will then send the command signal? If the "Covered Arc" command is fixed to the unit, IED control could be VERY unrealistically difficult.

All this was posted in total ignorance. Please shed some illumination.

Thanks,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

All this was posted in total ignorance.

You might be ignorant, but that doesn't make you wrong

Steve

[V]

I saw a report on Fox News about the 172 Stryker brigade who just got back to Iraq for tour number two.

They mentioned that they had not lost a Stryker to a road side bomb.

[rudel.dietrich]

Can a Soviet 12.7mm round pierce the armour?

Has any unit in Iraq ran into these weapons?

I know was the maker of the vehicle and the source data says, but I was looking for real world experience perhaps.

(btw, my first post of this board)

[flamingknives]

Welcome to the board. We're very friendly, as long as you don't ask stupid questions or ones that could be answered by a search.

It's a good start though, as your question is neither.

Source data's probably all you'll get, as telling the world on a public bulletin board about a military vehicles weakness is not smart. Particularly if one happened to be riding around in one at the time.

I'd guess that at standard combat ranges, the Stryker is largely immune to penetration from a .5" machine gun. Point blank might be another story, but would you want to get to point-blank range with a large, crew-served weapon?

[MikeyD]

Stryker was designed to provide protection specifically against the Russian KPV 14.5 hvy mg. Either from a distance of 50mm or from point-blank - I can't recall at the moment.

As a matter of fact while the first deployment of Strykers were sailing across the Pacific to Iraq it was discovered to everyone's horror that the brand-new add-on ceramic MEXAS tiles had been made to the wrong specs! After the ships docked in Kuwait each MEXAS tile had to be given an extra 5mm soft steel backing plate to raise the protection level to the equivalent of 56mm armor steel. And us old CMBB players will know 56mm steel is just enough to stop any 14.5mm AT round

[flamingknives]

From 50m sounds likely.

[John Kettler]

rudel.dietrich,

Welcome aboard! My understanding is that the Stryker's basic armor (sans cage, that is) is designed to defeat the Russian 14.5 mm KPVT found on the BRDM-2, BTR-60, etc. I don't not know, though, whether this is an any range criterion or a down to range X criterion.

Regards,

John Kettler

[rudel.dietrich]

Thanks

Styrker debates have been raging around the office as of late and have nearly come to blows on a number of occasions.

Some really like them and others hate them and the concept of warfare that has came with them.

The concept of a lightly equiped rapidly mobile force that is very different from anything the US military has done in recent years.

[flamingknives]

If you're going to debate Strykers, there's a few points to remember:

1) Strykers are additional capability, not replacement.

2) It might pay to ask the soldiers using them what they think.

3) Mike Sparks is an idiot.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If you're going to debate Strykers, there's a few points to remember:

1) Strykers are additional capability, not replacement.

2) It might pay to ask the soldiers using them what they think.

3) Mike Sparks is an idiot.

I think there is a alot of misconceptions about what they will be used for what what they are intended for.

I think the US Army learned its lesson with the M2A2 about promising a vehicle that can do it all.

But that is yet another debate that ends violently

And usualy I am told to keep my mouth shut since I dont have any experience with US hardware.

[Imperial Grunt]

I know Marine LAVs have withstood some large IEDs as well, but the tires got taken out so they were immobilized.

But there have been many "super IED"s. I remember one in Ramadi that virtually vaporized a M113. Biggest piece left was the rear ramp. Last year a Marine AAV ran over a double stacked anti-tank mine IED that completely destroyed the vehicle and killed around 10 Marines.

Regarding vehicles and HMGs, I would not want to test out any vehicle's armor, except a M-1A1 tank, against a 14.5mm HMG. Especially from the flanks.

And even if a Stryker's armor withstands 14.5mm rounds, how many and for how long? Additionally, the tires and wheels would get damaged severely, the .50cal and all those optics would get destroyed quickly, and any exterior fuel cans would catch fire.

Nope, as soon as the shooting starts, I want to get the f_ck out of the any vehicle I might be in. I guess I am just not a fan of the whole "shooting out of the gunports" IFV concept.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If you're going to debate Strykers, there's a few points to remember:

1) Strykers are additional capability, not replacement.

2) It might pay to ask the soldiers using them what they think.

3) Mike Sparks is an idiot.

1. Strykers augment light infantry - it does not replace mech infantry. It also doesn't make Strykers mech infantry.

2. Most accounts I've heard, even from non Stryker guys who have served near/with Strykers all seem to have pretty positive things to say.

3. He is indeed an idiot.

[Runyan99]

I'm watching an hour show about the Stryker on the Military Channel right now. Looks like a modern Greyhound armored car to me.

I guess a lot depends on how effective the slat armor cage really is at defeating RPG warheads. If just about any old RPG round can penetrate this thing, I wouldn't think it's very survivable in an urban combat. Especially not in CM type combat. Better to use the vehicle's rapid mobility, and just get the hell out of Dodge.

[ August 18, 2006, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[Battlefront.com]

Runyan99,

I guess a lot depends on how effective the slat armor cage really is at defeating RPG warheads. If just about any old RPG round can penetrate this thing, I wouldn't think it's very survivable in an urban combat. Especially not in CM type combat. Better to use the vehicle's rapid mobility, and just get the hell out of Dodge.

Fortunately (in a research way only) Strykers have been in Iraq and in combat for about two years. We already know a lot about how they work in actual combat and how effective the slat armor is. It totally depends on the round fired, ranging from 0% to 100%. We've got some decent data to go on.

As for their survivability in CM:SF... depends on how well you guys understand the differences between an Abrams and a Stryker. Judging from how you guys tend to handle armor in CMx1 games, I'm not holding out much hope for the poor little virtual Strykers

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

Ooooh. We get to plant IEDs in CM:SF? Can we remote detonate them, or will they be more like a mine?

Found this on the BBC and thought it might be interesting here:

web page BBC

A short interesting article..

with a nice diagram.

-tom w

[hellfish]

don't think this is worth it's own thread, but interesting nonetheless:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20060820.aspx

Made In Iraq; the M-1A1SA

August 20, 2006: American armored vehicles took a real beating in Iraq, even if they were never hit by enemy fire. The heat, the sand, and the constant work wears these vehicles down. So the U.S. Army has come up with a $700,000 "reset" process that refurbishes and upgrades M-1 tanks to M-1A1SA models. What the crews particularly like about these SA (Situational Awareness) models is the new Blue Force Tracker (BFT) gear, which reliably shows them where all friendly (BFT equipped) vehicles are at all times, on a map display. Then there is the new and improved thermal sights, that provide better images at longer ranges (exact range is secret, but said to be over two kilometers). The .50 caliber machine-gun topside gets a thermal sight. There is now a phone box mounted on the side, for the infantry to use to talk to the crew. There are a lot of upgrades and improvements in the electrical system, many based on soldier suggestions.

The experience in Iraq has thus produced a version of the M-1 that is optimized for infantry support.

[Battlefront.com]

It's about time the Pentagon figured out that it couldn't afford to concentrate on upgrading the M1A2s to SEP models at the expense of the M1A1s still in service. By my calculations they can upgrade three M1A1s for every one M1A2. Works for me

We won't be including the M1A1 SA in CM:SF. At least not initially. After doing some research it looks like only a dozen or so would have come off the assembly line by the time CM:SF is set. It is doubtful any of them would be approved for service or, at the very least, find their way over there for the initial action we are simulating. Still, it is likely that we will include this variant in a future Module.

Steve

[Cameroon]

How novel.

There is now a phone box mounted on the side, for the infantry to use to talk to the crew. There are a lot of upgrades and improvements in the electrical system, many based on soldier suggestions.

This quote stuck out because I'm currently reading 3 books about D-Day and beyond. Of relevance to this post, one of the communication improvements made was putting phone boxes on the tanks.

I shamlessly admit that I have no idea why that wasn't a feature carried forward (ubiquitous radios?). Can anyone shed some light?

[Battlefront.com]

Caneroon,

I shamlessly admit that I have no idea why that wasn't a feature carried forward (ubiquitous radios?). Can anyone shed some light?

Because the US has a terrible record of forgetting its own hard won lessons. Take snipers, for example. WWI they crash coursed guys into snipers, then after WWI disbanded the training. They had to do this all over again for WWII, then promptly dropped the programs again right after. Korean War? You guessed it. Vietnam War? Take a guess! After that, as far as I know, the programs languished but at least weren't disbanded. Today's US Military is busy churning out Snipers as fast as they can, or so it would seem.

As far as I can tell some bright bulb in a position of authority within the Abrams procurement process thought tanks would just be rushing around whacking other thanks, so why spend the extra couple hundred bucks for a field phone and box? During Gulf War 1 soldiers improvised, as they always do, by hanging standard field phones out of the turret for the infantry to use. Just like their grand pappies did back in Dubya, Dubya Two. I'm sure their grand pappies were not surprised either

Steve