Jump to content

Why Stryker Succeeded


Abbott

Recommended Posts

Here is a short article I found while browsing The Strategy Page. I cannot vouch for the reliability of the websights articles but it offers some interesting topics from time to time.

Why Stryker Succeeded

When the Stryker wheeled armored vehicle was introduced three years ago, it promptly became a criticism magnet. The new vehicle was widely derided as misguided and doomed to failure. That’s not unusual. There hasn’t been a new armored American vehicle in the last three decades that was able to enter service free of savage criticism. The Stryker had one big advantage, as it was able to go off to war as soon as the first Stryker units were formed. Even most critics agree that combat is the final arbiter of which weapons really work, and which don’t. The Stryker promptly became enormously popular with its users. What made the Stryker a battlefield success was; speed, stealth, protection, maintainability and gadgets.

Most critics, especially civilians, underestimated, or were simply clueless about, the importance of speed. Being a wheeled vehicle, the Stryker could run down cars and trucks, something even a fast tracked armored vehicle, like the M-2 Bradley, could not do. In Iraq, where many of the bad guys rolled around in SUVs, the Stryker could keep up. Not only that, but the fast moving Stryker could get to places more quickly, and, in effect, make more “appointments” with the enemy in a day. It’s what they call a “force multiplier.”

Stealthiness was another thing civilian critics had no clue about. In Iraq, the quiet Stryker could, literally, sneak up on the enemy, especially since so many of the raids are conducted at night. American troops quickly adapted their tactics to take advantage of it, and these stealthy Strykers quickly put fear in the hearts of the enemy.

Much of the criticism aimed at the Stryker had to do with it’s vulnerability to enemy fire. In actual practice, this turned out not to be the case. The troops have high praise for the Strykers ability to take hits, and keep on going, or at least protect its passengers.

For older troops who had served in M-2 Bradley mechanized infantry units, it was quickly obvious that the Stryker was a much easier (and less time-consuming) vehicle to maintain and keep going. That meant you had more vehicle ready to roll at any one time. That makes a difference in combat.

And then there were the gadgets. The Stryker was loaded up with communications gear, remote control system, networking stuff and new weapons. Most of it worked, but the young troops, raised on gadgets, found the Stryker an entertaining vehicle to work in. And many of the gadgets made the troops more effective or, failing that, less likely to be bored.

Article by: Jim Dunnigan

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005111205954.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A counterpoint:

Yes, Stryker's been touted as a great success, and all the Pentagon procurement officers with their careers on the line have lost no opportunity for singing Stryker's praises.

But this is Iraq. For the jobs they do flatbed trucks sporting junkyard welded armor have been a smashing success too. And uparmored hummers are a success (especally compared to unarmored hummers). And those 20 foot tall concrete 'Bremmer walls' have been a success. It seems "success" per se is a rather low bar to clear.

When someone brings up the topic of Stryker's pricetag or things it can't do (climbing over road obstacles for instance) these deficiencies have been glossed over in the rosey haze of its much touted 'success' in-theater. Its great to have a truck that can survive IED and RPG attack, and has a powerplug for your computer. But insufficient attention has been payed to any limitations and liabilities - something alll vehicles have in varying degrees. I'm not talking anti-Stryker ranting, but rational measured conversation on the subject.

But the game is coming and we'll soon be able to rigorously test out Strykers abilities to our hearts content. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the designer's notes from the Microprose game M1 Tank Platoon that was written in 1989.

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/turret/m1tp2/m1tp1man/designnotes.html

m1tankplatoon-a.png

(For those of you that don't have the little green manual that came with the game). ;)

MPS Grand Strategy

The MPS Labs crowd (the R&D group within Microprose) has known for years that a simulation of modern tanks would be great fun. Once Gunship proved the success of our ideas about 3D graphics, "Tank" was "go."

The concept of M1 Tank Platoon was fairly obvious from the start. We were interested in a full representation of tank warfare, not just a "battlezone" shooting gallery. Basin the game around an entire platoon, rather than just one tank, was a natural choice. Including the standard panoply of support AFVs on both sides was another obvious choice. Once we started, it was hard to resist throwing in helicopters and ground attack jets. After all, these too are common on the modern battlefield.

The selection of Europe, in particular the Germanys, for the battle area was made for us. It is the only part of the where M1s are deployed in quantity (aside from the USA). It’s unlikely that the M1 would see action in the Middle East—it’s too heavy to air transport, so it would travel by sea. That takes a couple months at least. Even it did arrive in time for a fight, the opposition has vastly inferior equipment.

Meanwhile, in Europe the Warsaw Pact has a strong, modern army with the latest vehicles. Both the M1 and its potential Russian opponents were designed for combat in Europe. And most of all, the M1 and T-80s are there right now, only a few miles away from each other.

No political statement is intended by this choice of locale. In fact, the Russians and East Europeans are pretty nice people. But that’s not the subject of this simulation. M1TP is not a game about modern politics. It only seeks to explore and portray what happens at tactical levels if a conventional war occurs between American and Warsaw Pact forces.

People and Machines

Scott Spanburg started programming M1TP in November 1987. It took him almost a year to develop the #d graphics system. Some of that time was experimentation to find a system for rolling countryside that was fast enough to run on 4.77 MHz 8088 machines. The remainder was the painful working out of code and data systems. The entire "real time" battle in this simulation is written in assembly (machine) language. Although more time consuming than "C" (the current popular language for IBMs), it gives faster code in less memory space. "Tank" is unparalleled in what it attempts for all IBM-compatible PCs, not just the high-speed ATs and 386s.

Scott is a careful programmer with a penchant for realism. Tank acceleration and deceleration are represented by actual physics, complete with resistance and momentum. Shells and missiles actually fly through the air at realistic speeds with realistic inaccuracies, striking targets or the ground as appropriate. Many simulations just "fake" these effects. M1 Tank Platoon actually computes what happens, as it happens.

The scale of the game and all its data research were done by designer Arnold Hendrick. An experienced wargamer will see similarities between m1 Tank Platoon and miniature wargaming. In a sense this simulation is a miniatures fantasy brought to life. Now you’re really there, inside a tank, guiding a battle. The numbers of vehicles and terrain detail are determined by computer horsepower. Arnold originally wanted battles with full platoon of mech infantry and companies of Russians, but it was soon obvious that even 80286 would choke on that scale. The use of an American platoon with supporting sections, opposed by a few Pact platoons, is the best alternative given current computer hardware. When everybody we know has an 80386s in the spare bedroom it will be to reconsider.

About a half year was spent developing the battle generation system, which is based on current organization and combat practices of both armies. Darrle Dennies did yeomen work setting up data structures to reflect Arnold’s convoluted thinking and mountainous tables. Needless to say, much of this data is reproduced in more orderly from here in the manual. We’re especially proud of the battlefield generation system which should produce over a million different battlefields. If you spent 8 hours every day playing M1TP, it should take about 179 years to exhaust all the possible battlefields. Of course the OBs(orders to battles) for each side are also variable, so for all practical purposes, it’s virtually impossible to fight the same action twice.

The great unsung hero in this product, like many computer simulations, is the artist. Max Remington controlled every aspect of the visual presentation, from the tank control panels to the #D data structures that portray the vehicles. He spent months of time working, reworking and refining the visuals. The most familiar sight throughout the project was Scott sitting in his office, programming, with Max sitting beside him, politely asking for yet another adjustment. More than any other MPS labs product to date, "Tank" was blessed with a "persistence of vision" on all levels. The quality assurance department, popularly known in the Labs as "playtest", also wanted to be remembered. Besides being bug-hunters without peer, they periodically insist on certain features. Sometimes we even agree, reluctantly. The Outside Any feature was added because they demanded it.

Research

MPS Labs traditionally does its own independent research on all simulation topics. We only use information available to the general public. In this case, we requested a wide variety of manuals from the US Army under the Freedom of Information Act. Many of them were provided, a few were not. Information on weapon performance and armor thickness was not forthcoming form the US Army, but estimates were available elsewhere.

We consulted a number of combat soldiers, but the kindest was Lt. Col. Gregor. An experienced tanker and now instructor, he took considerable personal time to discuss how tanks operate and what happens in real armored combat. His insights were invaluable, even though he had virtually no control over the final result. Apparently he trusted us to do the best we could. Like any good officer, he always avoided topics even remotely approaching restricted information. He insisted, quite rightly, that we do our homework honestly.

Overall our goal is to portray a fair and independent-minded view of modern armored combat. We are not involved in any military contracting. M1 Tank Platoon doesn’t have to please General Narrowview and it need not pass the scrutiny of military security. In fact, the latter would probably never believe that the data in this game was acquired fairly. They’d probably censor large parts and force unpleasant changes in much more.

A simple example of this is the inside views of the M1. The US Army refused to let us inside a tank. They claimed security restrictions prohibited it. Of course, this didn’t stop them from letting both Presidential candidates ride inside during the 1988 campaign. Irked but not defeated, we found a military modeler’s book with detailed color photos of each crew position from various angles. We sued the Freedom of Information Act to request and finally receive (at an exorbitant price, alas) the operators’ manual for the tank. This had detailed B&W drawings of each and every control. In the end we learned much more than a 10-minute "clamber around" would have gained, and we’re perfectly free to show it all to you. If we’d been under military contract or security restrictions, we’d almost surely be forced to change the screen graphics to something less realistic.

That’s why we’re happy to be independent of military entanglements. This product is financed entirely by your loyal purchases. We answer to nobody but you, our customer. Even the company president, Bill Stealy, gives us exceptional independent and intellectual freedom to call things as we seen them. In past products he’s sometimes regretted it, but the policy hasn’t changed.

Realism

In our computer simulations we’re always aware of who’s using them: you. We don’t expect you to spend hundreds of hours pouring over manuals and learning all sorts of useless procedures. M1TP deliberately limits itself to combat operations. There are hundreds of dials and switches on the M1 tank we didn’t include because they aren’t significant in combat.

Another example is air and artillery support. These procedures are obviously simplified. In reality, being a FO or FAC is a full time job with lots of complex considerations. We felt learning how to be a good tank leader was hard enough. From a tanker’s standpoint, artillery or air is "magic" – he requests aid from the appropriate professional, and it’s forthcoming (or not, as the case may be!) We keep the types of support straightforward and standard – esotercia like CGLP and Copperheads and instant minefields are rare and special tools that a lowly tank platoon commander might never see in action.

On the other hand, certain things might be realistic. The rangefinder and gunnery procedure in this game are as realistic as we can manage on a microcomputer. We were highly amused when a competitor published a computer "simulation" of this same tank and obviously borrowed the firing procedure from our "Gunship" helicopter simulation! In other "tank simulations" you drive around in a single vehicle, shooting up dozens of Russian built opponents, then return for new orders from a Colonel or General. Fighter pilots may live a life of solo-missions-then-return-to-bas, but ground combat is quite different.

On the other hand, one of our technical advisers was distressed because our discussion of battlesight gunnery was oversimplified. The concept and reality of using a battlesight is more complex in general, and more much complex on the M1 than presented here. Basically, even at battlesight range trajectories aren’t entirely flat. Furthermore, on the M1 the gunsight optics are generally generated electronically by the Laser or the Thermal imaging system (which causes problems if either or both is knocked out). Due to memory space and processing power limitations, not to mention topic’s complexity, we decided on the simplified presentation you see here. We also skimped another topics dear to some people’s hearts, such as the barrel depression limits in Soviet tanks.

We deliberately limited ourselves to present day military equipment. The brand new Russian Mi-28 Havoc attack helicopter, recently demonstrated at the 1989 Paris show, is not included because operational deployment is years away. Although the Pentagon is making vague noises about future Soviet tanks (the "FST" series) absolutely nothing is known about them. In fact, the Soviets may well be reading the Dod’s annual reports, just to gain an inkling on what sort of tanks they ought to be designing!

In summary, we feel M1 Tank Platoon is a good, realistic yet understandable portrait of armored tactics today. It’s complicated at times, but only where complexity is important. We want you to experience what could really happen. We want you to control the battle, to make the important decisions, to take over the critical shot or critical maneuver. M1 Tank Platoon is the first "wargame" where you’re really there, inside the tank, directing the battles as it occurs around you. We like it a lot. Were sure you will too.

I left the technical stuff in there just as a comparison of how far we've come in such a short time. Interesting that this was written just 2 years before the Gulf War and the use of M1 tanks in large numbers in the Middle East (and also the collapse of the Soviet Union).

Seems to me it also worked well in Real Time™

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stryker is here to stay till the new FCS comes online in the next decade. One of the most cool features of the stryker is its ability to be stealthy where the bradley is alot more noiser with the tracks. The slat armor offers great SHaped charge protection and it has some cool features that are just not in the bradley and all this coming from a tanker...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be interested to see how many KPPs in the original requirements document were actually met. To me that is the measure of success, not simply saying it went to Iraq and did what we asked of it there. It was procured to do a set of things. If it can't do many of them, I don't think it is fair to call it a success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone else think that article was done by a high school student?

Look at the formatting.

Paragraph outlining your thesis statement ("What made the Stryker a battlefield success was; speed, stealth, protection, maintainability and gadgets.") Then he tries to prove his statement with a paragraph trying to prove each point.

The only thing even close to being a fact in that article is that Strykers could catch SUVs while Bradley's can't. Everything else is just vague statements based on the fact that the Stryker is smaller, faster and newer then the current AFV's.

That M1TP article is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Stryker is not 'smaller' than much of anything out there besides the exceptionally beefy Bradley. Stryker's a big, tall machine. It towers over an M113! I have yet to find reliable numbers on Stryker's height. I suspect a lot of the published numbers are of the vehicle with collapsed suspension and folded-down remote mg for transport. Like its published weight is often empty and without the heavy add-on armor, again configured for transport. I read one source suggest a full-up slatted Stryker would perhaps pass 52,000 pounds.

No this post isn't an anti-Stryker rant. Armored vehicles are simply as big as they are. Most attempts by designers to reduce dimensions have resulted in dangerously cramped conditons for the end-user. Stryker could perhaps be seen as the M60A1 of APCs. Disconcertingly large, somewhat undergunned, but remarkably reliable and effficient

[ November 17, 2005, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Colin:

Did anyone else think that article was done by a high school student?

Look at the formatting.

(snip)

Writing style greatly depends on what group the information is geared to. Have you ever read any training material geared towards E-4 and below? The target audience has to be able to understand the material or it does no good.

I took the article as a short easy to understand bit of information that would more importantly be something that would hold the interest of the target audience. Young men do not want to hear about your 2005 Buick, or which safety test it excels at. They want to see how it looks and feel the power when they step on the gas. If that works, then it is time to put it thru a few coners. They may give you a remark or two after that which you may use to write you’re properly formatted text.

“That thing is sweet man, it has great pickup”

“****, I was doing fifty before I knew it”

“Damn, did you see that corner? I thought I was up on the side wheels”

“Sheeet, I thought we was cooked, that thing shrugged off that RPG as sure as I am here talking to ya”.

This Forum is much better educated then many target audiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Abbott:

This Forum is much better educated then many target audiences.

Definitely correct. Didn't we figure out that the average age was 35ish? This forum has always had a higher standard of literacy then most. Been posting since I was 14 myself, and having every word subjected to grognards makes you watch your WW2 stats and grammar. smile.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Colin:

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

This Forum is much better educated then many target audiences.

Definitely correct. Didn't we figure out that the average age was 35ish? This forum has always had a higher standard of literacy then most. Been posting since I was 14 myself, and having every word subjected to grognards makes you watch your WW2 stats and grammar. smile.gif </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...