Too Many Strykers

[civdiv]

I would think the units that would invade Syria would be pretty heavily 'meched-up' until they got the urban areas. The Stryker is designed for COIN and mostly for urban terrain. It is first a troop transporter and then a weak fire support vehicle. Yes I know there are anti-tank and mortars varients but I would expect, at least initially, that M2s and M3s would be more prevelent than Strykers.

civdiv

[PSY]

Originally posted by civdiv:

I would think the units that would invade Syria would be pretty heavily 'meched-up' until they got the urban areas. The Stryker is designed for COIN and mostly for urban terrain. It is first a troop transporter and then a weak fire support vehicle. Yes I know there are anti-tank and mortars varients but I would expect, at least initially, that M2s and M3s would be more prevelent than Strykers.

civdiv

I don't think that characterization of Strkers is completely accurate. In particular Strykers were not designed specifically for COIN or urban terrain. The original reason for the development of the Stryker was to create a fast, quickly deployable force.

Global Security

One of the Army's transformation goals is to be able to deploy brigade combat teams anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a division in 120 hours and five divisions within 30 days, according to Army Chief of Staff GEN Eric K. Shinseki.

Army Stryker Website

The Stryker, the combat vehicle of choice for the Army’s Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), is a highly deployable-wheeled armored vehicle that combines firepower, battlefield mobility, survivability and versatility, with reduced logistics requirements.

Think, for example, of Desert Shield where we had to move the 82nd and 101st quickly into Saudi Arabia in case Saddam tried to take Saudi Arabia in addition to Kuwait. In this situation we would have been hard pressed to hold off an attack, because the 82nd and 101st lack the heavy equipment of a mech or armored division.

The idea is that Stryker equiped forces can be moved in quickly like airborne divisions, but have more staying power than the airborne, because of their Stryker vehicles. Heavier equipment including armor and mech will follow, but will take much longer to arrive. In an international crisis situation in which the US military needs to move quickly, Strykers would be among the first units deployed. Depending on the situation, they might have to enter combat before heavier equipment arrived.

Consider a situation in which we had to enter Syria quickly without having an opportunity to build our forces up. In such a situation Strykers might very well take the lead.

While Strykers in Iraq are doing a good job with COIN, that is not why they were originally designed.

Here are the links for my quotes:

Global Security

<a href="http://www.army.mil/features/stryker/default.htm" target="_blank">

US Army Stryker Website</a>

[Battlefront.com]

PSY is correct that the Stryker Brigade concept had nothing to do with COIN as such. In fact, based on the Army's readiness for counter insurgency in Iraq it wouldn't be hard for me to believe that the guys who thought up and designed the Stryker Brigade concept had never heard of COIN ops.

As for what would go into Syria... well, EVERYTHING would go in. It would be like the Eastern Front where some Colonel walks into the base laundrymat and says "you're all riflemen now. Any questions, please stand up against that wall until sunrise. We got something for ya!".

Seriously, Stryker Brigades make up about 10% of the entire Army. Numbers alone shows that they wouldn't be left behind. But more importantly, the Stryker Brigade is seen as having a crucial offensive capacity that Heavy and Light Brigades completely lack. And that is the ability to make fast and sustained redeployments at a moment's notice. This was proven in Iraq during the early days. They are kinda like FedEx... if it absolutely has to be there overnight, there is Stryker Brigade Nothing, and I mean nothing, can touch it.

Picture that type of force passing through a breach in the enemy's lines in a country that is largely open terrain. The amount of disruption that force could cause is immense.

So instead of the Stryker Brigades being left behind, I would expect the exact opposite. I'd expect them to be on the tip of the spear.

Steve

[Sixxkiller]

Originally posted by civdiv:

It is first a troop transporter and then a weak fire support vehicle.

civdiv

I would hardly call it weak in fire support systems.

[MikeyD]

Complaining about too many Strykers in a Stryker Brigade tactical sim is rather like complaining about too many Russian aircraft in IL2. Or too many chocolate chips in your chocolate chip cookie. Or too many nekked people at a nudist camp. Or too many... I gotta admit that nudist camp analogy was the best I got.

When Stryker Brigade was announced it was hailed as the cutting-edge of 'transformational warfare'. So it makes sense to do Stryker Brigade if what you're shooting for is the ability to wargame cutting-edge transformational warfare.

[ March 08, 2007, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Dirtweasle]

They are kinda like FedEx... if it absolutely has to be there overnight, there is Stryker Brigade [big Grin] Nothing, and I mean nothing, can touch it.

Picture that type of force passing through a breach in the enemy's lines in a country that is largely open terrain. The amount of disruption that force could cause is immense.

Might look like classic cavalry from the 19th century. Maybe?

[Battlefront.com]

The could be used for such a role, yes. The Stryker Brigade has a few advantages for deep penetrations (in no particular order):

1. Equipment that is less prone to failure

2. Better mileage per gallon of fuel

3. All vehicles, IIRC, use the same exact type of fuel

4. All vehicles are equipped with digital communications

5. The recon element of a Stryker Brigade is very strong

6. Integrated Engineers

7. All vehicles can travel at roughly the same fast, sustained speed

8. The rides are a lot smoother thus reducing passenger fatigue

9. Logistics tail (for many of the reasons I already listed) is smaller

10. Has more dismounted infantry than any other type of Brigade IIRC

In effect, this is a "flying column" capable of speeds of up to (and sometimes beyond) 60mph on roads. Any situation it encounters can, in theory, be overcome by organic units.

Where it gets into trouble are the usual problem areas for a breakthrough force, such as major water obstacle, in depth fortifed enemy positions, vulnerability to exposed flanks, etc. The difference is the speed and mobility of a Stryker Brigade are better suited to working around these problems compared to Heavy or Light Brigades. At least for very deep penetrations.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Let's not forget the genesis of Stryker Brigade. When NATO marched into Kosovo America's cumbersome heavy-armor force looked on in envy as Canadian LAVs led the march in-country ... and eventually bumped into Russian 8x8 AFVs coming from the opposite direction!

In Afghanistan in late 2001 (I remember because it was the 60th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor) a substantial force of Marine Corps LAVs went on a deep penetration raid from Camp Rhino into Helmand Provence to cut the main road to Kandahar city. They proved it can be done with wheeled armor - but driving LAVs and Humvees cross-country doesn't do the suspension much good. Pretty much every vehicle needed to be unditched at least once.

[ March 09, 2007, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[civdiv]

To All,

I disagree with most of your points.

1. The Stryker Brigade may be part of a huge transformation, but it is just an interim design until more capable equipment can be developed. It went waaaay over budget and didn't satisfy the initial criteria for its implementation (more on that later in this post).

2. The Stryker, in Iraq, is almost solely road bound. Its cross-country mobility is very much jeopardized by the bar armor.

3. So, integrated log train and support elements, big deal, Marine Corps has been doing that for years, as has the army with cross attachment, and seperate Brigades. And the mpg of the Stryker, cross-country is 1.5 mpg. The mpg of the M2/M3 series (A2/A3) is what, 1.5. I'm not sure if that is road or cross-country or a combination. And most of the savings in terms of the log train is due to arming the Stryker ICV with a .50 cal, as opposed to an really effective weapon such as a 20, 25, or 30mm autocannon. Sure, .50 cal ammo is a lot smaller and lighter. It's perfectly adept at punching through the building materials of the region. But as an old and salty Gunner told me once; 'The .50 cal is a lousy anti-personnel weapon as the ROF is too low. Against troops I'd rather have a M60 with a nickle in the gas chamber.'

4. Actually the Strykers have not been reliable as all of the extra weight pays a heavy toll on their drive train and suspension;

from:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001923_comments.html

I, by the way, deal directly with those in the Stryker Program Manager's Office, and can say with first-hand confidence that the Stryker is a pig on wheels, and that the Army is already having "buyers remorse" over many of the variants it chose to rush into production.

There is a lot of evidence out there that the Army 'cooked-the-books' during the operational evaluation.

5. The standard Stryker varient has a woefully inadequate armament for anything besides COIN. And the fact that you have to leave the vehicle to load the ammo makes it that much worse.

6. Driving LAVs around against the Taliban is not quite the same as driving a massively overweight Stryker around against Syrians with ATGMs. Neither is occupying Kosovo after the withdrawal of the Serbs.

7. Deployability. The Current ICW Stryker base model already cannot be carried by a C-130 outfitted for combat (a program requirement) as it is over the 16 ton payload of a C-130 with a full fuel level. I believe it is around 3 tons too heavy. And the new C-130J carries even less. So it failed to be what it was originally designed to be. And that is w/o bar armor. And that is for one of the lightest varients, the IGS weighs several tons more.

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04925.html

8. The bar armor was installed to deal with the Iraqi insurgents. I have read that it is very likely the Syrians have RPG warheads that bar armor provides no protection against;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1128709/posts

I would be interested in any data on bar armor against ATGM systems, especially the more advanced versions bought in small numbers by the Syrians.

Not meaning to flame anyone, just simply disagreeing. I'd much rather have an LAV or M2/3 when faced by a BMP-1 or an ATGM, rather than a Stryker.

civdiv

[ March 09, 2007, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

[Battlefront.com]

Ah... I didn't know we were going to get into Stryker bashing! I'm up for the challenge

1. The Stryker Brigade may be part of a huge transformation, but it is just an interim design until more capable equipment can be developed. It went waaaay over budget and didn't satisfy the initial criteria for its implementation (more on that later in this post).

And this is relevant, how? The Bradley program was over budget, for example, so by your logic I guess the Bradley wouldn't be going into Syria either? Just trying to see how this has anything to do with anything BTW, I don't think you can find many major military programs that didn't go massively over budget and produce less than the initial claims. At least the Stryker force got fielded, unlike something like the Sgt. York. I saw a couple of them... on a test fire range at Redstone

2. The Stryker, in Iraq, is almost solely road bound. Its cross-country mobility is very much jeopardized by the bar armor.

Myth. I've seen it debunked over and over again by guys who actually drive them. They are, however, weak in soft terrain. But then again, just about every wheeled vehicle is (and in some cases tracked to).

3. So, integrated log train and support elements, big deal, Marine Corps has been doing that for years, as has the army with cross attachment, and seperate Brigades.

I only listed this because it is an asset. The Stryker Brigade is, in many ways, like an independent Brigade. The rest of the Army is moving towards this model too. All I was doing is pointing out that SBCTs are already there.

And the mpg of the Stryker, cross-country is 1.5 mpg. The mpg of the M2/M3 series (A2/A3) is what, 1.5. I'm not sure if that is road or cross-country or a combination.

Where did you get these figures? The "textbook" MPG for a perfect running M2/M3 is 1.5mpg, the Abrams is far worse. Here is one estimate I found:

A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours; this will vary depending on mission, terrain, and weather. A single tank takes 10 minutes to refuel. Refueling and rearming of a tank platoon--four tanks--is approximately 30 minutes under ideal conditions.

0.6 miles per gallon.

60 gallons per hour when traveling cross-country

30+ gallons per hour while operating at a tactical ideal

10 gallons basic idle

A mine plow will increase the fuel consummation rate of a tank by 25 percent

I heard from another source that 12 gallons p/hour for basic idle is the norm in Iraq. And without the APU the turret can not function unless the vehicle is running.

Compare this to the "textbook" MPG of a Stryker at 5.5mpg, nearly 4 times more than a Bradley and 10 times more than an Abrams. However, these are all textbook values, so all of them are lower in the field.

A quick search I did found 2.29mpg offroad during the Millennium Challenge and 5.7mpg on roads:

http://www.army.mil/features/strykerDemo/StrykeForWeb.pdf

http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/JanFeb04/LogisticsRiskintheStryker.htm

Now, let's compare this again with the Bradley and Abrams:

One obstinate problem with the Stryker's mobility remains, the Army acknowledges: "The one area where it's not performing as promised is in fuel consumption," said Lt. Col. Dennis Thompson, commander of the brigade's support battalion. While the vehicle gets the advertised 5 to 6 miles per gallon on the highway, it gets only 2 to 3 mpg in stop-and-go maneuvers over rough terrain. As a result, Thompson's fuel trucks must resupply each Stryker unit every 48 hours instead of the planned 72 - still a lot better than the 12-to-18-hour refueling cycle in a tank unit. Official Army estimates of the Stryker's cost to operate are less than $15 per mile driven, but even the highest outside estimate of about $52 per mile is less than the $69 per mile figure for the heavier, tracked M2 Bradley.

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

And most of the savings in terms of the log train is due to arming the Stryker ICV with a .50 cal, as opposed to an really effective weapon such as a 20, 25, or 30mm autocannon. Sure, .50 cal ammo is a lot smaller and lighter. It's perfectly adept at punching through the building materials of the region. But as an old and salty Gunner told me once; 'The .50 cal is a lousy anti-personnel weapon as the ROF is too low. Against troops I'd rather have a M60 with a nickle in the gas chamber.'

For anti-personnel the Strykers have the Mk19. As for why it doesn't have a larger gun... well, why doesn't it have a Vulcan on it or why doesn't the Bradley have a 105mm howitzer on it? It's a silly argument. The Stryker is supposed to be a light vehicle, so if you start building it to be a Bradley, then why not just have a Bradley?

4. Actually the Strykers have not been reliable as all of the extra weight pays a heavy toll on their drive train and suspension;

from:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001923_comments.html

You're kidding, right? You're using a series of unqualified messageboard posts by people who are obviously grinding axes as a SOURCE? I note you didn't post any of the info from the guys saying the exact opposite.

I've read several operational reports, Lessons Learned, and first hand accounts. The Strykers have a readiness rate that is unmatched by any Bradley unit. Especially over time and extend ops. This is one of the inherent advantages of wheeled vehicles over tracked.

I have both tracked and wheeled vehicles. 2 days, 2 people, struggled to get a thrown track on one of my vehicles (which is the size of a VW Beetle but weighs as much as my 1/2 pickup). To contrast this I drove 1/2 mile on a flat tire with a full weight load in one of my wheeled vehicles. Tracks have their advantages, that is for sure, but reliability and maintenance... even a poorly designed wheeled vehicle is better than a well designed tracked vehicle. It's one of the reasons why I don't own a tank. I'm serious about that too.

There is a lot of evidence out there that the Army 'cooked-the-books' during the operational evaluation.

True. They always cook the books for anything they want. Bradley and Abrams likely had all sorts of things reported during trials that later turned out to be incorrect or were overlooked. Like having the Abrams not have an independent power source for its turret and armor for its engine compartment that can be knocked out by just about anything. All programs have such deficiencies, so why single the Stryker program out for its out of context?

5. The standard Stryker varient has a woefully inadequate armament for anything besides COIN. And the fact that you have to leave the vehicle to load the ammo makes it that much worse.

True, but the Stryker is not supposed to be in the thick of the fighting like the Bradley is. Different tactics are applied. I would have thought that you would understand the difference between an IFV and an ICV (aka APC). Criticizing the Stryker for this would like criticizing an aircraft carrier for being unable to get into shallow waters.

6. Driving LAVs around against the Taliban is not quite the same as driving a massively overweight Stryker around against Syrians with ATGMs. Neither is occupying Kosovo after the withdrawal of the Serbs.

Yes, but Strykers are fighting in hot areas and have engaged in heavy fighting. They have acquitted themselves very well. Not the same as going up against T-72s, but then again Bradleys wouldn't fair much better. And again, there are different tactics to be had.

7. Deployability. The Current ICW Stryker base model already cannot be carried by a C-130 outfitted for combat (a program requirement) as it is over the 16 ton payload of a C-130 with a full fuel level. I believe it is around 3 tons too heavy. And the new C-130J carries even less. So it failed to be what it was originally designed to be. And that is w/o bar armor. And that is for one of the lightest varients, the IGS weighs several tons more.

True, the "roll on, roll off" combat ready requirement was a failure. However, you are wrong about its air deployability. This is another anti-Stryker myth. Plus, it has nothing to do with CM:SF's setting since we're not talking about a scratch force mobilizing within days.

8. The bar armor was installed to deal with the Iraqi insurgents.

Wrong. It was installed to deal with RPGs and other AT missiles. It just so happens that they are all in the hands of insurgents because, surprise surprise, that is who we are fighting.

I have read that it is very likely the Syrians have RPG warheads that bar armor provides no protection against;

True. But guess what? That same RPG warhead can take out a Bradley or an Abrams. Even the message board post (which isn't a really good source) you linked to said that. So your point is... we shouldn't have Bradleys or Abrams going into Syria either? BTW, that source you linked to has several factual errors in it. So while it's overall point is true, it's presentation is highly flawed.

I would be interested in any data on bar armor against ATGM systems, especially the more advanced versions bought in small numbers by the Syrians.

Tandem warheads will defeat slat armor. They can also defeat regular armor and reactive armor as well. This is why the Abrams is getting the TUSK upgrade, at least for MOUT warfare. It's incredibly vulnerable, especially from the rear. Heck, a run of the mill RPG-7 AT round that would NOT harm a Stryker can take out an Abrams from the rear (or immobilize it with a track/suspension hit).

Not meaning to flame anyone, just simply disagreeing.

Not flaming you either, just pointing out you are not disagreeing with much in the way of facts to back you up.

I'd much rather have an LAV or M2/3 when faced by a BMP-1 or an ATGM, rather than a Stryker.

Yeah, I'd rather be in a M2/3 against a BMP-1 or ATGM compared to a Stryker. But do you know what I would rather be in more than those vehicles? A foxhole An AT-13 or AT-14, BTW, would likely kill a LAV or M2/3 just as dead as a Stryker. Hezbollah was also having pretty good success taking out IDF armor, which is as good if not better than what we have, with even less capable ATGMs.

Now, in your rant you forgot to mention all the positive qualities of the Stryker and all the negative qualities of the Bradley family of vehicles. Natural, since that would weaken your argument Soldiers that have ridden into combat in both vehicles, as far as I can tell, prefer the Stryker hands down to the Bradley. Smoother ride, more room, easier mount/dismount procedure, and soooo much more quiet. The latter is a huge plus in MOUT environments, COIN or otherwise.

Anyway, your original point of this thread was to somehow cast doubt on the Stryker Brigades being used in conventional warfare setting. I disputed that big time and so far you haven't even tried to counter that. You instead tried to revive the Treads vs. Tracked chip-on-shoulder debate, which I've obviously had some experience wading into before

Now, I am NOT a pro Stryker guy, nor am I an anti-Bradley guy any more than I am pro chocolate icecream and anti-vanilla. What I am here to do is simply try to help people understand that there is a LOT of BS swirling around about Strykers as well as legitimate criticisms (some of which are outdated). No system is perfect, which is true for the LAV, Bradely, Abrams, or anything else on the battlefield today, yesterday, or tomorrow. To forget this, and take things out of context, is not helpful.

Steve

[ March 09, 2007, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[flamingknives]

Considering how much anti-armour firepower a Stryker unit of any size has, you wouldn't want an armour-heavy unit to tangle with them. Each infantry squad has three (I think) Javelin missiles, each with a Pkill of 0.9 or better, out to 2.5km. The launcher is no more detectable than an RPG7.

Artillery and airpower mean that they are not going to be overrun by infantry.

On deep ops I would expect them to ruch forwards and sieze a lightly defended position, then dig in and let the enemy batter himself to death against ATGW, Artillery and Airpower.

[robplumm]

3 Javelins/squad??? We have 2 assigned/platoon. Actually seeing the missiles for those is a different story altogether.

[flamingknives]

Missiles, not CLUs. 1 CLU/squad according to the FM. I suspect they might be in more ready supply if there was actually some small chance of seeing some hostile armour.

[robplumm]

According to the FM doesn't always happen. I haven't dealt with the Strykers other than watching them drive by and wishing I was in one rather than my humvee...but us light folks only get 2 CLUs per platoon. Strykers being inherently more mobile might get an extra one.

[civdiv]

Steve, et al,

I responded to the points of rebuttel made against my original argument. It isn't my fault that their arguments went totally off topic and meandered all around the park. Go back and read the exchange, I didn't bring up deployability.

The Stryker has worse cross country mobility than the M2/3.

The Stryker has anemic hitting ability compared to the M2/3.

The Stryker is very-much less survivable than the M2/3.

Many are calling for dusting off the huge numbers of M113s in storage to use them in Iraq in place of HMMWVs. The M113 is basically a tracked version of the Stryker. I know, I know, digital comms and remote gun sights and all that crap, big deal. In terms of actual combat effectiveness the M113 (w/ bar armor upgrades and such) is the combat equivelent of the Stryker. Lets see someone argue we should invade Syria with a fleet of M113s.

civdiv

[MikeyD]

"I think, what - an infantry division? - could stop and destroy a Stryker brigade."

Umm... Divisions vs Brigades. We seem to be comparing apples with MUCH larger apples. Would a plain-vanilla Infantry Brigade be ninble enough to stop a nimble Stryker Brigade? With the increasing proliferation of ATGM, tandem warheads, top-attack munitions and the like no vehicle is going to be particularly invulnerable.

In my opinion this debate is THE REASON TO BUY THE GAME!! Eventually they'll release the game to us and we can test out all our pet theories by wargaming them. Maybe the game will prove Stryker Brigade is a sow's ear, maybe a silk purse. We'll soon be able to run tactical tests to find out - and have some fun in the process

[flamingknives]

civdiv,

I believe that you are confusing tactical and strategic advantage. The M113 and the Stryker are pretty close as far as tactical goes (Bells and whistles nonwithstanding) but they are leagues apart from a strategic or even operational standpoint.

[flammenwerfer]

I understand BFC will include a backstory for the invasion of Syria, but what about hypothetical units and formations in theater, or even invasion strategies.

Would US strategy be similar to Iraq, as in a race to Demascus?

[Battlefront.com]

AdamL,

Want to tell me how they're going to do any of this? Draw up a syrian independant infantry brigade parked on your path, with it's organic weapons and it's central assets and so forth.

Uhm... the same way every other penetration force has ever dealt with it... go around it, pull back, or sit tight. The purpose of a light breakthrough force is to disrupt the enemy and turn its plans on its heads, not to destroy enemy force head on. Instead, cutting them off, getting them to shift, etc. allows other forces to do the dirty work of destruction. Classic maneuver warfare.

And when a Stryker Brigade does come into contact with a force like the Syrians, it has more than enough power to defend itself if not do serious damage. Plenty of Javelins and TOWs at its disposal, not to mention the assets it needs to call in air and artillery with extreme precision. For larger, heavier forces... it would (as I said above) avoid a fight. That's not what it should be doing, so why penalize it? If you think a Stryker Brigade, with all its organic recon assets and access to higher assets, would blunder into a Tank Corps... well, I'd be curious to know how you came up with that scenario.

You're on the tip of the spear. Spear into what? Syria has a standing army ~200k men right? That's what you're wading into. Then there are all the reserves being drawn up in front of you. The country is mobilizing for war and you're doing deep operations as an independant brigade. Good luck with that.

Actually, it is the best time for a deep penetration. The enemy is in the process of organizing. Best time to hit them. Plus, do you realize how thinly spread out 200k forces would be in a country the size of Syria? Wonder why the Coalition Forces are having such a hard time in Iraq? Same issue only worse.

Maybe you can play rope-a-dope acting as a target for a tank regiment, pulling them out from cover so airpower can smash them. (Shrug?)

Drawing out the enemy force is an extremely good idea. The Iraqis lost most of their forces while they were redeploying to deal with the incursions towards, and eventually into, Baghdad.

What? How? A Heavy Brigade works on tactical problems like enemy units in depths better than a light one. The elaboration in the last post that a Bradley won't deal with T-72's much better than a Stryker isn't helpful either. The Bradley does it better, and the heavies do it best. Well, you don't send your weakest hitter out on deep operations.

Because you don't send your slowest, most logistically challenged units into a deep penetration when you have a better tailored force at the ready. In reality the Syrian front would be broken extremely easily so the difference between pursuit and penetration forces would, for the most part, be rather slim anyway.

The useful role of these light brigades is screening, security, and recon. They're suitable when the enemy has light arms only, and is isolated from their heavier supporting formations. They're not deep operations worthy. Fuel economy be damned!!

Then you don't understand maneuver warfare very well.

flamingknives,

Considering how much anti-armour firepower a Stryker unit of any size has, you wouldn't want an armour-heavy unit to tangle with them. Each infantry squad has three (I think) Javelin missiles, each with a Pkill of 0.9 or better, out to 2.5km. The launcher is no more detectable than an RPG7.

Yup.

Artillery and airpower mean that they are not going to be overrun by infantry.

Double yup.

On deep ops I would expect them to ruch forwards and sieze a lightly defended position, then dig in and let the enemy batter himself to death against ATGW, Artillery and Airpower.

Triple yup In a fast moving war like this the one that gets to the key terrain first and decamps is going to cause the other side a lot of headaches.

robplumm

According to the FM doesn't always happen. I haven't dealt with the Strykers other than watching them drive by and wishing I was in one rather than my humvee...but us light folks only get 2 CLUs per platoon. Strykers being inherently more mobile might get an extra one.

They do. They get 1 CLU per Squad and at least three missiles. Other forces, such as Mech Infantry, Light Infantry, and recon have 2 per platoon as usual standard TO&E. I've seen no evidence that the new HBCT and IBCT structures increases the Javelin counts, for whatever reason.

civdiv

I responded to the points of rebuttel made against my original argument. It isn't my fault that their arguments went totally off topic and meandered all around the park. Go back and read the exchange, I didn't bring up deployability.

Neither did I What I did was state the operational (i.e. on the ground) advantages of the SBCT and why those benefits would lend themselves to a primary role in a war against Syria. Strategic considerations, such as lift, were not brought up by me. I only put it out there to counter the incorrect information you put out.

The Stryker has worse cross country mobility than the M2/3.

True, but the M2/3 has worse performance on roads. What's your point? That you can ONLY use the better equipment for a given role and nothing else is good enough?

The Stryker has anemic hitting ability compared to the M2/3.

And the M2/3 has anemic hitting ability compared to an Abrams. Again, what's your point?

The Stryker is very-much less survivable than the M2/3.

Not true. Small arms... both are equally survivable. Top of the line enemy AT/ATGM weapons... equally survivable. Enemy large caliber munitions... equally survivable. Significant sized/designed IEDs... equally survivable. Mines... Stryker is actually more survivable here. Certain types of common AT rounds... equally survivable. The only class of threat that the Bradley is superior on is the middle range of RPG, recoilless, and certain types of artillery munitions. It is not to say that a Bradely is impervious to them and the Stryker always vulnerable, but it is true to say that the armor of the Bradley is likely to make a big difference. But for all the other threats mentioned, there is no difference.

Now, let's look at the pros of the Stryker instead of just the cons. In doing so, let's look at the Bradley's cons instead of just its pros.

The stryker is significantly faster than a Bradley. If you have to boggie, you would rather be in a Stryker. The infantry Strykers transport get to dismount with their lunches still in their tummies instead of in their helmets. The enemy is a lot less likely to know a Stryker is coming due to its massively lower sound signature, and therefore has a greater chance of being surprised. As a military guy you know that surprise is one of the best things to have going for you, one of the worst things to lose. If a Stryker hits something, like a mine, it has a good chance of moving out of whatever kill zone under its own power. If a Bradley takes a track hit, it stays right where it is, which could be exactly where the enemy wants it. When in tight terrain Strykers have SOP two extra sets of eyes and weapons protecting the flanks and rear, which can make all the difference. Operationally the Stryker wins hands down.

Again, I am not slamming the Bradley. It is a fantastic vehicle, but it is not an über vehicle any more than a King Tiger was in WWII. Bradleys have their good AND bad points, as do Strykers. They complement each other, which in a military environment is a good thing. Combined Arms works best with a balance. The problem with the US Army post Vietnam was it had no balance. Things were either too light or too heavy. The Stryker Brigades solve that problem.

Many are calling for dusting off the huge numbers of M113s in storage to use them in Iraq in place of HMMWVs. The M113 is basically a tracked version of the Stryker. I know, I know, digital comms and remote gun sights and all that crap, big deal. In terms of actual combat effectiveness the M113 (w/ bar armor upgrades and such) is the combat equivelent of the Stryker.

I guess you haven't been listening All the negatives of the Bradley compared to the Stryker are inherent in the M113. Therefore, all you'd be doing is having vehicles that are worse than Bradleys and worse than Strykers in combat. That doesn't seem very smart.

MikeyD,

Umm... Divisions vs Brigades. We seem to be comparing apples with MUCH larger apples. Would a plain-vanilla Infantry Brigade be ninble enough to stop a nimble Stryker Brigade? With the increasing proliferation of ATGM, tandem warheads, top-attack munitions and the like no vehicle is going to be particularly invulnerable.

Yup, exactly.

In my opinion this debate is THE REASON TO BUY THE GAME!! Eventually they'll release the game to us and we can test out all our pet theories by wargaming them. Maybe the game will prove Stryker Brigade is a sow's ear, maybe a silk purse. We'll soon be able to run tactical tests to find out - and have some fun in the process

Right again It is, afterall, why we chose to center on the Stryker.

flamingknives,

I believe that you are confusing tactical and strategic advantage. The M113 and the Stryker are pretty close as far as tactical goes (Bells and whistles nonwithstanding) but they are leagues apart from a strategic or even operational standpoint.

Bingo. And those Bells and Whistles are actually huge "force multipliers", and seeing CivDiv blow them off as useless trinkets further does discredit to his line of thinking.

Note that all US Brigades will eventually be "digital" in the way that the Strykers are. The conversion process is well under way already. It's just that the Stryker Brigades were designed around this concept from the get go.

Steve

[ March 10, 2007, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[flamingknives]

It does have to be noted that the bells and whistles are platform independent. Although, most comparisons with the M113 forget the cost of the shiny bits on the Stryker.

[civdiv]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

civdiv,

I believe that you are confusing tactical and strategic advantage. The M113 and the Stryker are pretty close as far as tactical goes (Bells and whistles nonwithstanding) but they are leagues apart from a strategic or even operational standpoint.

How? The M113 is (all versions regardless of add-ons) are C130 transportable when configured for combat. The Stryker (regardless of version) is not.

The Stryker is an albatross.

[panzermartin]

Stryker is ugly though. Possibly the ugliest APC with the slat armor on. Please dont put them on the cover art

[tankibanki]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

Stryker is ugly though. Possibly the ugliest APC with the slat armor on. Please dont put them on the cover art

My thoughts exactly. I was wondering if I was the only one who thought so.

[Ryan Crierie]

I always love this story about the stryker:

I know a guy over at spacebattles.com forums who is assigned to a MGS platoon (only currently equipped with the Stryker TOW variant) and he said they simply had no idea when if ever they would get the thing several months ago.

He also had a story to tell about his brigades trip to the NTC. One battalion (not his) went up against a strongpoint defended by several ATGM teams and two M1 tanks simulating T-80s. The tanks and missiles destroyed over 30 Strykers and pinned the battalion down so badly that the exercise was terminated because no training could take place! The same exercise was then run again the next day only with only a single M1 defending, that tank then wiped out half the battalion before running out of ammunition and withdrawing. The story got confirmed by someone else on the board who ironically serves in the NTC OPFOR, though he also did not specifically take part in that exercise.

Ya gotta take NTC stories -- even if absolutely true -- with a grain of salt. In the real world nobody flushes a battalion against one or two tanks. They ID the tanks' pos and call in air. Or just bust them with organic AT assets. At NTC, they don't give you air and they make you work against artificial time pressures that keep you from maneuvering your available assets into place.

I’m aware of the limitations placed on troops at the NTC; but do you think the same thing would have happened to a Bradley battalion when every single vehicle can actually engage and destroy enemy armor? I very much doubt it, and it is not reassuring for an entire battalion to need external support against a platoon of enemy heavy weapons.