Too Many Strykers

[Battlefront.com]

Tarquelne,

Your working through the strategic/operational advantages wins you a gold star Speed and energy expended in major force redeployments has always been a critical component of warfare for, hmmmm, probably ever.

Come to think of it, that's what originally sold me on the game's concept. I'm a WWII junky, but as I understand it the Stryker's advantages are primarily operational. At the game's level we don't really experience that. Instead, we have to cope with the trade-offs

Correct, just like in CMBO people had to deal with the fact that the early Shermans were totally outclassed by German tanks regardless of all the Sherman's excellent "big picture" qualities. Likewise, the German player didn't have to worry about the fact that the entire German military only had a couple hundred King Tigers operational, at best, at one time. If he had one sitting with a 3000' view of all approaches, who cares if in real life he would likely have to abandon it due to mechanical breakdown or being cut off from fuel? Because for that one scenario his KT was likely to shine big time.

Steve

[Severin]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

But we can get back into that one when CMx2 moves back to Normandy

Steve

Thanks for the setting confirmation of CMX2 "2"

[civdiv]

I won't quibble on most of the points.

The Bradley was an revolutionary design. I would be scared to even characterize the Stryker as evolutionary. Yes, badly managed program carried out badly and spending billions to try and shoe-horn equipment to meet a spec that to this day on numerous fronts, it does not meet.

Unsubstantiated claims to bolster your bias. What you should have said is a badly managed war carried out badly and spending billions to try and shoe-horn a force structure to meet a spec that to this day on numerous fronts, it isn't able to meet. That would be a far more accurate and relevant thing to say. The Army, and Marines, are being ground into the sand because its force structure is not capable of handling the mission it has been given by people that probably couldn't find their way out of an unlocked closet with someone pointing to the doorknob and saying "you have to turn this if you want the door to open".

What points are unsubstantiated? The Bradley was an entirely new vehicle class, or the first vehicle in this new class that actually worked (The BMP-1 was a pretty lousy vehicle.).

The Stryker is a modified existing vehicle.

Or are you talking about the program itself? I can cute references if that is the part you disagree with. There have already been several posts and references to the problems with the Stryker program. Sure, the Bradley program had massive programs itself. But the end result wasn't a modified existing vehicle mounting a .50 cal.

One point about survivability. The ability to kill your opponent has a lot to do with survivability.

civdiv

[Andreas]

How is the Bradley revolutionary when it appears to be pretty similar to the German Marder IFV, which entered service ten years before it?

All the best

Andreas

[flamingknives]

Worth noting that the Germans are again up at the front with the introduction of the Puma. Air transportable (in a hypothetical aeorplane, admittedly) with modular armour in integral part of it from the beginning, computerised shrapnel shells, remote turret with undercover reloading and bells and whistles including a defensive aids suite.

Clever Germans.

Regarding surviability, there are few vehicles that can sustain direct hits from large calibre AT weapons without being destroyed, and fewer still that can sustain hits without disabling damage.

As for comparing a Stryker with a Bradley, you might as well compare a Bradley with an M113, or an Abrams with a Scimitar. Different jobs, fella.

If you really must, make the competition fair. Start 2000 miles apart, the objective is in the middle and whoever gets there first will win.

To replace the Stryker, you have to suggest a medium-weight alternative host vehicle. Remember, no matter what Mike Sparks has to sa on the matter, the M113 doesn't cut it.

I think that there was a choice of:

LAV 1, LAV 2, LAV III, LAV IV (although the LAV IV is less off-the-shelf), Patria AMV, Pandur or a Fuchs or Fuchs-alike. MRAV wasn't available, Fuchs-style vehicles are even lighter than Stryker and all except the LAVs are made by foreigners.

Anything else? If it's on tracks you're back to logistics of a heavy force.

[Andreas]

French AMX-10P also came before the Bradley, apparently. Same question - what about the Bradley is revolutionary compared to the AMX-10P? As far as I can see, but would be happy to be corrected on, all three (Bradley, Marder, AMX-10P) were a reaction to the 1967 unveiling of the BMP-1 - it is just that the US took a lot longer to get to introduce their vehicle.

It is interesting to see that the French went the wheeled route with the AMX-10P successor, the VBCI, after the dissolution of the European consortium approach, while the Germans stuck to a tracked vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9hicule_Blind%C3%A9_de_Combat_d%27Infanterie

FK - regarding the A400M is scheduled to start flying in Q1/08. It is becoming much less hypothetical while we speak. Let's hope they manage to avoid the A380 meltdown.

http://www.a400m-countdown.com/

Note that the Puma with add-on armour will also cease to be A400M transportable.

All the best

Andreas

[flamingknives]

1 A400M with the armour for every three base-level Puma, IIRC. The base level is proof against 30mm from the front and side, which isn't too shabby, but you'd expect something like that from a 30t vehicle.

I'll believe the A400M when I see it.

[Andreas]

That'll be later this year then.

All the best

Andreas

[Battlefront.com]

Civdiv,

What points are unsubstantiated? The Bradley was an entirely new vehicle class, or the first vehicle in this new class that actually worked (The BMP-1 was a pretty lousy vehicle.).

There you go again First I objected to the argument that the Stryker was shoehorned into a spec any more than the Bradley was. The Stryker was never intended to go toe to toe with heavy armor and was always intended to be based on a COTS system. The military knew, from the get go, that it wasn't going to get a 100% custom tailored vehicle for its effort, so the entire program was designed around that. So the "shoehorn" comment was factually incorrect at worst, out of context at best. To be in context you would have to look at the original specs set forth for the Bradley and compare it to the end product. I'm sure the Bradley had compromises due to cost, technology, weight, practicality, etc. All designs do.

The Stryker is a modified existing vehicle.

Yes... so?

Or are you talking about the program itself? I can cute references if that is the part you disagree with. There have already been several posts and references to the problems with the Stryker program. Sure, the Bradley program had massive programs itself. But the end result wasn't a modified existing vehicle mounting a .50 cal.

But the end result was always supposed to be a modified vehicle with a .50cal weapon on it. How can you judge a program as a failure when it achieved what it was supposed to do? You can question the wisdom of the entire program, which of course you do, but you can't fault the program from producing what the program was supposed to produce.

Look, if the Army wanted a Medium force. It had documented need for one. Why should they simply make another Heavy force to sit along side the Heavy force they already have? The Medium Brigade gives the Army a capability that it did not have before. Creating some sort of Bradey clone, as you advocate, would have been duplicative and a massive waste of taxpayer's money for sure.

One point about survivability. The ability to kill your opponent has a lot to do with survivability.

As you say... "one point". There are other points and I have been trying to raise them. You appear to disregard the full range of points and instead are set on focusing on just a few that suit your bias.

BTW, I came upon a reference to a "reset" program for Bradleys instituted in 2005. This was to refresh the fleet of Bradleys in Iraq to "new" condition after 2 years of war. The cost of this reset? $1.14 Billion. That is roughly $500 million less than equipping a Stryker Brigade from the ground up with new equipment. And how many Bradleys is this program supposed to reset? Unknown.... unlike other contracts I've seen this one is simply a "tab" for labor and materials. Meaning, they work on a Bradley until it is finished, bill the government, then move onto the next one. When the money runs out, work stops. I hope this is way of contracting doesn't backfire. Contractors always overbill, but at least with fixed unit contracts you know exactly what you're getting ahead of time.

Andreas,

How is the Bradley revolutionary when it appears to be pretty similar to the German Marder IFV, which entered service ten years before it?

Good point. Also, the basis of the Bradely was a well tried and true chassis from FMC. In other words, the Bradley wasn't a completely fresh design. Not that any of this makes any difference. It would be like criticizing the M60 because it was based largely on the MG42. If you're going to criticize the M60, do so based on its flaws not based on its origins.

Flamingknives,

Regarding surviability, there are few vehicles that can sustain direct hits from large calibre AT weapons without being destroyed, and fewer still that can sustain hits without disabling damage.

I've pointed this out a dozen times and it doesn't seem to be making much of an impression. But there's always hope that it eventually will

The problem with today's battlefield is that the Bradley and Abrams, both designed in the 1970s, are out the losing side of the arms race right now. When they were designed and introduced their main risk came from direct fire weapons and heavy artillery. ATGMs were a threat, for sure, but they could be mitigated with armor and fairly primitive defensive measures (i.e. smoke). When the threat got larger so too did the armor. Reactive armor was also developed (mostly but the Israelis and Soviets) to not only better counter cannon fire but also to defeat the increasing lethality of ATGMs. But now... Javelin has outmatched this and the AT-14 is dangerously close to have the same end effect. And if this isn't enough, the Army can always dust off its LOSAT program (which is actually continuing under a new guise) and settle the matter thoroughly.

The point is we are already in a time where the threat environment to heavy armor is beyond its ability to deal with it. The only reason why there isn't mass slaughter of heavy assets right now is because the enemy currently being faced is a scratch force outfitted with relatively few of these systems. If I were Assad I would put all my tanks and APCs up on eBay and use the money that I get from them to buy AT-14s and RPG-29s. Any Heavy force coming into Syria with that sort of opposition would likely not need expensive "reset" programs.

As for comparing a Stryker with a Bradley, you might as well compare a Bradley with an M113, or an Abrams with a Scimitar. Different jobs, fella.

If you really must, make the competition fair. Start 2000 miles apart, the objective is in the middle and whoever gets there first will win.

Well said and again something I have been repeating over and over again. I wish you luck with your attempt

To replace the Stryker, you have to suggest a medium-weight alternative host vehicle. Remember, no matter what Mike Sparks has to sa on the matter, the M113 doesn't cut it.

Heh... I'm surprised it has taken so long for Mark Sparks to enter into this conversation out in the open It is amazing what one loon can do to a debate when so many people want to believe what he has to say. Kinda like Hitler, in a much kinder and gentler way (though I'm not sure the ability to think rationally is all that different).

Andreas,

French AMX-10P also came before the Bradley, apparently. Same question - what about the Bradley is revolutionary compared to the AMX-10P? As far as I can see, but would be happy to be corrected on, all three (Bradley, Marder, AMX-10P) were a reaction to the 1967 unveiling of the BMP-1 - it is just that the US took a lot longer to get to introduce their vehicle.

I'm going to guess the Vietnam War had a lot to do with the US being behind the times. The war the US was fighting at the time didn't need any more armor than it already had. The budget was, of course, being tapped out to keep the fight going and therefore not much was happening in terms of weapons development that was not directly related to Vietnam. After Vietnam the US military and military industrial complex caught its breath and focused on spending trillions of Dollars to end the Cold War. Now we're in a similar pickle.

Steve

[bitchen frizzy]

...Hitler...

Ding. Argument over.

83 posts before first mention. Not bad.

[Splinty]

One other thing noone has mentioned in the Strykers favor. All that digitized communicatios and information equitment. A Stryker element can simply avoid a fight it can't handle and call for support from something that can.

[Battlefront.com]

Splinty,

Yeah, it's been mentioned. However, this is a capability that the other forces are getting too. So in time this will be an across the board capability, whereas right now it is still a Stryker thing more than others.

Also note that the costs of the Stryker itself are in no small part due to the digitization. When you factor those expenses into something like a Bradely, the Stryker's price tag in comparison drops since its price already includes the equipment. IIRC the price for a Stryker is $2.2 Million and a Bradley A2 model is something like $3.4 Million. I'm going to guess with the A3 modifications (including digital) that pricetag would likely be pushed up closer to $4 Million, though I could not find a unit price.

Oh, and as a remidner about how bad the development of the Bradley was, there was a movie loosely based on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars

So while this does not excuse the issues surrounding the Stryker program, it does make any Bradely supporter pointing to one military industrial complex hosejob and not the other a tad bit insincere (or ill informed).

As I've said... I'm not knocking the Bradley. I just think it is only fair to compare pros and cons of one vehicle against the pros and cons of antoher, not just the pros of one against the cons of the other. I'm kinda funny that way

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Here is an interesting snapshot of vehcile "write offs" as of early 2006 or very late 2005 (couldn't figure out which):

Steve

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Andreas:

How is the Bradley revolutionary when it appears to be pretty similar to the German Marder IFV, which entered service ten years before it?

All the best

Andreas

1. The Marder never did receive an integrated ATGM, except on AT specific models.

2. IMHO, a milan that could be mounted on the pintle ring is not the same as a TOW, fully integrated into the vehicle.

3. The original Marders were upgraded to thermal sites only when the Bradley had entered production, or shortly before.

4. It didn't get a real robust fire control system until well after the Bradley had arrived.

Again, IMHO, the Marder didn't get close to the initial Bradley until the Marder 1 A2 came out. The Marder was intitially produced as nothing more than a good but very conventional IFC with a 20mm auto cannon.

Not as familiar w/ the AMX-10p but correct me if I am wrong, it still does not have an integreated ATGM? Plus, IIRC, its armor is much lighter.

Bradley;

1. Dual ammo autocannon.

2. Fully integrated ATGM (Fired from behind armor).

3. Advanced fire control system.

4. Heavily armored (for an IFV).

5. Advanced gunnery system.

6. Thermal sites.

7. Advanced comm system.

Steve et al,

I understand what the Stryker was designed to do, and that it wasn't to go toe-to-toe with med or hvy mech. Nor to assualt a dug in defender. My original point was that I thought I was seeing too many Strykers in the game considering the scenerio. And maybe it is just due to the screen shots available as I agree, it's neater to model a Stryker than it is a Bradley because the former is such a unique vehicle. I just find the utility of the Stryker to be a bit limited, vis-a-vis the Bradley, given the provided scenario.

IMHO, the Army's program was just plain pointed in the wrong direction. Buying an existing design, spending oodles modifying it towards C3I but being left with a .50 cal seems silly to me. Given, it was supposed to be integrated into Land Warrier which appears to have been cancelled for a development generation or so. I can see it from both points of views;

1. Develop the C3I archetecture and then design the objective force vehicles around it so the C3I system doesn't mature and not fit.

OR

2. Develop the vehicle and keep development going on the C3I system. In addition to probable cost savings this method probably helps to keep the weight down by forcing the C3I system to fit in the existing chassis. And with hopeful chassis development for the final version they might get it down to where it is truly C130 deployable.

The Army picked #1 and I would have picked #2.

civdiv

[ March 13, 2007, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

[civdiv]

Sort of off-topic, but while doing research on IFVs I found this in the BMP wiki entry. I had not heard of this before but it makes perfect sense;

"The original BMP-1 had a significant shortcoming in its protection scheme, which only became obvious during the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. The one-man-turret fighting vehicle seated its driver and commander in tandem layout, in the front-right part of the hull alongside the diesel engine. When a BMP-1 hit the obsolete kind of "tilt-rod" antitank landmine, its steeply sloped lower front glacis armour plate allowed the mine's arming rod to tilt with little resistance until the maximum deflection was reached with the mine already well under the chassis. When it eventually exploded, the mine blast usually killed both the driver and the tank commander, causing a painful loss of specialist personnel in the Soviet Red Army."

[Battlefront.com]

civdiv,

My original point was that I thought I was seeing too many Strykers in the game considering the scenerio.

Well, there are two reasons for that. One, and this is the primary one, is that CM:SF is focused on the Stryker Brigades. That is what we set out to do, everything else revolves around that. It was a design decision inline with our "deeper and narrower" game development. Put into real world terms, if you were put in command of part, or all, of a Stryker Infantry Battalion, would you see tons of Strykers or tons of Bradleys every day when you wake up?

So yeah... you should be seeing tons of Strykers just like a F-16 simulator you would show few pictures of A-10s

The second reason is that the Bradely model only went into the game this weekend and is only 30% textured. Once it is ready to show, you'll see it. Once the remaining Stryker variants are complete (we have 3 done so far) you'll see those as well, along with everything else that gets added.

Your other points are well taken. The current system, as is, is flawed. But to do #2 you have to kill off FCS. That's not going to happen for the same reasons why all large Pentagon programs keep going even when they shouldn't. Money.

Remember also that the Stryker Brigades were supposed to prove the concept and perfect the requirements. I think it is doing that job quite well right now. Any ground up work done to replace the Stryker will benefit greatly from the lessons learned from Iraq and elsewhere.

Steve

[Chelt]

It's interesting to compare the SBCT organization with the newer modular brigade structures.

The Strykers have three maneuver battalions + a strong reconnaissance battalion. Artillery support is at the scale of 3x 155mm batteries; engineer support is just one company; service support includes only one distribution company and four forward spt co. They reflect a "pre-transformation" structure.

The new HBCT and IBCT organizations have just two maneuver brigades, with correspondingly reduced artillery support. Battalions are square, with four companies each.

What T/O changes would you make to the Stryker brigade so that they could better support CMSF's hypothetical invasion? Would you change anything?

The trick in this question is that you may not change the equipment types; if it isn't currently issued to a Stryker brigade, you can't add it. (Maybe, if you must, you can add equipment that is already in service on LAV type vehicles - maybe.)

Assume that you can get the money, the time, and the soldiers from the same magical place that the rest of the invasion is coming from. You can cleave to the brigade's role as defined in FM-3-21.31, or you can declare your own.

[ March 13, 2007, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Chelt ]

[Chelt]

double post

[Andreas]

Originally posted by civdiv:

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

How is the Bradley revolutionary when it appears to be pretty similar to the German Marder IFV, which entered service ten years before it?

All the best

Andreas

1. The Marder never did receive an integrated ATGM, except on AT specific models.

2. IMHO, a milan that could be mounted on the pintle ring is not the same as a TOW, fully integrated into the vehicle.

3. The original Marders were upgraded to thermal sites only when the Bradley had entered production, or shortly before.

4. It didn't get a real robust fire control system until well after the Bradley had arrived.

Again, IMHO, the Marder didn't get close to the initial Bradley until the Marder 1 A2 came out. The Marder was intitially produced as nothing more than a good but very conventional IFC with a 20mm auto cannon. </font>

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by civdiv:

And maybe it is just due to the screen shots available as I agree, it's neater to model a Stryker than it is a Bradley because the former is such a unique vehicle.

from gaming point of view Stryker is more interesting than Bradley, but Stryker is still just another Piranha variant. considering how Marines have used LAVs for ages the Stryker hype seems a bit strange. no doubt the idea felt revolutionary 70 years ago when SdKfz 251 line came out.

[Andreas]

I believe the British were the first actually, did they not use troop carrying tanks in WW1?

All the best

Andreas

[MikeyD]

"Marines have used LAVs for ages the Stryker hype seems a bit strange."

Yeh, considering the Pentagon also buys riding lawnmowers I'm surprised they haven't released any milspec lawnmover action videos set to rock music... yet . I'm sure if the Army's original scheme (in the early 80s?) to field the old LAV had come to pass we would've been bombarded with the usual "LAV25 = Ultimate Weapons System" Army hype.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I believe the British were the first actually, did they not use troop carrying tanks in WW1?

the Stryker / SdKfz 251 concept is more than just a troop carrying tank. all the different variations are mutually supportive, from engineering and ambulance variations to the AT and indirect fire variations. it's a small independent quick package that causes a command shock.

[flamingknives]

The British Troop carrier, the Mk IX, was based off the same chassis of gun tanks of the time.

Regarding ATGM, most IFVs do not integrate them. Only the Bradley, BMP 1 and 3 (2 uses an external pintel) and Desert Warrior do.

Before the Marder, the only IFV was the BMP1. So the Marder cannot be simply a conventional IFV, because it is the first there is no convention. Even compared to later vehicles it is still unconventional, as the turret crew are mostly inside the hull, with the weaponry overhead. A2 varient seems to be from '84, although the A1(+) has thermals from '79.

[Battlefront.com]

Even the BMP-1, the first "official" IFV, didn't come out of nowhere. The Canadian RAM Kangaroo, for example, could be considered a distant relative since it was the first AFV in WWII to offer tank like protection for armored infantry. What it lacked, however, was a turreted weapon system beyond an MG. The US experimented with using the M-18 tank hull for similar purposes, but that didn't go anywhere.

However, I do think the BMP-1 can safely be called a revolutionary vehicle since it was the first mass produced example out there. The US had tried to make one out of the M116 chasis and later the M113 chasis, in the 1960s but none of these designs resulted in a production contract. The Australians, French, and Israelis also put turreted weapons on the M113, though I am not sure any of those amount to anything.

In other words, the Bradley was the culmination of these other designs, including the BMP-1 and Marder. That would indicate that it was evolutionary rather than reveolutionary. Remember, something can be much better and more innovative than what came before it without being revolutionary.

The next wave of revolutionary vehicles would be of the type the FCS program is trying to develop. Until then I see nothing but evolutionary designs coming out, mostly in the form of upgrades to existing platforms

Steve