Stryker snippets

[Battlefront.com]

And here is the answer as to why there is a need for a Medium force:

Ground troops don't advance nonstop: They have to rest, resupply, and above all, pause to check for potential ambushes ahead. So, better reconnaissance and better communications are as crucial as a unit's top speed. The Stryker brigade is strong on all three counts. At the National Training Center, an Army light infantry unit averages 5 miles a night and digs in by day; a heavy armored unit can make 20 miles. One Stryker company, by contrast, raced 60 miles around the enemy flank. And while traditional units gradually expand their perimeter, the Stryker brigade swiftly spread detachments across the 25-mile-by-30-mile training area. Without the wireless network, coordinating such far-flung forces would have been impossible.

And supplying them would have likewise been impossible. When Thompson, who was then a captain, sent out supply columns during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he said, "I stayed up all night until those guys came back, because once they're out of radio contact, you just sweat it out." With the network, which automatically relays messages from vehicle to vehicle to vehicle, Thompson can track every supply truck - and e-mail its driver to stop, change course, or run away.

And another that illustrates my point about no vehicle being perfect:

Scrambling over a Stryker with a mechanic reveals a patchwork of quick fixes... The process seems haphazard. But it is an improvement over the military's past practice of "perfecting" new weapons in controlled conditions before issuing them to troops, at which point unexpected bugs, swarms of them, emerged in the field. Back in the 1980s, critics charged that the M2 Bradley was too lightly armored. Forced to do tests with live ammunition, the Army reluctantly agreed and ordered an up-armored version - but only after building more than 3,000 of the originals, some of which were never fixed. The Stryker's fixes have come only about 600 vehicles and four years into the program.

This is from a decent overview of SBCT as it was just before going to Iraq for the first time:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1003/101003nj1.htm

Steve

[ October 28, 2005, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

MikeyD, we are simulating systems and ingame damage. You can also predamage vehicles in the Editor. So, for example, you can have a vehicle's FBCB2 system go offline during a battle or have a tank turret jammed prior to the battle. Stuff like that.

Wow. If CM is now up to simulating that level of detail, this could be an interesting ride.

Michael

[LGMB]

Hey, thanks for the detailed replies, Steve.

The Abrams comparison is a very good point- I hadn't thought about that.

Sorry about insulting your intelligence there, again, I was just going back to what I'd read (again and again).

Well, I doubt I'll ever fully 'convert' on the Stryker issue, but I know when I've been owned.

And, I think it's fair to say, I got a whooping.

On that article you posted:

The Stryker force's superior awareness of the situation is meant to make up for its lighter arms and armor.

Everytime I hear that I cringe. There's just something very unerving about assuming that speed and communicatons really can make up for light armor. A friend of mine, who's brother is in Iraq right made a very good point about the "averege infantryman," when we were discussing small arms. We were talking about aim-points, and he said, something along the lines of, "if its not made of metal, and bolted to gun, we can break it". I think the key there is durability- the point being that battery-powere aim-points, in this case, were fine for spec. ops, but more or less useless for everyone-else....

...which leads me to question, are the Stryker brigades going to be treated (aside from rapid reponse, and so on) as something akin to Spec. Forces? Even then, against a serious oponent, ie, not a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and IEDs, will the 'Flash-to-bang' advantage of hightech communications and speed really factor in?

You seemed to be agreeing with, when you said above that, it was troubeling... or something...

Yah here,

Even if an Iraq type counter insurgency operation is the only type of conflict the US will ever face from now on (which is not a good assumption to make)

Well, I guess that even then, they've got the Abrams in the wings... I'm just hoping no bright eyed Stryker commander is going to get the bright idea of sending his "advanced" combat units against T-80s without artillery support (and I don't mean the Strykers mortars and Mobile Gun Systems, obivisouly).

Special Forces troops, unorthodox but highly mobile on horseback, used lasers to guide smart bombs in Afghanistan

Now that's what I'm all about. Ariel drones! JDAMs for everyone (and don't forget, the HORSES)!

Slat armor makes the Strykers look even more, well, striking - but it is a marked contrast to the slab-like solidity of the older M2 Bradleys and M1 Abrams tanks.

This pisses me off too- stop pretending like the "slat armor" is high-tec and new. Its a ****in' Skirt, and everyone knows it. A pretty archiac solution to the problem, but, well, I *guess* if it works it works...

[ October 28, 2005, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Lord General MB ]

[flamingknives]

Nope, slat armour is not a 'skirt', but a very specialised countermeasure against the RPG7 warhead.

Basically, it fouls up the PG7s fusing, so it doesn't detonate, most of the time. The rest of the time it acts as a conventional skirt with up to 2m standoff.

But no, it's not really new. Its widespread use is only worthwhile due to the prevalence of RPG7s

[Michael Emrys]

It is my understanding that the Stryker is not intended as a substitute for the Abrams or the Bradley. It is intended as a (partial) substitute for the armored Hummer. Of course, there is always a possibility that an ambitious Lt. Colonel will get brave and try to send his Strykers where no Strykers ought to go, but hopefully there won't be too many of those.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Lord General,

Well, I doubt I'll ever fully 'convert' on the Stryker issue, but I know when I've been owned.

Yeah, my purpose here is not to convert people into thinking the Stryker program is the best thing in the world. I am just trying to get people predisposed to thinking it is the worst thing to open their eyes up a bit wider.

There are no magical solutions to the challenges presented on a battlefield (ANY battlefield). The best solution has been found to be combined arms and combined arms tactics. In order to do that effectively you must have the right tools to draw from. For decades the US military has been presented with a problem that required a tool that wasn't in the toolbox. Which meant using a hammer or a screwdriver when a pair of pliars was atually what was needed. So they now have themselves some pliars

People that disagree with the Stryker program need to understand that a new force type is long overdue. The question is if Stryker, as it is in reality, fits the bill. If not, then what does? The typcial anti-Stryker guy sketches out an alternative that looks nearly identical to the Heavy forces we already have. In other words, giving the US military a new hammer with a different grip on it instead of pliars of a superior design. It is this line of reasoning that I think it rather dangerous and counter productive.

Everytime I hear that I cringe. There's just something very unerving about assuming that speed and communicatons really can make up for light armor.

The theory is being tested right now. It would appear that for some situations, it can. For others it can not. But the concept that is behind this is as sound today as it was back in Sun Tzu's day. The force that can maneuver better will likely win, even if inferior in some ways. The Germans proved that in 1940 and, tactically at least, all the way up until the end of the war.

...which leads me to question, are the Stryker brigades going to be treated (aside from rapid reponse, and so on) as something akin to Spec. Forces?

No. It is more akin to Armored Cavalry and Mechanized Infantry. What the SBCT lacks in some areas compared to these existing formations it makes up for (in theory) in other ways. Superior communications, greater number of dismounts, more organic firepower at lower levels, better operational flexibility, etc.

Even then, against a serious oponent, ie, not a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and IEDs, will the 'Flash-to-bang' advantage of hightech communications and speed really factor in?

Sure, why wouldn't it? The real question should be, would a Stryker Brigade be better or worse than a Bradley Mech Brigade outfitted with similar gear? The answer to that would depend highly on what scenario you are sketching out. Remember the tool box analogy.

Well, I guess that even then, they've got the Abrams in the wings... I'm just hoping no bright eyed Stryker commander is going to get the bright idea of sending his "advanced" combat units against T-80s without artillery support (and I don't mean the Strykers mortars and Mobile Gun Systems, obivisouly).

I would expect a Stryker Rifle Company to behave identically to a Bradley Mech Company. Against a tank heavy force they are both outclassed in theory. In reality, thanks to better support assets and ATGM missile technology, I'd put my money on either Stryker or Bradley companies and not the tank heavy force.

This pisses me off too- stop pretending like the "slat armor" is high-tec and new. Its a fuckin' Skirt, and everyone knows it. A pretty archiac solution to the problem, but, well, I *guess* if it works it works...

Yes, it does work. And from what I can tell the Abrams is about to get something similar as part of TUSK upgrade package. Don't blame Strykers for the fact that no magic solution to RPG/ATGM threats has yet come about. If you were in Iraq right now you'd have the choice between what exists and going naked.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

I tend to go with most of what Steve said, one of the key issues in this whole Heavy v Light debate seems to be a tendancy to confuse "Tank" and "anti-tank", with the Heavy Brigade arguing that the way to defeat their armour is principally to have better and usually heavier armour.

The Light Brigade arguement is that what you need is ways to defeat armour and as long as you have these and they work you don't need to match them tank for tank, which liberates you in terms of mobility tactics and logistics.

For me one of the key things in CM:SF should be the new ARH (armed recon helicopter), because in the type of scenario that BF are making the ability to protect flanks and give the Stryker force the edge in engagements against armour will be essential.

It should also be able to not only directly engage them but is large enough to carry a Javelin team in it's own right.

The Strykers mobility advantage and speed will be of little value if it blunders in to hull down t-72s at 1,500m.

Another key factor for me wil;l be the 120mm mortars, how quickly and accurately they can lay down covering fire, particularly smoke will be crucial to allowing the Strykers to overcome a fixed or less mobile force by using their flexibility to best advantage.

The real challenge for the Stryker force will be learning how to cooredinate the different elements at his disposal to maximum effect to overcome theoretically stronger opposition.

Finally I don't know the current US situation, but if available I'd like to see a terminally guided 120mm Mortar round in the game on the US side.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter, thanks for putting it that way. Yes, all the non-Heavy force needs to do is be able to defeat, or at least arrest, an enemy Heavy force. US military planners figured that the current Light force wasn't good enough for that, so they came up with the Medium concept. In theory it offers the best of both worlds for the most likely conflicts of the future.

I don't think a hull down tank formation at 1500m presents much of a problem for a Stryker force. At that range each Rifle Platoon can, in theory, kill 9 tanks all on its own (3 Javelin Command Launch Units, 3 missiles). That is roughly a company of enemy armor threatened for every one Rifle Platoon. That means a three Stryker Rifle Platoons, stripped of their powerful organic company assets (MGS/ATGM, Mortars, and FIST vehicles), can in theory take on an enemy Tank Battalion. Add in the rest of the Stryker Rifle Company's organic assets and what they are linked to and things just get a whole lot deadlier.

One of the interesting advantages of the Stryker's tank killing ability is the redundancy inherent with man portable ATGMs. In theory this is how it works...

Each Squad of 9 men has a Javelin CLU and 3 missiles at its disposal. The Platoon has 3x9man Rifle Sqd, 1x7man Wep Sqd, 1x3man HQ) for a total of 37 soldiers. These are internally divided into two Teams each (except the HQ), which means there are 3 maneuver elements for each Javelin, and almost 4 soldiers for every Javelin. In theory this means there are 38 manuever elments vs. the enemy Tank Company's 10 when it comes right down to it. Otherwise if you go with Teams then there are 9 maneuver elements, which is about the same as the Tank Company. This, of course, excludes the 8 men and 4 Strykers, which for the sake of this comparison I'm leaving out of the picture (you treadheads can assume they are dead if you like )

To degrade a tank's ability to fight all you need to do is score one hit. If you hit a tank and kill its driver, and wreck its controls, the tank is stuck where it is. Hit its engine and it is stuck where it is. Hit a track and it is stuck where it is. Hit its sensors and it can't shoot. Hit its turret and perhaps jam the elevation or the traverse. Etc., etc., etc. In other words, there are dozens of ways you can seriously degrade performance without actually killing it.

With a Stryker AT Element you don't have the same sort of vulnerability. Kill 8 out of 9 guys and if that last guy has Javelin then it is still as much of a threat as it was when the squad was at full strength. The weapon itself has not been degraded at all, though rate of fire will likely be lower.

To eliminate the Javelin threat completely the tank must destroy something that is a bit smaller than the size of a case of beer. The unit could be anywhere at any time and change locations within seconds to literally anywhere. Therefore, the tank can only kill a Javelin threat by sheer luck. It has no idea where it is and therefore can have no idea if it hit it or not. Tanks are exactly the opposite... they are large, loud, and can not move undetected for long in a tactical environment. In short, tanks draw a LOT of attention to themselves while a Javelin is for all intents and purposes invisible. The tank must therefore assume that there is always a threat to its survival within 2500m that it can't see, which is the opposite of the infantry (in relation to tanks that is).

On top of all of this, a Javelin can be positioned ANYWHERE and then reposition itself within seconds, probably without being seen. Tanks can only appear in very predictable places, and they almost always leave a clear sign of where they are headed next. Javelins are by their very nature supposed to be scattered around, while tanks by their doctrine are supposed to remain concentrated. This generally makes tanks easier to kill in rapid succession than tanks have a chance of killing AT Elements in rapid succession because the AT Elements have only to identify one target while the tanks need to identify many simultaneously.

In a 1500m engagement in broken terrain between a Stryker Rifle Platoon, all on its own, and a hull down enemy Tank Company, I'd put all my money on the Stryker Rifle Platoon being the one to win the battle. Heck, I'd still keep my wager on the Stryker Rifle Platoon coming off better from a "point" standpoint if the enemy's force were a Tank Battalion. While I doubt a single Stryker Rifle Platoon could dislodge a determined Tank Battalion, taking out roughly 30% of its tanks and being able to guide in air, artillery, and other AT assets to take out the other 70% is pretty much a sure bet.

Steve

[ October 31, 2005, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Panzer76]

Steve, it sounds like you are preaching that a Striker Company makes Tank companies obsolete.

Now, I dont really think thats what you are saying, but it might seem like it. Also, seems like the Tank company in your scenario lives in a vacume, which I dont think it would do.

My scanrio could be: Stryker Company on advance, runs into tank ambush = one dead Stryker Company. These scenarios do not tell much about te eabililties of the units as they are fictional and would seldom, if ever happen IRL.

[LGMB]

I can see what Steve is saying- ie, the Stryker Platoon brings some redundnacy that the Tank Company would lack, given the nature of Javelin missiles. However, I might add- on a grizzly note- that that redundnacy comes at the cost of lives. A T-72 brewing a Stryker loaded with its squad is going to result in a lot of causlties- sure, someone might scamper out with the Javeline, or another Stryker will deploy their units, and they destroy the T-72-- but in that senerio you've got 4 dead crewmen in the T-72, and 10 or more dead soldiers and crewmen in the Stryker. Considering the respective cost of each vehicle and the complexity of equipment (and the cost of lives)- the T-72 is comming off way better there. And of course, there's always the chance that the T-72 will survive the hit, or the missile will miss, or be deflected by the T-72s anti-missile systems... while there's no chance that the T-72 will not destroy the Stryker (miss maybe). Not to mention, if the T-72 Company engages the Stryker platoon while their mounted, it's going to take the Stryker Platoon a while to engage its targets- dismount, and setup the Javelines.

This goes back to Peter's point- the Stryker Platoon depends totaly on reconnosiance; the Hull down T-72 at 1.5 km threat is a very very deadly threat if the Stryker Platoon comes blundering into the Company.

In fact, Steve said it himself:

With a Stryker AT Element you don't have the same sort of vulnerability. Kill 8 out of 9 guys and if that last guy has Javelin then it is still as much of a threat as it was when the squad was at full strength. The weapon itself has not been degraded at all, though rate of fire will likely be lower.

I don't like to imagine that the "future of combat" is based on having 1 more guy with a Javeline.

[MikeyD]

Not just Stryker Brigade problems.

The tactical problems mentioned above can apply to just about any combat unit post Six Day War. Missiles vs tanks. Stealth vs situational awareness. Maneuverability vs stopping power. Blasting a T72 with a Javelin or blasting an Abrams with a Kornet is pretty much equivalent to a guy back in 1972 with his back-pack Sagger blasting a Centurion. As a matter of fact, I hear it's already passed RPG-7's 40th birthday!

One thing Stryker brigade has that's often overlooked is a LOT of good old fashioned mortars, relatively speaking. That implies the ability to do a lot of 'recon by fire' (a tactic commonly used in Vietnam) into likely ambush sites. Hitting a Kornet launcher with a flat trajectory tank shell's unlikely. Dislodging him by mortar fire sounds like a better proposition. Unfortunately, the same holds true for the other side. Dropping mortar rounds onto a Javeline team would be an uncomfortable situation for them.

That's what I'm looking forward to with the game. The chance to test out what tacics work and what don't.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Steve, it sounds like you are preaching that a Striker Company makes Tank companies obsolete.

Now, I dont really think thats what you are saying, but it might seem like it. Also, seems like the Tank company in your scenario lives in a vacume, which I dont think it would do.

My scanrio could be: Stryker Company on advance, runs into tank ambush = one dead Stryker Company. These scenarios do not tell much about te eabililties of the units as they are fictional and would seldom, if ever happen IRL.

His whole scenario was vacuous (sp?) - the Stryker platoon in reality has a lot of assets to call on itself. One of which is organic company-level UAVs to scout the road ahead, sniper teams to provide overwatch and recon, etc. Also, each Stryker brigade has an entire cavalry squadron (only divisions used to have cavalry squadrons), plus battalion scouts.

There are a whole lot of assets working in favor of the Stryker platoon leader to keep him out of too much trouble, so stumbling upon a dug in enemy tank battalion isn't very likely. Of course that's not to say it won't happen, but the famous buzzphrase "Force Multipliers" is very real. Odds are that Stryker platoon will know where those tanks are, which tanks have crewmen sleeping/pissing/eating out of the tank and what the likely fields of fire for those tanks are.

This actually applies to all US maneuver units now - company and battalion level UAVs are the norm, now. Platoon level UAVs are being issued. Expect squad level UAVs in 2-5 years, in all likelyhood. The whole concept of the Force XXI is the ability to rapidly focus accurate fires on targets, meaning having the mostest the fastest where it's needed. Tank and mech companies have nearly identical supporting assets as the Strykers do. Light infantry is lagging behind a bit, hence the Stryker concept - you don't need to have guys lugging 100lb battlefield computer systems with Strykers (you also don't have to roadmarch 20km with all your gear, you also get some protection against small arms fire, etc). That's why it's gotta be drilled into our heads - Strykers augment light infantry, not replace heavy forces.

[Battlefront.com]

Panzer76,

Steve, it sounds like you are preaching that a Striker Company makes Tank companies obsolete.

In many ways, they are. At least the Soviet style Cold War formations. Remember, the scenario I sketched out was against something likely, like a Syrian or Iranian Tank Company not a German or British force. This is why I've been saying from day one that CM:SF is not going to be about tank vs. tank battles, nor is it going to be about tanks in general. Tanks on the probable modern battlefield are either likely to survive (Western) or likely to be wiped out without much problem (everybody else). So arguments about Stryker Brigades being wiped out by hordes of effectively employed and unmolsted enemy tank formations are most likely completely wrong.

BTW, what I sketched out is basically the same thing that would happen if a Light or a Mech (Heavy) Rifle Platoon found itself in a similar situation. The major difference is that Stryker Platoons have a lot more assets to call upon, organically, than Light or Heavy. The Stryker Rifle Company, for example, has a dedicated FIST vehicle (I don't think a Mech Company has one?).

Now, I dont really think thats what you are saying, but it might seem like it. Also, seems like the Tank company in your scenario lives in a vacume, which I dont think it would do.

Correct. In a real world situation the enemy's tank force would likely have been identified and wiped out long before the Strykers were in range. Remember that the huge and overwhelming information gathering capability of Western forces are designed to do this. And in general they work wonders. The problem is that once the big stuff is neutralized the reliance on gizmo intel gathering runs into trouble. Finding a company of enemy tanks is fairly easy... finding 1 single guy in a crowd that has 20 pounds of plastique strapped to him is extremely difficult.

My scanrio could be: Stryker Company on advance, runs into tank ambush = one dead Stryker Company. These scenarios do not tell much about te eabililties of the units as they are fictional and would seldom, if ever happen IRL.

Correct. What is more likely to happen is the enemy tank formation would be neutralized, or at least compromised, before the Stryker unit was engaged. Even if this didn't happen the Strykers, due to their speed, would likely be able to disengage before being seriously harmed. One thing you guys have to keep in mind is that the average training for these crews isn't very good. Partly because of training costs associated with wear and tear on equipment and ammunition expenses. It's bad enough in the West, but at least they have simulators. I have a report here of how bad Iraqi gunnery was in OIF. You guys who screamed bloody murder that a WWII tank should be hitting on first shot at under 1000m were wrong then and you're certainly wrong now

Bottom line is I'd still put my money on the Stryker Platoon even if it was ambushed without any foreknowledge of the enemy tank company's position.

Steve

[ October 31, 2005, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Lord General,

However, I might add- on a grizzly note- that that redundnacy comes at the cost of lives.

Incorrect. The redundancy costs nothing. Bad tactics and luck might cost lives, but the redundancy predisposes the unit to a greater chance of victory, therefore reducing the chance of friendly loss of life. The laws of probability look very favorably on the Stryker force in my scenario.

A T-72 brewing a Stryker loaded with its squad is going to result in a lot of causlties- sure, someone might scamper out with the Javeline, or another Stryker will deploy their units, and they destroy the T-72-- but in that senerio you've got 4 dead crewmen in the T-72, and 10 or more dead soldiers and crewmen in the Stryker.

Sure, this could happen if the Stryker bumbled along into a well prepared ambush that was well executed by a credible enemy threat. But in the real world the ambush would not likely happen and if it did it likely wouldn't do more than tip off the US forces where they are located. The tanks would get the worst end of it most likely.

Considering the respective cost of each vehicle and the complexity of equipment (and the cost of lives)- the T-72 is comming off way better there.

Considdering the T-72 is likely to be brewed up and smoking long before it poses a direct threat to the Stryker (or whomever is on the move), I'd disagree.

And of course, there's always the chance that the T-72 will survive the hit, or the missile will miss, or be deflected by the T-72s anti-missile systems... while there's no chance that the T-72 will not destroy the Stryker (miss maybe).

First off, the chances of a Javelin missing are slim to none. The chances of a T-72 missing a Stryker going 30-50mph is very high. Especially since the enemy is usually fielding T-55s and T-62s, not T-72s

Not to mention, if the T-72 Company engages the Stryker platoon while their mounted, it's going to take the Stryker Platoon a while to engage its targets- dismount, and setup the Javelines.

Yeah, like 2-5 minutes. How long does it take to get a tank company out of prepared positions? And how will it stop the Javelins from laying them waste as they attempt to reposition themselves?

This goes back to Peter's point- the Stryker Platoon depends totaly on reconnosiance; the Hull down T-72 at 1.5 km threat is a very very deadly threat if the Stryker Platoon comes blundering into the Company.

Sure, but again it is highly unlikely that the Stryker Platoon would come blundering into an ambush like that. And even if it did, how many times do you think the enemy is going to get lucky like that? Twice? Three times? How many times do you think the Strykers, as well as Light and Heavy formations, will turn the enemy tanks into twisted wrecks without taking a single loss? Two recent wars indicate the enemy won't get lucky like this more than once, if even once.

In fact, Steve said it himself:

I don't like to imagine that the "future of combat" is based on having 1 more guy with a Javeline.

You are looking at the glass as being 1/1000th empty And you're also incorrect. Future combat is not based around trading thousands of soldier's lives for a few enemy tanks. It is in fact designed to decisively defeat the enemy without suffering hardly any casualties at all. And the Stryker concept is part of that design. Remember, it is designed to minimize the previous vulnerability to Light forces and the operational limitations of the Heavy stuff. So in fact the concept of Stryker is designed to do exactly the opposite of your thinking. It just doesn't do it with 70 ton vehicles but dismounted soldiers and superior coordination.

Steve

[hellfish]

I think it was the Battle of Objective Montgomery where a troop of 3/7 Cavalry stumbled on an Iraqi tank battalion (~20 tanks) dug in and totally undetected. The Iraqis had the drop on the Cav, but of something like 30 125mm rounds fired from their T-72s, all missed.

T-72 at Obj Montgomery

[Peter Cairns]

Couple of points.

Firstly I tend to agree with most of Steves points, but again my main point was on recon. Your chances of survival with a light force ( and as it is vulnerable to a 30mm gun, for me Stryker is light even if it has great firepower at it's disposal), are limited if you let something that can hurt you get the first shot.

Thats true for any force of course, but if you tend to be lght then there is greater risk.

Playing my son CMBB hot seat he used to love playing Elite King Tigers. I would counter this with regular US Hellcats and most times ( except flat open terrain like a billard table) would come out tops.

Pretty soon he would drop one or two KT's and pad out his force with PZ11's and I started loosing HC's like a turkey shoot in a barn.

So lets drop the idea of T-72's a go back 30 years to the old Soviet SPG-73, Recoiless rifle. flat bed mounted parkable under cover movable by three men on foot, this becomes in it's way a more dangerous weapon than a hull down T-72.

Equally a dual 23mm taking a Stryker on the side will if no take it out certainly carve up the squad inside.

Finally the idea that a squad that's taken 80-90% casualties is still as dangerous because one man can fire a javelin is rubbish. I doubt that one US ( or almost any other army in the worlD) squad hit that bad would be even returning fire, let alone engaging the force that had done the damage directly.

In fact I doubt that even if it had then it would be trying to stand it's ground with 40% casualties.

True as a dispersed force the real risk would be from the other Jav teams in the company, but I wouldn't ecxpect a squad that pasted to contribute much for a while at least.

At this point the engagement starts to be about who suppresses the other side first. Once you degrade the opponents ability to ruturn fire sufficently you start to gain the advantage and become able to consentrate more and more firspower on fewer and fewer targets.

Stryker has a huge advantage in being able to use speed and mobility to get more shots in first and more quickly and to turn the table to it's advantage.

However I will tell you all now, if not in Iraq, then sooner or later a Stryker force is going to blunder in to something and get absolutely pasted, 40-50 dead.

At that point the very survival of the concept will be in question, because regardless of how well it has performed up to then, it's enemies will decend on it like vultures.

Peter.

[MikeyD]

"Stryker has a huge advantage in being able to use speed and mobility to get more shots in first and more quickly and to turn the table to it's advantage."

Stryker appears to be just your basic 'battle taxi' so widely derided in the 80s by battlefield theorists. I see Stryker designers making a HUGE compromise in picking armor over firepower. As it stands now a M1126 Stryker and Vietnam War M113 both have the same firepower, a single WWII era heavy mg. Is it true the Stryker mortar vehicles currently in service must dismount their mortars to fire them? No direct fire cannon (yet), no on-board mortar, and no proper turreted weapons suite sounds like Stryker hasn't been compromised so much as neutered!

But I'm more than willing to have the game prove my observations wrong when it comes out!

[Peter Cairns]

MikeyD,

You can judge Stryker as a combined arms military force on the basis of one member of the extended Family of vehicles linked digitally in to a cohesive unit over a wide manouver area.

Thats missing the point, It's like righting off a sherman because the 0.5 is jammed, It's only part of a much bigger weapon (The whole damned tank).

You have to look at the Stryker company as a weapon system rather than a collection of Individual vehicles in the same way that a trained squad isn't just nine guys.

Having said that I am not as enthusiastic as Steve.

But then i am not writing it off like some either.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Finally the idea that a squad that's taken 80-90% casualties is still as dangerous because one man can fire a javelin is rubbish. I doubt that one US ( or almost any other army in the worlD) squad hit that bad would be even returning fire, let alone engaging the force that had done the damage directly.

I agree. However, I was looking at pure statistical circumstances for BOTH sides. A tank company that loses 3-4 tanks in less than a minute of combat is likely to be completely combat ineffective. They will likely try to turn tail and run (which might mean bailing out), or be so consumed with finding out who shot their buddies that someone else will decimate them in the process.

Therefore, it is likely that the first one to score significant casualties is the one that will probably win the engagment. The thing is, for all the reasons I mentioned, a likely enemy tank company starts out with huge disadvantages before they even have a chance to fire the first shot.

True enough, if an enemy tank company somehow manages to overcome all of these, including terrible gunnery and other inherent problems (vs. those the US forces bring to the table), they are likely to cause a lot of casualties on the US side. The difference between you and I, from what I can tell, is how likely and relevant we think this will be. The Marines have at least two times in two years in Iraq lost an entire AMTRACK with 10 or more Marines in it. One of which was quite recently. Stuff happens, but in the Big Picture these are fairly small incidents. Certainly nobody is calling for fundamental changes to Marine TO&E.

And if I come across as enthusiastic, that is more perception than reality. I am only trying to be fair to the theory and the reality seen thus far as it would probably apply to a likely matchup in the near future. My points in this thread are rationally based on a more or less neutral perspective. If I am biased it is not in favor of Stryker but against the real world potential of Soviet type, Cold War dated, equipment being effective against current US (and NATO type) forces. Most of what I say about Stryker applies to other formations as well, at least in terms of the ultimate outcome.

Steve

[ November 01, 2005, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Mikey,

The M1129 MC (A) was not capable of firing from within the vehicle. The M1129 MC (, which is already in the field, is capable of firing it's primary mortar from within the vehicle. The secondary mortar must still be fired dismounted. This means the Battalion level MCs fire 120mm mortars mounted and 81mm dismounted, the Company level fire 81mm mounted and 60mm dismounted.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I think it's more about tactics than equipment. for me the real advantage is with who gets the first shot.

Thats why in this and other posts I've emphasised the importance of recon and tempo. seeing him first and forcing him to fight your battle at your pace.

Having said that the danger for the stryker force is is it gets slowed to a hault or looses it's mobility, ( a bad thing for any kind of force).

Once this happens and it starts to turn in to a free for all , then many of the advantages can dissappear very quickly.

For me real danger is that in many respects we most Western armies haven't fought anyone of quality since WW2. The bulk has been insurgents and third world armies ( I remember the commander of the British ground forces in the Falklands, describing the Argentinians as "Military Pygmies").

I am looking forward to seeing how a Stryker forces does in hilly rocky terrain with scrub and light tree cover against a well Disperesed, Organisied, Trained and Motivated infantry force with plenty of Antitank assets.

Peter.

[MikeyD]

"...The M1129 MC (, which is already in the field..."

Ah, its fielded!

Last I heard (and I'm really REALLY out of the loop on this stuff) the B version was only being discussed. I rather wonder how the roof opens for firing, like the Marine LAV-M? I'll do a net search.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Everytime I hear that I cringe. There's just something very unerving about assuming that speed and communicatons really can make up for light armor.

The theory is being tested right now. It would appear that for some situations, it can. For others it can not. But the concept that is behind this is as sound today as it was back in Sun Tzu's day. The force that can maneuver better will likely win, even if inferior in some ways. The Germans proved that in 1940 and, tactically at least, all the way up until the end of the war.</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Andreas,

Yes and no. I agree that the success of the German campaigns came with some occasional high prices. However, in general they won the tactical engagements more often than not in the 1940 campaign. Notice that I did not mention the war against the Soviet Union

An example to counter Arras would be the engagement of 1st DCR by 66th Pz Battalion of the 25th Pz Rgt. Superior communications and mobility allowed 38t backed by Pak36s, to take out CharB and H39s in large numbers with relatively few losses. This was repeated in other places too.

My point is that those who scoff at mobility and C&C in favor of protection, simply on principle, are on shakey ground. Obviously there is a balance and other factors, such as acceptable losses, that come into play, but as seen in this thread and elsewhere there seems to be a notion that to win in today's battles you must have heavy armor even at the expense of mobility. I don't think that case stands up very well.

Steve

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

My point is that those who scoff at mobility and C&C in favor of protection, simply on principle, are on shakey ground. Obviously there is a balance and other factors, such as acceptable losses, that come into play, but as seen in this thread and elsewhere there seems to be a notion that to win in today's battles you must have heavy armor even at the expense of mobility. I don't think that case stands up very well.

Steve

Steve

I do not think that 'acceptable losses' is 'another factor'. It is key to the debate that is being had, in my view. Nobody doubts that the US can win the wars it has chosen to fight. They could win them by sending grunts out with no vehicles at all, armed with nothing but slings and arrows (as long as they keep all the comms and the heavy weaponry in the back). It'll be bloody, but they'll win it. That is not the point. I do not think anyone would seriously suggest that without the Abrams/Bradley team, the US would have 'lost' the war in Iraq.

The key point in the current combat environment is whether the trade-off of armour against mobility*, which is all about acceptable losses in my view, is correct. Another closely-related debate then is whether the trade-off of armour vs. boots on the ground is correct - IOW is it correct to emphasise force protection at the expense of getting the job done? More brutally put - if being well protected means that the task is less well executed, maybe it is better to accept higher losses as a consequence of lower protection in order to achieve the final goal quicker/at all.

All the best

Andreas

*I think the trade-off against situational awareness is a bit more artificial - for the money to procure Strykers one could presumably digitalise a lot of Bradleys to give them the same situational awareness?