Too Many Strykers

[Andreas]

Originally posted by AdamL:

Andreas,

I already answered you directly as to why I was pointing out tactical problems and what their relevance was to operational deep operations.

Yes, and when doing so you were ignoring my prior post outlining how history shows that such a force does not need to be tactically robust, which showed that your idea is flat out wrong.

Originally posted by AdamL:

I'm making reference to tactics because for a force to be operationally sufficient it needs to be robust tactically. If it cannot threaten to harm the enemy, it has no moral or positional effect. If it must withdraw always in the face of superior numbers of raw mech infantry brigades it is a screen at most.

Vorausabteilungen during the battle of Uman were not in a position to threaten or harm the enemy, if looked at in a purely numerical and combat power way. They lacked armour (except for some Stugs with short 75s), they lacked numbers. Yet still they did have a moral and a positional effect. Once you have addressed this argument convincingly, you may claim that you have already answered me. Until then...

You ignoring the point leads me to believe you:

a) did not read it or

did not care about it even though you asked for it because

b1) it contradicts your idea, and therefore is bad

b2) it is wrong, but you don't feel like explaining why

b3) you did not get it

Which is it?

All the best

Andreas

[ March 19, 2007, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by JasonC:

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.

JasonC,

My point was not that the Stryker is better than the Bradley at taking on infantry, it was that dismounted infantry is more suited to this role than any armoured vehicle, no matter how tough or powerful, because of the danger of hidden AT weapons. Since the Stryker can carry more dismounts per vehicle, then vehicle for vehicle it logically has the edge over the Bradley in this role.

If you really believe your own argument then boot up a CMBB or CBAK Quick Battle, have a predominantly armoured force assault a dug-in all-infantry force (including AT guns, mines etc) and see how they fare. I know which side I'd put my money on! I remember trying this myself in CMBB. The predominantly armoured force was cut to pieces practically every time due to the density of hidden infantry AT weapons.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

So hurry up and get the game out so we can see for ourselves.

My sense is that combined arms tactics will be even more important in CMSF since Abrams will not dominate the game the way Tigers and Panthers do in CMx1.

[Severin]

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.

Steve

You've made several refences to last years war. Obviously its going to be one of the more relavent conflicts in recent times as far as CMSF goes. I've not had much luck finding a (fairly) unbiased review of what actually happened on the ground there. Think you might have a link?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Andreas]

Except that according to your reasoning, they are no good in the tactical role either.

All the best

Andreas

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MikeyD]

I do have to laugh at how the tone of this board swings like a pendulum. One week its "Where's the fun in watching the mighty U.S. juggernaut trampling a small helpless country?" over to "Where's the fun in having a Stryker brigade smashing into an impenetrable wall of Syrian steel?"

I'd say this bodes well for the game itself. If both outcomes can be imagined the outcomes of the game scenarios may not necessarily be a foregone conclusion either.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Andreas]

They can't stand up to anything being thrown at them. A heavy force would have 50x times (why not?) less casualties in the same situation. Therefore best not to use them in open warfare at all. Good for COIN and nothing else.

You are still ignoring historical examples provided where light forces did exactly what you claim they can not do without extreme casualties, and when you are not doing that, you simply make up stuff to suit your argument, including lots of strawmen. Disappointing, I thought you of all people would be a bit more serious about the discussion.

All the best

Andreas

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Andreas]

Originally posted by AdamL:

Is that the process? Or what is it?

No. Try again. This time, don't focus on the Stugs - as I said, there were "some", i.e. not all VAs would have them. Imagine infantry, infantry guns, supported by 15cm howitzers. Then explain to me why these guys, without sensors, and without guaranteed air superiority, could do what you think Strykers can not.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by AdamL:

Good for COIN and nothing else? Who are you talking to? (I never said that.)

I guess you're seriously taking the piss, sorry to hear that Andreas. Maybe we all need a break from this thread and to reread it calmy in a few days.

Ah, so you don't like having your argument misrepresented to create a strawman?

Funny that...

Which apparently, is always avoiding the enemy, never getting ambushed or having to deal with basic combat attrition on the drive, and dealing with an enemy who is not really an army at all, but a mob of disorganized partisans without even basic access to anti-aircraft calibre guns. Very useful indeed...

All the best

Andreas

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Chelt]

This spake AdamL:

I think that the US would simply line up their heaviest divisions along the main highways leading to the operational objectives. Then they would drive up them, with air support and artillery, just like the Stryker brigade, but division sized units minimum and nothing fancy operationally. Stryker brigades would fight tactically and never reach anything like operational depths.

You can't talk about divisions as fixed formations comprising one kind of unit. Not anymore. Most of the regular army has gone over to the new brigade-based structure. There are divisions that mix heavy and Stryker brigades in garrison. When deployed in the field, a division might end up controlling just about any mix of subordinate units.

The Stryker brigade is in my opinion, too lightly armored and not numerous enough in shear size to maintain combat power necessary to accomplish operational objectives outside of the screening task, which I feel it is particularly suitatable to. On defense, mobile anti-tank reserve. On assault they support the infantry-denser formations.

There is no infantry-denser formation. The light infantry brigades have 8 companies of infantry; the SBCT has 9. A heavy brigade has 4.

Why does so much of this discussion revolve around the truck itself?

All this talk about the merits or faults of the Stryker vehicle ignores the infantry that these vehicles are ferrying around. Forget the hardware and think about the formation itself, for a moment. The brigade is a full-size infantry formation, with enough vehicles to lift its entire strength under armor, considerable direct fire support, and excellent communications. The wheeled APC/IFV is well tested. In the modern US Army, mounted infantry is not.

[JasonC]

Steve's understandable confusion is he thinks everyone is always talking to him, or about positions he has taken. There are numerous other claims being made on the thread, and when I deliberately shift the addressee, it is because I am deliberately shifting the addressee.

Yes, someone is insisting that the medium force in better at combat vs. infantry, because it carries more dismounts.

page 5, Cpl Steiner - "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."

Clearly, he thinks heavy is better in combat only against armour heavy opponents. This is untrue, so - while I complemented his evenhandedness in other respects - I pointed out that this is untrue, and heavy beats infantry heavy more readily, as well. As we saw amply demonstrated in both active phases of gulf wars I and II.

As for the eggshell and hammer position I addressed, it is represented repeatedly. I clearly referenced its starting post by using those terms, as did aka-tom-w.

page 5 aka-tom-w - "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."

You echoed the comment, referring to the specifics of the Syrian ATGM mix. Of course, the point of heavies is they can destroy such systems at 2 to 4 times the range at which mediums can engage them (dismounted or mounted). And with sensor advantages, outside their own lethal range. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the extra protection of the heavy force stems at least as much, actually more, from its superior firepower at extreme range, than from its stronger actual armor. Clearly, full tanks are also vastly more survivable than any infantry vehicle.

Ability to fight infantry equipped with small arms and short range and limited effect RPGs is simply not in the same weight class as real fighting positions with real armor killing systems. This, after all, was Adam's point. Clearly, medium is fine at the former. Just as clearly to anyone not grinding an axe, it is pretty lousy at the latter, particularly compared to the alternative. The question then is, what does leading independent operational deep strike mean, in and against a country equipped with plenty of such things? Not a heck of a lot, in my estimation. Anyplace heavies have broken the crust of that serious stuff, or where there isn't anything serious from the get go, by all means police up with light armor.

What is confusing Adam and myself is you seem to think leading operational independent deep strike is compatible with not facing any heavy stuff or always going around it. This just makes no sense to us. Leading operational independent deep strike, to us, emphatically does mean serious engagement with intact enemy heavy forces - because deep in his interior is where those forces are - not in a thin crust at borders - and leading is the role that will involve running smack into them. Trailing won't, screening an open flank won't, policing up areas cleared in the wake of a heavy division won't - all fine roles for a medium brigade. I think we already agreed pretty clearly that is what heavy is for and would get as its mission.

Perhaps you simple envision some other deep operational independent role that has nothing to do with this - if so, Adam has been asking what it is supposed to be, repeatedly and reasonably.

I take your comments about tactically, anything can happen, to mean that no, Syrians are not going to be neutered or depicted as all already destroyed. Which is good, because for me the primary interest in any of this is to try out opfor tactics for the Syrians and see what can mess US forces up, despite their advantages. Stryker companies are going to run into full mech positions if I am playing the game, I can assure you. Not because the Strykers want to, but because the Syrians want that match up and I will bring it about.

As for the idea that it is lunacy and impossible that medium would ever run into a full mech position, it seems to me it is a piece of lunacy you rather own. Since it is you, not me or Adam, expecting a medium brigade to take an independent deep operational strike role - while I for one expect them to trail behind a heavy division policing up the stragglers and whacking down whatever lighter forces and irregulars pop up in their wake. Also, you are making the game and have chosen to emphasize Strykers in a Stryker brigade simulator.

Which is fine by me, I will happily try to trash them with T-72s hiding behind buildings and ATGMs hiding in the hills.

[JasonC]

Cpl Steiner - all the recent conflicts have shown the opposite, that heavy armor is priceless against infantry, particularly in urban terrain, where infantry was supposed to be oh so critical. Obviously combined arms is better than lack thereof. But the stuff that dusts infantry in buildings is M-1s and Brads, not more symmetric infantry in buildings.

There are things only infantry can do, it has a critical combined arms role. But protecting tanks from enemy AT is not one of them anymore. Vs. Long range ATGMs that is now done by firepower arms, indirect. Shorter stuff, it is done by sheer firepower and sensor and range dominance.

Infantry's key asset on modern battlefields is superior stealth, ability to go anywhere and exploit any form of terrain, and the better intel lots of dismounted eyes wormed in everywhere and com-linked can bring. That becomes the world's best forward observor system for indirect firepower. It isn't about keeping infantry out of panzerfaust range anymore - because those have morphed into guided missiles with 5 times the range of old ATGs. Which are countered the way ATGs were, by arty first and local odds (the protection of "pack" firepower) second.

[JasonC]

Andreas - the enemy isn't light infantry with a few ATGs anymore. If it were (or when it is i.e. after the real fight has been won, and it is a matter of the diehards), light armor would be fine. But the Syrians instead of thousands of MBTs and dismounted ATGM systems. It is more like Kursk on a counterattack day than typical fighting against a rifle division position.

[juan_gigante]

Adam, a distinction I think you're missing between Stryker forces and heavier units that gives the Strykers an advantage is their C3I network. Depending on how many toys the Strykers get shipped with, the tactical commanders will have a far better image of the battlefield and be able to communicate much better. This tactical coordination will pay off at the operational level by allowing the forces to stay better organized and keep moving past and around enemy hardpoints.

In addition, this superior C3I network should help get air and artillery support quicker and more accurately. Stryker units advance, find an enemy force, call in fire support, move past quickly. The point is, the unit is designed to move past the enemy at an operational level and leave the killing to air and arty, instead of having to hammer through everything like a Heavy force would.

[Moronic Max]

Cpl Steiner - all the recent conflicts have shown the opposite, that heavy armor is priceless against infantry, particularly in urban terrain, where infantry was supposed to be oh so critical. Obviously combined arms is better than lack thereof. But the stuff that dusts infantry in buildings is M-1s and Brads, not more symmetric infantry in buildings.

(snip)

Infantry's key asset on modern battlefields is superior stealth, ability to go anywhere and exploit any form of terrain, and the better intel lots of dismounted eyes wormed in everywhere and com-linked can bring. That becomes the world's best forward observor system for indirect firepower. It isn't about keeping infantry out of panzerfaust range anymore - because those have morphed into guided missiles with 5 times the range of old ATGs. Which are countered the way ATGs were, by arty first and local odds (the protection of "pack" firepower) second.

How do you reconcile these two points, if you don't mind my asking?

I'll admit upfront the only knowledge I have on the subject comes from 'Thuder Run'.

[JasonC]

Armor kills infantry that has only RPGs and light arms, cheaply and with near impunity, and in just about any terrain including urban.

Infantry backed by dominant indirect firepower, and only infantry so backed and also com linked etc, can act as the world's best FO system.

Artillery suppresses ATGMs used by dismounts, but it not so effective against IFV mounted ATGMs or tanks.

IFVs with ATGMs, or tanks, are best killed by other IFVs with ATGMs, or tanks, that have superior sensors and therefore superior effective range. Otherwise, by air power again with superior effective range smart missiles, whether helo or fixed wing.

[Cpl Steiner]

All this discussion has reminded me of a book I read years ago about how a Soviet Motor-Rifle Regiment was supposed to operate at the height of the Cold War. Unfortunately I can't remember the title right now but I think it was written by a defecting Soviet general. Anyway, I think it might have some relevence to this thread.

IIRC, the recon elements of the regiment consisted of wheeled BRDM vehicles. Their purpose was to go flat out towards the enemy and find a way through, seeking out the line of least resistance. If any enemy were encountered they were to be avoided if possible. These units had the advantage of great speed on roads, much like a Stryker, and they were to exploit this advantage as much as possible.

Surely this concept still holds true today. Your fastest ground units shouldn't be used as some sort of rear-echelon force but should be right out in front seeking lines of least resistance through the enemy lines. Wheeled is better than tracked for this purpose, as evidenced by the fact that the Russians used BRDMs in this role rather than BMPs.

The essence of modern warfare is the super-blitzkrieg approach, involving enormous and rapid movement of forces through gaps in the enemy's lines. If resistance is encountered, you go around, cutting lines of supply and communication to isolate and demoralise your opponent. It is not about armadas of tanks charging into enemy formations to destroy them head-on.

[JasonC]

Every recent war was instead actually won by charging head on - to the limit of effective range only. And then cautiously and systematically blowing the living hell out of everything in range, ratcheting forward a few hundred meters, and repeating as needed until the enemy is dissolved. Firepower kills. Razzle dazzle is for already beaten enemies and open field running, only.

Oh and the lead BRDM models the Russians used were ATGM equipped models, and their purposes were (1) sniping enemy scout elements, (2) getting out and looking around and radioing back what they saw and (3) occasional recon by death.

There is no point whatever is sending a full troop carrier with dismounts aboard into the kind of crapstorm the last invites. And it is more than doubtful it is effective even as recon. Compared to effective use of modern sensors, it is also completely brainless.

[Wisbech_lad]

Arggh, post lost.

Up to a point, Jason C. Some recent wars have been won by the defense (South Lebanon, Chechnya/Grozny, Yom Kippur, Iran-Iraq) and others by simply politically outlasting the other side (Afganistan, Vietnam, maybe Iraq)

Just because the US have seemingly adopted the French pre WW1 doctrine of the primacy of attack & elan - doesn't mean it has won every recent war.