Too Many Strykers

[Capt. Toleran]

Video footage, this time of dismounted Stryker Brigade infantry doing sniping ops, includes m-82 footage (being fired, not the target).

http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=true&token=91e_1173797730&p=57253&s=1

[civdiv]

Talk about a rant;

http://www.geocities.com/armorhistory/infantrytanks.htm

[Battlefront.com]

Ah... that one IIRC this is a Mark Sparks rant in another guise. And as with Sparks' other stuff, it is so filled with bias and flawed arguments that hardly any of it can be taken seriously. For example, all those pictures of Strykers in trouble. Hmmm... according to the stats I came up with just as many Abrams and Bradleys were KO'd in Iraq. Oh and wait... just as many M113s were KO'd as well. Hmmmm.... so what was his point again?

Not surprisingly he doesn't show even one picture of a burning M113 in Iraq, not to mention an Abrams or Bradely. It would still be disproportional and misleading to show one of each and a dozen LAV III and Stryker pics, but at least there would be some recognition that what killed those Strykers has also killed vehicles much heavier, better armored, and sporting tracks. He could have also shown a pic of the Bradley that rolled into a cannal or the Abrams that gut stuck in the sewage pit in Nasiriyah.

Anybody with 1/2 a brain knows the answer as to why the pics were carefully, and selectively, chosen. It's harder to make a biased rant when looking at the issues honestly from all sides

And that is just picking at the pics he used and didn't use. The text... well, where does one start!?! Best not to waste one's time. It's such a load of bunk you wonder if the author has some financial interest in M113 upgrade and/or maintainence contracts.

Steve

[ March 18, 2007, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[civdiv]

It's such a load of bunk you wonder if the author has some financial interest in M113 upgrade and/or maintainence contracts.

My thought exactly.

civdiv

[Nidan1]

That burning Stryker pic is in that link as well. It must be the most famous burning Stryker in the whole war!!

[JasonC]

So in answer to Adam's perfectly reasonable questions, it is the Official Position that the Syrians shall be stupid idjits who can't find their backsides with both hands, deployed as stupidly as possible, that all their tanks will be destroyed from the air, and that those that remain shall always be on the tactical offensive when Strykers are on the scene, allowing dismounted javelins in terrain plus yet more air to make short work of them. Leading to the burning question, what was that supposedly independent deep role for a medium brigade again? And why is this game being made again?

As for the even handed fellow who said clearly Strykers are better vs. infantry than Brads, um, how to put this? In what galaxy? Strkyers carry more dismounts and are cheaper to operate, and easily to sustain over long distances. All fine things for operational screening, or patrol work, or clear and hold with dismounts. But no, it doesn't make them better at taking on dismounted infantry in straight up combat. Nothing can make medium better than heavy at actual combat, no matter how many times it is spun.

As for the endless eggshell with hammer discussion, why is this so hard to grok? One vehicle has a 90% hit chance advanced sensor armor killing weapon with 4 kilometer range. The other has dismounts with half that and MGs. Range wins, that is what happens between eggshells, particularly in open desert like eastern Syria. No they are not comparable. Also Brads pair with M-1s which aren't even killable by a quarter as many weapons etc. So if you charge Syrian armor positions, heavy leads.

If you have to deal with ATGM positions, the relevant coordination is of heavy with their indirect firepower arms, not leg infantry. No you can't work your way up to an ATGM heavy hiding dismount force with leg infantry and uncover all their ATGM positions. They easily have soft firepower cover independent of the ATGMs, in the form of artillery and rockets and mortars and HMGs and grenade launchers. What you do instead is call down artillery fire on the ATGM positions to suppress them, as the heavies move into range, etc.

The Israelis worked all this out in 1973 and it works. As for last year's fight in Lebanon, the Israel pols simply held them on a leash and told them to use arty and air without ground, which fails to create the necessary combined arms threat. The enemy then just goes deep in his holes and the arty is ineffective.

As for the Syrians supposedly deploying 1000 MBTs in eastern Syrian all spread out, um, what death wish leads to that brilliancy? They have deployed the bulk of the heavy armor around Damascus. That is where it will stay. And fight, in operationally defensive roles, tactically any stance. If all the US wants to do is shut down rat lines in the eastern desert, they will be largely unopposed, other than by irregulars using IEDs etc. What Syria wants is to keep the regime in power, by keeping control of Damascus (and to a lesser extent, their lines to the coast, which are their economic lifeline).

The place the US has to exploit with its penetrating razzler dazzlers is the downtown Damascus region and its immediately surrounding high ground ranges. Which will be lousy with AAA and with T-62s and T-70s parked wherever they think they can hide from aircraft. Light guns and ATGM positions on the hills, tanks in the towns along with leg infantry and irregulars (along with more AAA on "technicals"). Modest bits of armor and special forces in outlying urban areas to keep the regime's grip on locals. Those are the missions and targets that matter, not empty desert in the east.

Underestimating enemies is seldom wise. The Syrians might fold easily, they also might not. One presumes the game will not force the former instead of letting actual player skills with the various weapons determine the outcomes. I've no doubt that wargamers in the comfort of their dens will provide more rational direction than many a Syrian officer will manage. This is meant to be possible, is it not? Or are Syrian units doing to have big packets of red paint strapped to their chest and water pistols, the better to flatter the contractors paying for development?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The place the US has to exploit with its penetrating razzler dazzlers is the downtown Damascus region and its immediately surrounding high ground ranges. Which will be lousy with AAA and with T-62s and T-70s parked wherever they think they can hide from aircraft.

Leading us to the question - will tanks be able to go inside buildings in CMSF.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB] So in answer to Adam's perfectly reasonable questions, it is the Official Position that the Syrians shall be stupid idjits who can't find their backsides with both hands,...

Where's that post? Is it in the beta forum?

Nothing can make medium better than heavy at actual combat, no matter how many times it is spun.

Don't forget to say "And discounting operational level factors." "Nothing can make medium better than heavy at actual combat, discounting operational factors, no matter how many times it is spun." If you slow down a faster force and make it fight the same fights as a heavy force, then it'll do worse... And an overextended, unprepared, out-of-position heavy force will always fight better than a well supplied, rested and in-position medium force. I get it.

Hmm... you know, a tank is faster than a man, and better protected, and has a more powerful weapon. There's really no need for anything in the armed forces other than tanks. If you ignore everything beyond raw combat power, that is.

If you have to deal with ATGM positions, the relevant coordination is of heavy with their indirect firepower arms, not leg infantry.

As a very wise man said: "You fight wars with the relevant army, not the army you have."

...What you do instead is call down artillery fire on the ATGM positions to suppress them, as the heavies move into range, etc.

Which is why, IMO, Stryker forces should be able to call on artillery and air support, and maybe have some sort of vehicle that can stop *some* of the ATGMs or RPGs out there. Just some.. like the Heavies do.

The Israelis worked all this out in 1973 and it works. As for last year's fight in Lebanon, the Israel pols simply held them on a leash and told them to use arty and air without ground,

Lord knows the US will *never* fight with any political constraints.

As for the Syrians supposedly deploying 1000 MBTs in eastern Syrian all spread out, um, what death wish leads to that brilliancy? They have deployed the bulk of the heavy armor around Damascus.

Ok.. the "bulk" of the armor is around Damascus... and the rest of it? Let me guess: It doesn't matter, right, because all that matters - in the whole country - is Damascus?

What Syria wants is to keep the regime in power, by keeping control of Damascus (and to a lesser extent, their lines to the coast, which are their economic lifeline).

Yes.

I hadn't realized that CM:SF had to start in downtown Damascus to be an interesting game. That fighting irregulars (really, just irregulars? What about the missing "bulk" of the armor?) wouldn't work. Is it physically impossible, logically impossible, or against your religion?

Those are the missions and targets that matter, not empty desert in the east.

So... empty, huh? It'll be a total cakewalk until they get near Damascus? No need for screening? Or, say, some sort of "deep" operation to secure some key road juncture, or town, or base before the Syrians can do something clever there? There's no one living outside Damascus that might serve as a goal to save, or capture, or try and sell a McDonald's franchise to?

Underestimating enemies is seldom wise.

How about distorting someone else's argument into a bunch of extremist poppycock and then attacking that, rather than the actual position? Isn't that very similar? Or is it ok as long as you make up your on out-of-whack arguments, too? That's at least fair, I suppose.

Though I admit I find it a teeny bit annoying. I was going to ask "Just what is meant by "deep," but you distracted me.

[ March 18, 2007, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[Tarquelne]

Let me ask this:

Does anyone here hold one of these positions?

1) An army can realistically be only made up of Heavy forces, and that's all it needs.

2) There's a place for Heavy forces, and a place for Light forces, but no place for Medium forces.

3a) A Medium force can do everything a Heavy force can do, just as well, and more.

A Medium force can do everything a Light force can do, just as well, and more.

[civdiv]

I disagree that a bunch of overpriced 'battle cars' armed with .50 cals is a medium force. Weight isn't the sole determiner to the 'strength' of a force. Medium has a very valid purpose on the battlefield, but I would prefer a medium force with some teeth. This is my primary disagreement with Steve.

And I don't agree with ANY of your choices.

civdiv

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by civdiv:

[QB] I disagree that a bunch of overpriced 'battle cars' armed with .50 cals is a medium force.

What about the Styrkers that have something more than .50 cals? Not enough? What would constitute a Medium force in your opinion? Does it require that the extra "teeth" be mounted on the vehicles, and not in the form of a more heavily armed infantry component?

(Would you say that in theory a "medium force" could perform the sort of deep operation you think Steve has in mind for the Strykers, but that the Strykers just aren't that medium force?)

And I don't agree with ANY of your choices.

That's good. I hope no one does.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

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

[QB] I disagree that a bunch of overpriced 'battle cars' armed with .50 cals is a medium force.

What about the Styrkers that have something more than .50 cals? Not enough? What would constitute a Medium force in your opinion? Does it require that the extra "teeth" be mounted on the vehicles, and not in the form of a more heavily armed infantry component?

(Would you say that in theory a "medium force" could perform the sort of deep operation you think Steve has in mind for the Strykers, but that the Strykers just aren't that medium force?)

And I don't agree with ANY of your choices.

That's good. I hope no one does. </font>

[Tarquelne]

The whole point of armor is to be able to take fire from the weapons it is immune to while delivering fire against those same weapons which are lacking the same immunity to the tank. A Stryker is going to have to deliver fire support for their infantry in pretty much any tactical circumstance. To do so they can't be knocked out by the thing the infantry are attacking. If basic anti-aircraft batteries dug-in and supported by some basic infantry are a tactical obstacle for the stryker brigade, how can they be an operational force?

I'd like to see Steve's (or anyone's) answers to your questions, too. I think the key issues may be exactly what the sort of force the Stryker force in the CM:SF campaign will be expected to fight independently, and how independently. (Again, "What's 'deep'?")

But I've got some questions/comments about the paragraph quoted above.

I agree about "the whole point of armor". But what's the reality? You mention "supported by some basic infantry" for what's being attacked. Much of the time, and increasingly so, wouldn't that include weapons that can take even *tanks* out of the fight?

I guess I'm dubious about how much "immunity" the heavy forces really have. All other things being equal I'd rather have a tank... but it's in those "all other things" that any of the SBCT's operational advantages can come into play.

And I've got another general question: How much more - if at all - do Stryker forces depend on good intelligence and/or surprise (ie, bad intel. on the other side) for success? Compared to a Heavy force, I mean. Caught unawares by a hardpoint, ambush, or counter-attack is the Stryker force a lot less robust than a Heavy force of similar size?

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC,

So in answer to Adam's perfectly reasonable questions, it is the Official Position that the Syrians shall be stupid idjits who can't find their backsides with both hands, deployed as stupidly as possible, that all their tanks will be destroyed from the air, and that those that remain shall always be on the tactical offensive when Strykers are on the scene, allowing dismounted javelins in terrain plus yet more air to make short work of them. Leading to the burning question, what was that supposedly independent deep role for a medium brigade again? And why is this game being made again?

I will say this one time more, and ONLY one time more (even the slowest of you guys should have picked up on this!)...

There is a HUGE difference between Strategic, Operational, and Tactical operations. We have been having a largely Strategic and Operational discussion here. Adam's fantasy of any US force walking into a phalanx of a coherent and massed mech heavy force on the move is lunacy. It is simply impossible for such a situation to exist. Or do you have some reason to disagree?

At the tactical level, all bets are off. But that means *all* bets. A bradley getting shot at by a T-55 has just as much a chance of going "boom" as a Stryker does. A Bradley, on the other hand, has a much better chance of killing that T-55 in the event it has the opportunity to do so. The Stryker would be wise to withdraw and let someone else take it out. Unless it is the ATGM variant.

As for the even handed fellow who said clearly Strykers are better vs. infantry than Brads, um, how to put this? In what galaxy? Strkyers carry more dismounts and are cheaper to operate, and easily to sustain over long distances. All fine things for operational screening, or patrol work, or clear and hold with dismounts. But no, it doesn't make them better at taking on dismounted infantry in straight up combat. Nothing can make medium better than heavy at actual combat, no matter how many times it is spun.

Have you read anything in this thread? I'm serious, because nothing in this paragraph makes any sense if you have. First, who in this thread said the Stryker was a superior vehicle to the Bradley? And since we have been talking about strategic and operational issues, why not bring up their strategic and operational benefits? Find me one spot, even one, where anybody said that a Stryker is a superior vehicle to take into a full up mech heavy enemy environment?

Honestly Jason, I am used to your hubris... but I really wonder which thread you have been reading since it apparently isn't this one.

As for the endless eggshell with hammer discussion, why is this so hard to grok? One vehicle has a 90% hit chance advanced sensor armor killing weapon with 4 kilometer range. The other has dismounts with half that and MGs. Range wins, that is what happens between eggshells, particularly in open desert like eastern Syria. No they are not comparable. Also Brads pair with M-1s which aren't even killable by a quarter as many weapons etc. So if you charge Syrian armor positions, heavy leads.

Right... which is in dispute with whose position?

If you have to deal with ATGM positions, the relevant coordination is of heavy with their indirect firepower arms, not leg infantry. No you can't work your way up to an ATGM heavy hiding dismount force with leg infantry and uncover all their ATGM positions. They easily have soft firepower cover independent of the ATGMs, in the form of artillery and rockets and mortars and HMGs and grenade launchers. What you do instead is call down artillery fire on the ATGM positions to suppress them, as the heavies move into range, etc.

Your point is that going up against an ATGM with a Stryker, Bradley, or Abrams is a bad idea? Thanks for restating what has already been said.

The Israelis worked all this out in 1973 and it works. As for last year's fight in Lebanon, the Israel pols simply held them on a leash and told them to use arty and air without ground, which fails to create the necessary combined arms threat. The enemy then just goes deep in his holes and the arty is ineffective.

That only scratches the surface of the problems the IDF had. The most fundamental fact is that they underestimated their enemy's capacity to kill their big stuff.

As for the Syrians supposedly deploying 1000 MBTs in eastern Syrian all spread out, um, what death wish leads to that brilliancy? They have deployed the bulk of the heavy armor around Damascus. That is where it will stay. And fight, in operationally defensive roles, tactically any stance. If all the US wants to do is shut down rat lines in the eastern desert, they will be largely unopposed, other than by irregulars using IEDs etc. What Syria wants is to keep the regime in power, by keeping control of Damascus (and to a lesser extent, their lines to the coast, which are their economic lifeline).

No kidding. Which is what I've been trying to tell Adam since we started this discussion. I granted him the 1000 tanks simply as a hypothetical. I doubt they would have much armor deployed outside of the Damascus area, other than the static tanks and a few pockets of forces here and there.

The place the US has to exploit with its penetrating razzler dazzlers is the downtown Damascus region and its immediately surrounding high ground ranges. Which will be lousy with AAA and with T-62s and T-70s parked wherever they think they can hide from aircraft. Light guns and ATGM positions on the hills, tanks in the towns along with leg infantry and irregulars (along with more AAA on "technicals"). Modest bits of armor and special forces in outlying urban areas to keep the regime's grip on locals. Those are the missions and targets that matter, not empty desert in the east.

Yup, which is what I've been saying all along. There is no chance of being surprised by a big mech force on the move if it isn't there, right? That was Adam's main logic of why a Stryker force would be a useless thing to do a deep penetration with.

As for the tactical situation in the east, you contradict yourself. On the one hand you say "underestimating enemies is seldom wisey" and on the other hand you have done jus that. I expect the eastern part of Syria to be well defended. Just not by a ton of armor.

Underestimating enemies is seldom wise. The Syrians might fold easily, they also might not. One presumes the game will not force the former instead of letting actual player skills with the various weapons determine the outcomes. I've no doubt that wargamers in the comfort of their dens will provide more rational direction than many a Syrian officer will manage. This is meant to be possible, is it not? Or are Syrian units doing to have big packets of red paint strapped to their chest and water pistols, the better to flatter the contractors paying for development?

Again, you confuse the tactical with the strategic and operational. As I have said countless times already, most people playing CM against the Syrians will have their asses handed to them since CM is a TACTICAL wargame. There is nothing to discussion operationally or strategically in regards to the game except as the backstory is concerned. And I see zero reason to think the Syrian regime will be able to hold out against a determined attack. There are tons of threads where I have expanded upon this, so I suggest you do a Search if you are curious about my thoughts on the matter. And no, I don't think a war against Syria would be easy. In fact, at present time, it is practically impossible.

I'll chalk Jason's response as a usual "the world revolves around armor" point of view. Even if it is a contradictory one.

Steve

[ March 18, 2007, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Tarquelne,

How about distorting someone else's argument into a bunch of extremist poppycock and then attacking that, rather than the actual position? Isn't that very similar? Or is it ok as long as you make up your on out-of-whack arguments, too? That's at least fair, I suppose.

Though I admit I find it a teeny bit annoying.

You've been around this Forum long enough you shouldn't be surprised, at least

As for your "positions", obviously I disagree with all of them. I am sure some people arguing here are absolutely in agreement with some, if not all.

civdiv,

I disagree that a bunch of overpriced 'battle cars' armed with .50 cals is a medium force. Weight isn't the sole determiner to the 'strength' of a force. Medium has a very valid purpose on the battlefield, but I would prefer a medium force with some teeth. This is my primary disagreement with Steve.

Actually, we aren't in disagreement about much if that's what it boils down to. I think the Stryker is overpriced for its capabilities, but I also think everything the US fields is overpriced for its capabilities too. And don't even get me started on the billions that are wasted on projects that never, ever see the light of day even though it should have been obvious before they were started.

As for the armaments go, I am not in disagreement that something stronger than a .50cal would be better. I simply disagree that it has to be one or the other to make the force functional.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Although I made a typo in the former post describing this it is essentially what the article commonly refered to stated. So let's say the US attacks from Iraq (lol... but ok) and in the process decides to use a Stryker Brigade in an operational role.

Any attacks from this direction are going to be limited to taking the oil money from Syria and forcing a settlement not a drive on Damascus. (Agree?)

Not at all. Why on Earth does the use of a single Stryker Brigade in an operational role mean that the strategic outcome will be determined solely on that one brigade? Do you think the rest of the invasion force would just sit around and do nothing on their own?

So what *operational* objective do you see the Stryker Brigade going for? Are you sending them to seize some important bridge? Or what? Specifics.

I already gave specifics. Key terrain, road nets, dams, enemy marshaling areas... whatever the enemy could use to disrupt the advance of the main force. That is what a deep penetrating force is supposed to do. It is not supposed to engage and destroy the main enemy force. Not if it is a Stryker force, not if it is a Heavy force. The difference, as I have pointed out time and again, is that the Heavy force would have more options if it ran into an enemy heavy force. A Stryker force would have more options in other situations. The two forces are, as I have stressed to the point of driving myself insane, designed with different tradeoffs. So the totality of possible situations faced by one or the other force has to be looked at on a case by case basis instead of one specific scenario only.

S

omething else I wanted to mention was that the terrain in Syria will make engagements longer range, but not much wider. The reason is that the attacking and defending is mostly going to be along the roads connecing the objectives. So range will matter (+ for dismounts using ATGMS) but frontage will essentially be dense. You can bypass all you like but if you don't control the roads you are out of supply and back on that 48 hours.

If you don't control the roads the Heavy force is out of fuel in 12 hours. So you're point is well taken, but selectively applied.

A heavy brigade has 12 hours of independant fuel (your numbers) but sweeps anything away on it's path. If it runs into an enemy infantry brigade, it does not become checked and need to go defense or run miles around through the desert. It destroys them and moves on.

You must be reading different lessons out of Iraq than I am. A Heavy force, running straight into a enemy infantry brigade, that is prepared to resist, is going to be checked. And perhaps checked VERY hard if they don't break at the first shot fired. Which is why a Heavy force doing deep penetration would seek to avoid the direct confrontation and leave the engagement to a follow up force. Unless, of course, the enemy force was disorganized and not all that willing to fight. In that case even a Light force could probably dislodge it (as was shown to be the case in OIF).

Regarding the need to avoid being fired upon by any unit, that's not true at all. The whole point of armor is to be able to take fire from the weapons it is immune to while delivering fire against those same weapons which are lacking the same immunity to the tank.

It's a nice theory that falls down flat in today's combat environment. An Abrams that loses its FLIR to medium caliber fire (like an AA gun) is going to be seriously degraded. So no, an Abrams is not going to just sit there happily shrugging off hits hoping the enemy doesn't get lucky or start using something more devastating.

A Stryker is going to have to deliver fire support for their infantry in pretty much any tactical circumstance. To do so they can't be knocked out by the thing the infantry are attacking.

True of a Bradley or Abrams as well, so once again there is no difference in theory. In practice it comes down to what the enemy has and how able/willing he is to use it. A Stryker force going up against guys with semi-effective RPGs can keep the balance, a Bradley going up against a tandem warhead RPG or even a fairly primitive AT-3 is toast if it gets hit. And same in reverse.

If basic anti-aircraft batteries dug-in and supported by some basic infantry are a tactical obstacle for the stryker brigade, how can they be an operational force?

Because you are once again making assumptions that don't line up with reality. The Stryker force can go around or duke it out. It is fully capable of doing either, but in a deep penetration role it would likely try to go around. A Heavy force would likely do better, but not necessarily much better. And of course you are blowing off all the operational benefits of a Stryker Brigade. For example, the Stryker Brigade running into said SNAFU 200 miles into enemy territory a mere few hours after the attack has begun, rather than the next day by the Heavy force.

Regarding the Syrian army and the US airforce, yes sure they are in a really bad position and there will be ample attrition for them every time they move or sit still. That just says that precision indirect weapons are great against large mechanized forces. Tanks are the best, presently.

"Best" in the sense that they present the easiest targets and are just as likely to be disrupted, destroyed, and discouraged

Strykers are not good platforms except against small arms and, now, the old rpgs.

Again, how is this likely different from a Bradley? The only thing the Bradley can shrug off that a Stryker can't are those AA guns you insist will be everywhere and used effectively. I totally disagree. In fact... here's a probable shocker for you... we have no plans to put Syrian AA guns into CM:SF. They were hardly ever used in the ground role in Iraq and we don't see that being significantly different in Syria either. Since we have on intention of simulating every single possible weapon, vehicle, or infantry formation that could theoretically be used in this fight (which includes tons of stuff on the US side), AA guns aren't in the planned mix. We might stick them into a Module later on, though.

They have good anti-tank weapons, but the *platform* itself - light armor - is not suitable for deep independant operations.

Once again, no more than Abrams or Bradleys are. Or do you think that Combined Arms means having more than one tank and nothing else?

They are the least suitable forces to send when most of their anti-personnel combat power is mounted. What happens when basic WW2 tech 30mm pops enough of your vehicles that you can't carry everyone on the inside? Want to correct me if I'm wrong on that?

Again, you are basing a lot on something that we don't even see as being relevant.

Because a great deal hinges on that fact, I think, that you will be suffering a fair amount of normal operational attrition with a Stryker brigade and that is just more than enough to make the force operationally useless except for screening. It's a very powerful tactical arm of a full light infantry division, but all on it's own in a hostile country with all that armament?

The single biggest flaw in your argument is the supposed invincibility of the Heavier force, the lack of appreciation for the benefits of the Medium force, and apparently a significant misunderstanding of what the role of a deep penetration force is supposed to have.

The question never was whether you could fire a Stryker Brigade into the enemy rear and achieve some kind of results. The question was whether such a force was *suitable* for that task, and could do it well.

Right. That's it in a nutshell. But the devil is always in the details, isn't it? It is a suitable force for that task if it is handled well in conditions that are favorable to it. The opposite is also true. And the same applies to a Heavy force as well, though with somewhat different conditions both favorable and unfavorable.

It sounds to me like at best they can replace the armored cavalry, but I don't know a lot about AC. What I do understand though is that they have M1's in the OOB last I heard.

Yes, they do. And a Stryker force would likely have some backing form Abrams as well, though in a deep penetration situation they would have to sit on their thumbs while they waited for them to catch up.

I think until indirect fire support and sensors are much better than they are now, we need main battle tanks for operational objectives.

Sure, as we also need Light and Medium forces too. A toolbox with only one tool in it is a lot less handy than a toolbox with three tools in it.

That means anything beyond tactical duties relating to the parent formation, or screening/security detail. Incidentally, the whole "FedEx light armor" concept has proven of operational utility quite seldomly historically.

I disagree with that last statement about as much as I disagree with just about everything you've argued thus far A few, well chosen operational successes can have strategic consequences. Light forces have been the preferred tool for this for centuries, but in particular WWII and after. But when those ops go badly, they can go very badly. The concept of a Medium force is to get the operational and strategic benefits of a Light force with less risk of failure. I do not know of any applicable example in modern history to draw from, but certainly in older forms of warfare there were medium forces and they did play significant roles on the battlefield.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Steve - I outline all this about the Syrians around Damascus in like, my first few posts - lol. I also asked YOU to define the strategic picture, since you so disagreed with mine, and Syria is sooo big and things are soo spread out.

You painted a scenario where a Stryker Brigade would be running into a Mech heavy force at its every turn, which is what I disagreed with. I countered that with saying that Syria was too big to defend with concentrated forces all over the place like you suggested. No discontinuity.

And then you set the same picture, sans the operational goals (oil resources), and failed to give a mission...

I have laid it out for you at least three times. Who cares about the oil resources, BTW? Syria is a net importer so it has no oil revenue to lose. And if it doesn't have freedom to move, which it won't have thanks to airpower alone, who cares what they do with the stuff? They aren't going to be able to use it even if they still physically posess it.

and you manage to do all this pinball wizardry while taking on a condescending attitude.

Speak for yourself. You have ignored almost everything I've laid out, time and time again, and yet you keep positioning yourself as if you know what you're talking about.

Doesn't really matter to me anymore. I don't think you know what you are talking about, or you'd have already stated it pretty decisively by now...

Speak for yourself, again. I've stated things VERY decisively and VERY precisely. You are either too enamored with armor to understand what I am saying or are hopelessly uninformed about modern warfare (which I would include WWII in). Either way you are completely off the mark with your comments. I can't help it if you can't grasp why.

Steve

[ March 18, 2007, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Civdiv,

If every Sryker platoon had a 30mm Stryker (LAV-III) I'd be happy. Say three (or four) .50 cal version (or Mk-19s) w/ 9 man squads and then the command group (Plt Ldr, FAC/FO, RTO) in the 30mm version I would like much more than the current version. I still don't like the .50 cal versions, I would prefer a LAV-III varient that has both a 20-30mm and a 9 man squad, but with the C3I system in place that seems impossible.

A wheeled vehicle meeting those specs would be impractical, I would think. At least by US standards. We could try to cram the dismounts in like sardines, like the Soviet/Russians do, but that's not our style

Note that there were experiments with mounting a 20mm gun on a Stryker. The tests were apparently pretty decent, but overall the concept was rejected due to weight, logistics, and cost reasons. But from what I know of it the system worked out pretty well and many of the immediate technical problems could have been worked around.

One thing that would be rulled out completely is moving the vehicle by C-130. And that gets us into the big debate about how useful this feature is in the first place. If one thinks it is significant, than it is obvious that the vehicle's attributes have to comply with it. If one thinks that it isn't significant, then the opposite is true. Neither side is right to say the other is wrong all the time, which is why there is a big debate about this even now.

I'd actually prefer a 20-30 mm autocannon armed vehicle that has 6 dismounts with 6 vehicle per platoon. That would give each vehicle a solid combat potential with a full platoon of 36 dismounts (Basically a half squad per vehicle). That is basically a wheeled Bradley.

And probably the same logistics problems too, I would suspect. That's a 50% increase in vehicles for the Rifle Squads. Spread out over a Brigade, that's a lot of extra vehicles to keep running. Now you start blurring the line between Medium and Heavy, I think. Kinda getting a Medium Heavy Brigade, or a Heavy Medium Brigade. Depending on your perspective

Whether this force would be better than the Stryker Brigades we currently have, I don't think anybody can say. It certainly would be more expensive to make, transport, maintain, and sustain. That's for sure. So one question would be if the current Stryker Brigade is "good enough" or not. If the answer is no, then costs be damned and make something better. If the answer is yes, then leave things as is and move on to something else. Like trying to get rid of FCS

Steve

[Andreas]

Originally posted by AdamL:

Doesn't really matter to me anymore. I don't think you know what you are talking about, or you'd have already stated it pretty decisively by now...

Pot, meet kettle.

Seriously Adam, you are not in a position to make such a statement, following your happy mixing of all levels of warfare before.

All the best

Andreas

[Wisbech_lad]

??? May be I am misunderstanding?

The US Army have Strykers, Bradleys, M1’s etc. Of these, the most controversial, and therefore interesting, is the Stryker (medium brigade, connected battlefield concept etc.). CM:SF will therefore focus on them (but will have the others modeled too, it is just that the TO&E focus, and campaign focus, is on Strykers)

Arguing if the Stryker (or Bradley) is up to the job is pretty irrelevant - especially to the game. It is what the US Army have got. About as pointless as arguing that the Germans should have Panthers in 1942 because they are better than MkIII’s, or that the British and Americans should have been using Centurions & Pershings in Normandy.

[dixon_el]

Duh!

I think that if the game is well modeled on actual equipment, that both sides are going to be surprised.

NOTHING, takes the place of good leadership. A good leader plays down the weak points of his force and accents the strong points.

The US forces combat power is ,as much, a matter of its training, leadership and structure as its equipment.

According to the arguments on both sides the German's would not have been able to take France in three years, instead of three weeks. (Personally, I can't take the French for ten minutes).

Let Battlefront bring out the game and then we can solve the argument on the battlefield.

My bet is Heavy will not always win, not because of the arguments, but because of the players directing the forces.

If you meet me on the battlefield, with a heavy force against my medium or light force, look to your life, because your petty argument, that with heavier forces always win, will not stop me from grinding your heavy force to dust if you make a couple of tactical mistakes.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request