Too Many Strykers

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Would you be specific and clear and leave the debating off for a minute? Do you want me to understand or be beaten in a debate?

I'm TRYING, but you're dismissing my points without either considering them or thinking about how they relate to Iraq. So I'll try again...

The Syrians will have VERY limited freedom of action. Their main forces will have to stay pretty much wherever they were prior to the war starting. Anything big that moves will be noticed, and anything noticed will be pummeled from the air (if distant) or artillery (if close) or both (if close). The notion you have of an US force, Stryker or otherwise, bumbling into a phalanx of Syrian mech units is just not going to happen. There is no operational condition you could come up with, short of the US Air Force going on holiday all at once, that would allow such freedom of action for the enemy mech forces.

First of all, the Syrians do not have 5000 tanks. Best figures I have say it's about 3500 with an additional 1200 in static positions. A fair number of the 3500 are likely mothballed due to age or mechanical problems. The Syrians probably have around 10 armored divisions equivalents on paper all said and done, which would in theory consume about 3000 tanks. It is not likely that they could be up to full TO&E and have enough left over for the Mech Divisions more modest tank numbers. But let's just use the 3500 number as the high end.

The bulk of the Syrian forces are situated around Damascus and the Golan Heights; the Republican Guard Mech Div (really an Armored Div), 4 Armored Divisions, and a Mech Division are all there. The bulk of the remaining standing Army was thinly spread over the rest of the country, but most of it was in Lebanon. I would presume that much of the force that was once in Lebanon has been redeployed in Western Syria, though in our scenario they would likely be deployed eastward ahead of the actual outbreak of hostilities. Perhaps they are already there since I have read that they've been redeploying forces there, including static tanks.

This would mean that, I dunno, perhaps 1000 of the Syrians total arsenal of frontline tanks would be located in the east. The bulk of these would be T-55s and T-62s, not T-72s. 1000 tanks to safeguard a front of roughly 1000km. So take your pick... either they penny packet their forces and have a tank pretty much everywhere, or they concentrate them around key locations. They can't do both. And if they are going to concentrate them in key locations, they wouldn't be doing it all in one static line, therefore chances are that they would not be in a position to be mutually supporting. If they try to shift during combat ops they are as good as wiped out.

Therefore, the Syrian strategic picture would look a little like this. The bulk of their forces would be in the Damascus area, facing off against Lebanon and Israel in particular. They can never let their guard down there, so no matter what is going on in the eastern provinces these forces will stay. The other half, which is less heavy and less well equipped, would be spread out over the rest of the country. Some along the borders of Turkey and Jordan, some in the interior, and a fair amount along the eastern border at strategic points.

If you look at a map of Syria you'll see that leaves a LOT of room to maneuver. It would be different if the Syrians would have freedom of action, but as I've said they would not.

Or what about the 4000 anti-aircraft guns? How is a Stryker Brigade going to prevent these basic units from being brought online and grouped?

Big deal The Iraqis had some huge number of these and it didn't do them much good. But OK, let's assume that they do group them effectively *and* dedicate them to the ground role instead of trying to defend their airspace. You do know that a hit from even the medium class AA gun can take out a Bradley, a Stryker, and pretty anything else that isn't an Abrams? So if this is such a big threat, it is a big threat to pretty much all US forces and not just a Stryker force. Good news is that you've simply trotted out a paper tiger.

Taking a step back... you are envisioning an environment that is oddly enough crafted to defeat a Medium or Light force, not a Heavy one. Yet the picture you painted (overly effective deployments of vast arrays of best case weaponry) is a serious threat to Heavy forces as well. Therefore, under the scenario you've painted, the US might as well pack it in before it sets foot in Syria or be prepared for horrendous casualties and slow progress. And since I don't buy that I don't buy the fact that a Stryker Brigade is a helpless formation just waiting to get crushed.

OK, so if the Syrian position is so much worse in reality than on paper, why is that? It's simple... their forces are largely ill equipped, poorly trained, even worse led, and are still using doctrine that is a proven waste of time. Their command and control is highly centralized and extremely fragile. They have zero chance of deflecting air activity in any meaningful way, and when their forces do stand up and fight they don't stand a chance unless they get lucky and the attackers get sloppy. The attackers, however, have shown that in a conventional fight they are anything but sloppy. Not perfect, but then again nothing is.

In warfare the side with the most going for it before the conflict tends to have the most going for it during the conflict. The Syrians are desperately trying to overcome this by focusing their purchasing power on ATGM systems. These systems threaten every single Western armored vehicle in existence. The Abrams has more chance of keeping its crew alive after a hit, but in many ways it has no more ability to remain operational after a hit than a Bradley, Stryker, or Humvee without any armor. That's the thing about the AT-14 that the West really doesn't like. It was fine when it was limited to forces that we weren't likely to fight, like Russia, but it is a major problem when it moves into general distribution.

The bottom line here is that strategically and operationally the US will be able to do pretty much whatever it wants, whenever it wants within Syria. The opposite is true for the Syrians. Tactically, however, the US has to use its advantages (and that includes speed and combined arms, not just heavy armor) to mitigate the tactical threat and to dictate the conditions of such engagements. Heavy armor is a good thing to have, but it by no means assures a tactical victory any more than anything else does in the US inventory.

One of the biggest lessons from both Gulf Wars is a simple one. The faster you chop up and isolate the tactical units, the quicker they lose their effectiveness. Units that are isolated and suffering from chain of command, training, and other deficiencies have a hard time keeping themselves effective. The more you hammer them in ways they can't respond, such as from air and artillery, the worse this becomes for them. It's not enough to win the war on its own, but it is enough to tip the tactical situation further in favor of friendly forces.

Well, that's about the best I can do I think.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/n161.html

I had no idea GHQ was even still around.

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... pretty funny stuff!

One thing I've mentioned in other threads on this topic, but not so much here because we've been discussing other things, is the importance of the Stryker Brigade in clearing the way for Heavy armor in an environment where ATGMs are the single biggest threat. Unlike large assets, such as tanks, the only effective way to shield against ATGMs is to wade in with infantry and take positions. Israel learned this the hard way this past summer, but tens of thousands of tankers lost their lives in WWII learning the same thing.

When Allied tank forces moved into prepared German positions without significant infantry support, they tended to lose a lot of armor. The Germans had several capable weapons systems that made it costly to tackle even 2nd or 3rd rate infantry formations. Even at the end of the war this was true. It's not the same thing in today's environment, but it is headed in that direction.

Beta testers can already tell you that moving a Heavy force in on its own is a sure way to lose some of it, if not all. Depends on the conditions, obviously. Sure, perhaps the US force only loses one tank during the battle, but look at the pricetag of that tank and how easy it is to replace during an operation. How many engagements like that could the US afford, literally and figuratively? So unlike WWII, losing a single tank for the US is a big deal.

To put it into perspective, in 3 years of combat in Iraq, the US has lost a total of 20 Abrams (if the stats on Page 4 are for early 2006, which I think they are). So if you, as the player, lose 1 per battle... you're probably not paying enough attention to your infantry component

A Stryker force, deployed along side of Heavy forces, is a serious force to contend with. It has the capability of dealing with anything it comes into contact with, be it armor or infantry. Heavy forces, with Mech Infantry, are not nearly as robust or embracing of combined arms as a force with Stryker Rifle Companies tossed into the mix. That is how I would expect most Stryker units to be used most of the time. Not so much because they need the protection of the Heavy stuff, but the Heavy stuff needs the protection of the Medium stuff.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Michael Dorosh,

Cool discovery! It's been around a decade, but it used to be that the only way to get a decent selection of modern WP AFVs and softskins was to buy the amazing In Service Miniatures, which came with full OVM molded and crew figures for OT vehicles. Those guys even had the BRICK series jammers, the BIG FRED CM/CB radar, and lots of other goodies, to include a pretty good FST, none of which GHQ has even now. Am very impressed GHQ actually has done Strykers.

Steve,

Well argued!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tarquelne]

Therefore, under the scenario you've painted, the US might as well pack it in before it sets foot in Syria or be prepared for horrendous casualties and slow progress.

I think that's close to his point. Not that the US would be completely stalled, but that there couldn't be independent "deep" operations from the Mediums.

And since I don't buy that I don't buy the fact that a Stryker Brigade is a helpless formation just waiting to get crushed.

Which leads to my next question...

A Stryker force, deployed along side of Heavy forces, is a serious force to contend with. ... That is how I would expect most Stryker units to be used most of the time.

And the rest of the time... how about a hypothetical example of a Medium force being used more independently? Do you see deep operations against "significant" opposition, or to control areas/infrastructure where such opposition is absent?

Seize control of a key town - not city - 8 hours ahead of a Heavy force's reinforcement? 3 hours? (I'm not sure just how deep "deep" is supposed to mean.)

Taking a town with no Heavy help expected, to resist future enemy movement/communication through the area? Can the Mediums take a town when faced with Light opposition and then resist whatever Heavy counterattack Syria could mount?

How about an unexpected advance through the Ardennes?

[ March 15, 2007, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[MikeyD]

To quote Rummsfeld "You go to war with the forces you have." Same applies to wargames.

The Army fields, and soon we will field, Stryker Brigades. Sure, it would be ideal to lead every engagement with a heavy force but all it takes is one 40 ton weight limit bridge on the route of march and your medium units are going to be hours if not days ahead of your heavy units. The utility of a highly mobile force is you're able to "hit 'em where they ain't", to quote MacArthur. To outrun and outmaneuver. This projected disappointment about what a Stryker force might and might not be able to do in-game is a bit bewildering.

[Battlefront.com]

Tarquelne,

And the rest of the time... how about a hypothetical example of a Medium force being used more independently? Do you see deep operations against "significant" opposition, or to control areas/infrastructure where such opposition is absent?

Remember that going where the enemy isn't is SOP for a deep penetration force. The purpose of such a move is to disrupt, confuse, and otherwise cause problems for the enemy force while at the same time making it easier for the following forces to advance. Whether the force is Light, Medium, or Heavy the same basic concepts apply. What differs is their abilities to do certain things.

A Light force can be air deployed, for example, while the other two forces can not. This makes Light forces ideal for things like taking limited strategic objectives, such as an airfield or key infrastructure (like a bridge, dam, etc.). They rely on shock and superior small unit tactics to achieve their goals and to maintain gains until relieved. They can not handle a sustained, systematic effort to dislodge them without external support. How long they can hold out depends, of course, on the circumstances.

A Heavy force is best used to block or otherwise deflect major enemy troop concentrations and maneuever within enemy lines of communication. For example, taking a ridgeline overlooking a large flat avenue of approach for mechanized enemy forces or traveling around the flank of an enemy to come in at it from the rear. This force, unlike the Light force, is intended for significant offensive combat, though it attempts to leverage shock so that it has to fight as little as possible. The force is extremely vulnerable to logistics factors. While a Light force can, in theory, survive for extended periods of time with minimal effort, a Heavy force is basically useless once it exhausts its fuel and ammo supply. Both of which are very difficult to refresh when the force is not within friendly lines of communication.

Medium forces, not surprisingly, fit between these two forces. They use speed and shock to take and hold key objectives, be they infrastructure or terrain. In other words, they can zoom to take an airport and hold it or they can lay in ambush for an on coming mech force. What they can not do is run head on into a mech heavy force. That's what the Heavy force is intended for. Not surprisingly, a Medium force is more robust than a Light force because of its stronger combined arms capabilities, but not as sustainable. It is, however, more sustainable than a Heavy force. Figures a few pages back show that in practice a Stryker Brigade can go roughly 4 times as long as a Heavy Brigade without resupply (all things being equal). It's supposed to be able to go roughly 8 times as long, but if it has to do significant cross country travel it's definitely more like 4 times.

Seize control of a key town - not city - 8 hours ahead of a Heavy force's reinforcement? 3 hours? (I'm not sure just how deep "deep" is supposed to mean.)

It would depend on the circumstances, of course. If a Stryker Brigade were tasked with taking a key town 12 hours in advance of the main forces, that would be perfectly within its capabilities. However, if there were intel that a large enemy mechanized force were bearing down on it then perhaps 12 horus is too long. Which, of course, gets us into the reality of a war against Syria. No large mechanized force would be able to so much as fart without the US being very aware of it (and probably what they ate for breakfast too!). In the event reinforcements would not be able to get to the Stryker Brigade in time, or even if they could, the Air Force and artillery would be called in to delay, disrupt, and destroy the enemy force BEFORE it got to the Stryker's positions.

And let us not forget, a Stryker formation deployed in good terrain on the defense could hold off a much larger, mech heavy enemy force. At least for a few engagements, at which point stocks of ammo would likely run low. Each Stryker Rifle Squad has 1 Javelin launcher and 4 missiles. With a kill chance in excess of 90% at 2500-3500m (depending on circumstances), a single Stryker Platoon is in theory capable of knocking out an entire Syrian tank company before it has a chance to even know where the Stryker gunners are. That means a company sized Stryker force, with nothing but Javelins, could wipe out the better part of a Tank Battalion without appreciable risk to itself. A battalion sized Stryker force could take out the bulk of a Tank Brigade. This isn't even including Stryker ATGM and even MGS vehicles (though the latter isn't supposed to engage tanks, it can in a pinch). And again, the chances of such an enemy tank force even getting to within range of such a defense, in a coherent and full up way, are slim to none.

Taking a town with no Heavy help expected, to resist future enemy movement/communication through the area? Can the Mediums take a town when faced with Light opposition and then resist whatever Heavy counterattack Syria could mount?

Yes, even if the enemy is reasonably prepared. However, the point of speed is to close with the enemy BEFORE the enemy has a chance to effectively prepare to defend itself. This is where the Medium concept shines when on the offensive. It is not supposed to bull into a prepared line of defense it is supposed to "show up" uninvited before one in effect exists. And if the Stryker force comes to the conclusion that the element of surprise is absent and the defenses strong, then it has the option to NOT attack. It can go somewhere else or stay put on overwatch while heavier forces come in. Or, more likely, it can call in air and artillery to "convince" the defenders that they ought to think twice about resisting.

How about an unexpected advance through the Ardennes?

It would have been ideal for such an advance. The Germans sent a ton of their light forces through first to secure the routes, which could so easily have been blocked. By the time the Allies realized what was going on, they were on the outside looking in.

Steve

[ March 15, 2007, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Cpl Steiner]

I have been lurking in this debate for a few days now and thought I'd add a few comments to what has become an interesting discussion.

On the Bradley versus Stryker debate, they would appear to be about evenly matched in the sense that each has an equal number of advantage and disadvantages.

For instance, the Bradley, being tracked, can be expected to out-perform the Stryker off-road due to its lower ground pressure. However, the Stryker, being wheeled, is faster on roads and easier to maintain and get back into action if it breaks down.

Similarly, the Bradley is more heavily armed and armoured, giving it an advantage in combat with armour-heavy enemy forces. However, the Stryker can carry more men and materiel, giving it an advantage in combat with infantry-heavy enemy forces.

Given that there seem to be an equal number of pros and cons for each type of vehicle, I think we should declare a draw and move the debate on to other areas.

Another thing to bear in mind, it seems to me, is that it virtually doesn't matter which type of unit makes contact with the enemy first, because US doctrine, in theory and in practice, has always been to find the enemy first and then destroy them using artillery and ground attack aircraft to minimise friendly casualties. I would imagine a Stryker unit running into a strong mechanized enemy would just fall back, take cover and wait for the A-10s and AH-64s to do the job of destroying the enemy for them.

I can imagine many a scenario in CM:SF running along these lines. You advance as fast as you can towards a map edge, watching out for enemy activity. If enemy are contacted, you get your Strykers into cover and deploy your infantry squads to protect the Strykers from any possible heavy armour with their anti-tank weapons. If the enemy has heavy armour and attempts to hit the Strykers, you take them out with Javelins etc. whilst waiting for the A-10s or Apaches. If the enemy seems to be infantry-heavy, then you can push on through them using the Strykers to provide covering fire.

Personally, given the fact that the Stryker is quite a vulnerable vehicle up against enemy armour, I think this will make for a more exciting game. You will have to think more in terms of force protection rather than gung-ho assaults when you suspect that enemy armour is in the area, at least while you wait for Artillery and Air assets to come online.

I also don't think it is that unrealistic for them to be deployed where they might run into enemy armour, because of the US doctrine of using very extensive air superiority to protect all ground units. Any US unit should be able to triumph over enemy armour formations due to this very big advantage.

[aka_tom_w]

"Personally, given the fact that the Stryker is quite a vulnerable vehicle up against enemy armour, I think this will make for a more exciting game. You will have to think more in terms of force protection rather than gung-ho assaults when you suspect that enemy armour is in the area, at least while you wait for Artillery and Air assets to come online."

I too have been lurking in this thread and following the issues back and forth. I would like to suggest one thing missing here is that virutally any vechicle of any kind on the modern battlefield is vulnerable to ATGM's and to a lesser extent RPG's. This is the same for Bradley's or Strykers. I could be wrong, but I thought that on the modern day battlefield all vehicles could be destroyed my some form of shoulder launched missile. Sure, that is a very broad statement, but the whole concept of light, medium or heavy AFV or IFV is really a mute point when a Javelin or Russian equivalent launched by a couple of soldiers can and will destroy them ALL equally well.

Once again Steve and Adam and the rest know WAY more about all this specifics then I do, but I thought that missiles that can destroy any vehicle (either shoulder launched, tube launched or launched from aircraft) were the real issue that needed to be talked about, not whether a Bradly or a Stryker is better or more specialized for this role or that. My point is, it really does not matter because irrespective of what armour or vechicles the opposing side presents, any and all friendly vehicles will blow up all the same when two guys behind a bush launch an ATGM and it hits the target.

Wasn't there some comment about "egg shells with hammers" refering to tanks (mostly Allied) from the WWII CMBO discussions, sounds like the same old same old to me.

Bradley Vs. Stryker? (who cares, they are both egg shells with hammers in the eyes of a Russian ATGM, Kornet?)

-tom w

[ March 15, 2007, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Cpl Steiner]

aka_tom_w,

I'm not sure that Syria can be expected to have ATGMs capable of totally destroying an M1 Abrams frontally with one shot but they would certainly do a lot more damage than scratching the paint work!

I think Steve had it right when he said a while back that a hit on a vehicle by anything larger than small arms fire is not something you want to repeat too often, even if the vehicle survives. Any US commander worth his salt will be trying to avoid vehicle hits through a variety of means, not least of which is surprise. A US platoon of virtually any type that gets the drop on the enemy should be able to take them apart within a matter of minutes before they even have time to figure out what is going on - heavier units by way of kinetic energy weapons such as tank rounds, lighter ones by way of shoulder-launched ATGMs and directed artillery and air strikes. Either way, the effect on the enemy is the same.

[Battlefront.com]

The Syrians have a decent number of upgraded missiles for AT-3 and AT-4 launchers that make them more deadly if they hit compared to the older missiles. Fortunately, they are just as clumsy and defeatable since the same launchers are the same. The AT-5 and AT-13 are serious threats too. All of these systems, old or new, can take out a Bradely or Stryker without a problem. With propper hits, an Abrams can be effectively neutralized too.

The largest threat, though, comes from the Syrians' ample, and growing, supply of AT-14 Kornet ATGM systems. This is the top of the line non-Western ATGM out there. It is not as good as some of the Western systems, but it is more than "good enough" in most circumstances. It can easily take out an Abrams. The RPG-29, which is also increasing in numbers, can also cause the Abrams a real headache (I don't think it can kill it from the front, though).

And like Cpl Steiner reminds us, no vehicle commander in today's threat environment is going to sit around getting hit by stuff. The chances of serious damage or destruction is too high. If someone is hitting your tank with rifle fire, how do you know that guy isn't trying to distract you while someone sneaks up with an RPG-7V? One of those to the rear of an Abrams is a pretty much a sure mobility kill at the very least. Well, if the gunner hits and the round detonates

Steve

[Capt. Toleran]

Before anyone reads the article below, let me state now that I am not anti-Stryker, nor is this article meant to weigh in on the argument (though my sympathies are more on the Steve side of things, pro-Stryker). Below is an account of Strykers in battle recently, with 2 Strykers lost:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/15/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Under-Fire.php

[Capt. Toleran]

On second read, this actually comes out pro-Stryker -- 2 vehicles destroyed, but only one fatality. Not too shabby considering direct IED hits on both.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:

Before anyone reads the article below, let me state now that I am not anti-Stryker, nor is this article meant to weigh in on the argument (though my sympathies are more on the Steve side of things, pro-Stryker). Below is an account of Strykers in battle recently, with 2 Strykers lost:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/15/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Under-Fire.php

Pretty pathetic excuse for an article. The only Iraqi killed, apparently, was a dog that the Americans shot. The reporter went to great pains to highlight the fact a dog was killed but made no mention whatsoever of any effect the US troops might have had on the enemy.

[Capt. Toleran]

Well, not the article's fault that only the dog ate it -- So maybe you mean pretty pathetic excuse for an operation. The article did a good job of conveying detail at a level we can all appreciate. Better that the article didn't embellish any impact we might have had.

[Imperial Grunt]

But I am sure that was a pretty scary dog!

[Capt. Toleran]

Oh, and the 100 Strykers called to the scene pretty much justifies the screenshot that triggered this whole debate in the first place -- that's how it happens.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:

Well, not the article's fault that only the dog ate it -- So maybe you mean pretty pathetic excuse for an operation. The article did a good job of conveying detail at a level we can all appreciate. Better that the article didn't embellish any impact we might have had.

No, I mean exactly what I said - it's a pathetic excuse for reporting. From yahoo news and the AP -

By day's end, one soldier was dead, 12 wounded and two Strykers destroyed. The Americans said dozens of insurgents were killed but gave no specific number.

Funny there is no mention of that in the article you posted.

[Leeo]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:

Well, not the article's fault that only the dog ate it -- So maybe you mean pretty pathetic excuse for an operation. The article did a good job of conveying detail at a level we can all appreciate. Better that the article didn't embellish any impact we might have had.

No, I mean exactly what I said - it's a pathetic excuse for reporting. From yahoo news and the AP -

By day's end, one soldier was dead, 12 wounded and two Strykers destroyed. The Americans said dozens of insurgents were killed but gave no specific number.

Funny there is no mention of that in the article you posted. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

heh

*flees*

[MikeyD]

100 Strykers equals about 1/3rd of the entire force in-theatre. It's hard to keep track since Bush rotated in one Stryker Brigade while delaying return of another some months ago. Usually Stryker numbers hover somewhere around the 290 number.

That article shows what can happen when you have a determined opponent and are lacking the element of surprise - which pretty much defines a typical CM battle. I bet faced with a similar situation a typical CM armchair general would've seen considerably higher casualties before rethinking his plan.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the link to the article!

The IED ambushes are textbook examples of how to defeat a superior force with inferior weaponry. Those RPG gunners were able to come out, at just the right spot and moment, to nail the Strykers thanks to the IED. This tactic greatly increased the chances of the RPG gunners hitting their targets instead of being shot down in the street. And of course, since the location was of the Insurgent's choosing, it could be sure that if an enemy vehicle came that way they would have something to shoot at in the first place.

The Strykers have once again shown their ability to stand up to punishment. I remember 10 Marines being killed while sitting in their AAV a couple of years ago. I've got some Insurgent video of an IED that flipped a Bradley on its back, then when they were evacuating the wounded they set off a prepositioned 2nd IED aimed at where they guessed the rear of the vehicle would be. IIRC 6 KIA in that attack.

As I've said many times already, nobody is safe from the weapons being employed these days.

Steve

[Tarquelne]

IMO a deep operation gone wrong could make a great campaign.

Those dubious of the Stryker could consider it a deep operation going only as well as could be expected.