Jump to content

Strykers...and Why I thank god I am not Stryker Infantry


Recommended Posts

I absolutely hate Strykers. Its probably because I am a light infantryman (Mountain) and not into the "Armored" aspect of modern warfare.

I know the basis of the American Forces is the Stryker, but I have put together a list of units, and vehicles for another release that I hope are included.

The up armored Humvee, with a 50. Cal and 49mm Mk. 19

Bradley Fighting Vehicle, added to all Mech US Army units

Regular Infantry units, with either a mix of M4s to M16s.

National Guard units, with M-60 support, and or 240G.

Airborne units (Ar Assault)

and If the engine can support it, other Helicopters, such as Blackhawks, Chinooks, and the Kiowa (actaully showing if you zoom out).

I don't like Strykers... heh

What do you guys think about those units?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 313
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

US heavy forces use M-1s and Bradleys. They are the best.

I like those, and I like Syrians for the challenge and to try on unconventional tactics.

Sure I'd like to be able to use light infantry forces as the US. A lot of Afghanistan simulation stuff via CMSF would have those, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Guardsman11b:

The up armored Humvee, with a 50. Cal and 49mm Mk. 19

Bradley Fighting Vehicle, added to all Mech US Army units

Airborne units (Ar Assault)

That's 40mm, now GET DOWN AND GIVE ME 20!

Bradley's are in the game with multiple versions

That's AIR Assault, now GET DOWN AND GIVE ME 20!

smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Guardsman11b:

I absolutely hate Strykers. Its probably because I am a light infantryman (Mountain) and not into the "Armored" aspect of modern warfare.

I know the basis of the American Forces is the Stryker, but I have put together a list of units, and vehicles for another release that I hope are included.

The up armored Humvee, with a 50. Cal and 49mm Mk. 19

Bradley Fighting Vehicle, added to all Mech US Army units

Regular Infantry units, with either a mix of M4s to M16s.

National Guard units, with M-60 support, and or 240G.

Airborne units (Ar Assault)

and If the engine can support it, other Helicopters, such as Blackhawks, Chinooks, and the Kiowa (actaully showing if you zoom out).

I don't like Strykers... heh

What do you guys think about those units?

It appears the Russians aren't too impressed with the Strykker concept as well......at least not yet:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_6_93/ai_n16085762

Gives a nice overview of the Strykker concept and organization although the article is from 2004.

[ August 04, 2007, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what the article says at all. Did you read it? Additionally, it's from 2004.

Anyway, who gives a **** if the Russians aren't impressed by it?

Do they understand the concept? Do you? The STRYKER replaces boots. It is a vehicle to transport LIGHT INFANTRY on the battlefield.

Anyone that argue that the STRYKER is sacrificing protection, doesn't understand the most basic of basic concepts regarding the STRYKER family of vehicles..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

The Bradley is already in the game.

As is armoured Hummvee, with and without .30 or .50 MG's. However National Guard I wouldn't expect to see in the CMSF setting (invasion, not occupation phase), and air assault has been ruled out ages ago, for a reason (not likely to occur within a tactical setting during a full scale war, like OIF).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Commissar:

It appears the Russians aren't too impressed with the Strykker concept as well......at least not yet:

"Russians appraise the Stryker brigade concept" doesn't sound too damning. tongue.gif Besides, isn't that article from a US Army magazine? So who knows what the Russian military really thinks of it. Edit: ah, it references a Russian article (I think).

I think the discussion about whether Stryker is a missed strike or a homerun has been on this forum so many times that we might not go back to that again. A less considered point of view is that I don't think Stryker is good looking enough to be used extensively in movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Blackhorse:

That's not what the article says at all. Did you read it? Additionally, it's from 2004.

Anyway, who gives a **** if the Russians aren't impressed by it?

Do they understand the concept? Do you? The STRYKER replaces boots. It is a vehicle to transport LIGHT INFANTRY on the battlefield.

Anyone that argue that the STRYKER is sacrificing protection, doesn't understand the most basic of basic concepts regarding the STRYKER family of vehicles..

:rolleyes: Unbunch your panties. I'm just pointing out an article of interest. Surprise, surprise not everyone agrees with one another. No need to be bitchy unless you're being paid by the Pentagon. You don't have to be personally insulted if some people have criticisms of whatever concept is out there. If anything the article helps give people unfamiliar with the concept and organization some idea outside of the game. And whether the Strykker concept actually works, the jury is still out on that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

It appears the Russians aren't too impressed with the Strykker concept as well......at least not yet:

"Russians appraise the Stryker brigade concept" doesn't sound too damning. tongue.gif Besides, isn't that article from a US Army magazine? So who knows what the Russian military really thinks of it. Edit: ah, it references a Russian article (I think).

I think the discussion about whether Stryker is a missed strike or a homerun has been on this forum so many times that we might not go back to that again. A less considered point of view is that I don't think Stryker is good looking enough to be used extensively in movies. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Blackhorse:

I'm not personally insulted.

You, however, tried to mislead readers with your incorrect and biased.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It appears the Russians aren't too impressed with the Strykker concept as well......at least not yet:

assertion. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't thrown a single insult.

You on the other hand

Unbunch your panties. I'm just pointing out an article of interest. Surprise, surprise not everyone agrees with one another. No need to be bitchy...
I'll refrain from blunt, candid postings.

Being serious though, do you understand the STRYKER concept to which you keep refering?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Guardsman11b:

I absolutely hate Strykers. Its probably because I am a light infantryman (Mountain) and not into the "Armored" aspect of modern warfare.

I know the basis of the American Forces is the Stryker, but I have put together a list of units, and vehicles for another release that I hope are included.

The up armored Humvee, with a 50. Cal and 49mm Mk. 19

Bradley Fighting Vehicle, added to all Mech US Army units

Regular Infantry units, with either a mix of M4s to M16s.

National Guard units, with M-60 support, and or 240G.

Airborne units (Ar Assault)

and If the engine can support it, other Helicopters, such as Blackhawks, Chinooks, and the Kiowa (actaully showing if you zoom out).

I don't like Strykers... heh

What do you guys think about those units?

Do you even own this game?

Almost all the stuff you asked for is already in-game.

If you want lightfighters just delete the Strykers from the MTOE in the editor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I get it. All I did was refer to article with a contrary view. You dont' agree with it, fine. I don't care either way. And from this you claim I'm biased. Read it and agree, read it and disagree honestly I couldn't care less. If you think it's utter crap, then please go ahead and explain how the Russians viewpoint is wrong. I'm not being paid by Washington or Moscow so I have nothing to gain or lose either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Stryker is a glorified BTR. Nothing revolutionary about it, and a ridiculous price tag.

Better comms (which time gives anyway) and the remote weapon station (which is modular and can go on lots of stuff) are the only advances. For what was paid for them, distinctly underwhelming.

As for the endlessly repeated assertion that they only replace lighter stuff, it is nonsense. They suck up $5 billion up front and about as much again operating, and use the soldiers manning them, all of which could fund as much heavy stuff at least as easily etc.

Anyone seriously want to try to maintain that the medium force with them is better than the heavy force with Brads? As in, show me in game? Didn't think so.

But we have them now and they are in the game. So we use them or we have fun blowing them up as OPFOR (grin).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is actually quite interesting in comparing Stryker to what Russians have. Here's from the summary:

The Stryker brigade is similar in size and number of vehicles to the old Soviet BTR regiment. The Soviet BTR regiment had three motorized rifle battalions, an organic tank battalion, howitzer battalion, reconnaissance company, NBC reconnaissance and decontamination platoon, engineer company, signal company, maintenance company, transport company, medical company, supply platoon and band. Much of the combined-arms structure of the Stryker brigade is comparable to that of the older BTR regiment, although the Soviet regiment had much more firepower and the US model has much more intelligence-gathering capability. The Russians realize that their BTR regiments lacked breakthrough power and were very vulnerable to enemy artillery and anti-tank fires. Consequently, BTRs were never used for the main attack. They see similar vulnerabilities in the Stryker brigade. It is interesting to note what is missing from the Russian Stryker article.

First, there is no real discussion or excitement about using information technology as electronic judo to outperform an opponent and substitute electrons for armor plate and fire power. The presence of advanced computers and the eventual delivery of advanced computerized C4ISR is noted, but not developed. Second, the stand-alone nature of the Stryker brigade is not accepted. The Russians still see this as a underpowered brigade that needs augmentation and lots of air support to carry out a mission when confronted with a well-armed, well-positioned enemy. Third, the air transport issue is not as important to the Russians. Russia is a continental power. In the days of the Soviet Union, they resolved their air transport issues by building wing-in-ground effect aircraft capable of carrying the standard tanks, self-propelled howitzers and armored personnel carriers. Their philosophy was to build a large enough aircraft to hold and move the equipment, so that the optimum combined-arms combat unit could be delivered. They see the U.S. move as sacrificing combat power and soldier protection for the sole purpose of fitting into existing, aging airframes.

Obviously Russian army would have no use for at least some of the finer points of Stryker. Which naturally doesn't mean that they wouldn't be valuable to the US military.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Russian viewpoint is skewed because they are comparing it to their own BTR/wheeled concepts. They should be comparing the SBCT to their light ionfantry Brigades. Then, and only then does one understand what the capabilities STRYKERs bring to the light infantry.

The key point that is being missed is that the STRYKER concept is applied to light infantry; Infantry that formerly had only boots for mobility and body armor for protection.

Taken in that context, the entire Russian analysis is flawed and worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JasonC:

Anyone seriously want to try to maintain that the medium force with them is better than the heavy force with Brads? As in, show me in game? Didn't think so.

There's an idea - blue vs. blue fight, one based on Strykers, the other on Bradleys. AAAND IN THE BRADLEY CORNER WE HAVE THE MOTHER OF ALL GROGS, <font size="5">JA-SON CEEE-E!!!!</font> AND AS THE CHAMPION OF ALL STRYKERS, WE HAVE... WE... we have... anyone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JasonC:

The Stryker is a glorified BTR. Nothing revolutionary about it, and a ridiculous price tag.

Better comms (which time gives anyway) and the remote weapon station (which is modular and can go on lots of stuff) are the only advances. For what was paid for them, distinctly underwhelming.

As for the endlessly repeated assertion that they only replace lighter stuff, it is nonsense. They suck up $5 billion up front and about as much again operating, and use the soldiers manning them, all of which could fund as much heavy stuff at least as easily etc.

Anyone seriously want to try to maintain that the medium force with them is better than the heavy force with Brads? As in, show me in game? Didn't think so.

But we have them now and they are in the game. So we use them or we have fun blowing them up as OPFOR (grin).

Spoken like one who has never been on one...have you ever been on one? have you ever talked to soldiers from the SBCT?

Do you discount the concept of strategic mobiblity?

The assertion that the STRYKER replaces Light "stuff" is not nonsense. It is fact. How can you honestly claim that it is nonsense? Upon what do you base such a claim? pricetag alone? Bollox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...