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

[JonS]

I've been in a LAV that had an, uh, accident. Ripped the two front wheels clean off (and I nearly brained myself bouncing around in the back). T'was quite impressive, actually, looking at the chunky steering members that had been bent and snapped.

Anyway, they drove it back to base. Slowly, natch. But they drove it.

Course, we still had to walk up the freaking great hill the LAV was meant to be taking us up :mad:

Edit to add: not sure what would have happened to a tracked veh in the same circumstances. Depending on how it was set up, it probably would have ridden over the obstacle. So; kudos to the LAV for being mobile after the fact, brick bat for being damaged in the first place.

[Guardsman11b]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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?

Are you really in the Army? There are so many things wrong with what you're saying that it makes me wonder. Have you been to basic yet? </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Bradley Dick,

I'm VERY biased against the Stryker, with no real good reason. (other than tires, which go flat) I simply hate the idea of my chosen baby being replaced or sidelined by the new kid in town.

You should be commended for that! It takes balls for someone to say "this is my opinion, as irrational as it may be" You're not alone, of course. I'm sure the Army had to use C4 charges to get some tankers out of their M-60s and into Abrams.

Bradleys will be around for a long time, no worries about that. Just like Humvees will continue to have a very important place on the battlefield (despite the massive numbers lost in combat and through every day use), there is no magic single vehicle to do everything all the time in all situations. Jon's example proves that. Tracked vehicle for that situation would probably have been better, unless it broke something

molotov_billy,

I think his point was that it seems a bit unprofessional for employees to actually wade into the topic, and in his words "feed the trolls, and do a little trolling yourself." It's probably bad for business.

Been hearing that for 9 years, yet business gets better each year BTW, I am not an employee. I'm the boss, for lack of a better term. This is my game, my forum. It would be odd for me not to be involved in the discussion of one on the other, don't you think?

PSY,

I've heard the argument bandied about that Stryker tires are actually an advantage, because if a tracked vehicle throws a track it's immobilized.

Yes, and as Styker_PSG mentioned a few pages back a Stryker can drive on 8 flats at 35mph for quite a distance. A tracked vehicle with a track problem can, at best, spin around in a circle. A Stryker tire takes 15 minutes to change, a track problem can take hours to repair even with rear echelon support.

Steve

[ August 07, 2007, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[rcg92]

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

The Bradley is already in the game. But I sure wouldn't mind seeing Airborne added.

That would be great if they had Airborne added by the time the WWII version comes out.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Been hearing that for 9 years, yet business gets better each year BTW, I am not an employee. I'm the boss, for lack of a better term.

That probably has more to do with the fact that talented people are quietly working their butts off on the actual game while you aggressively attack potential customers on the forums. You've been hearing it for nine years because it's probably true.

You're not doing those guys much justice by turning people away from the product.

This is my game, my forum.

It's that kind of attitude that turns a lot of people away. You do realize that good management goes a bit above and beyond that, right?

[ August 07, 2007, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, I've seen "trolls" mentioned a couple of times just now. I don't know who that is aimed at. I've seen no trolls here. As much as I disagree with JasonC (most of the time about most everything, especially his "debate" style), I don't think of him as a troll. If I did I'd have bounced him out of here years ago. Trolls are not tollerated. One can disagree, or be disagreeable, without being a troll ya know.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I am mistaken! There is a troll

molotov_billy,

That probably has more to do with the fact that talented people are quietly working their butts off on the actual game while you shoot your mouth off in the forums.

Hehe... funny stuff. You really don't have a clue who I am, do you? I mean that in a very technical sense, not on a Taxi Driver sort of "are you talking to me" sort of way. Do you know what I do besides deal with the occasional troll, such as yourself?

You're not doing those guys much justice by turning people away from the product.

That's my point... every year our customer base grows, yet I am not cowering away from debates that concern our games (since you object to me using the first person). As I said, I don't see much reason or benefit to have me be silent about these topics since I am the most qualified to discuss them as they relate to CM:SF. Again, if you don't have a clue who I am you won't understand the context of this statement.

It's that kind of attitude that turns a lot of people away. You do realize that good management goes a bit above and beyond that, right?

I've been over this sort of useless discussion more than once in the past. You can't prove what you are saying is true, so perhaps I'm in a better position to sit in judgement. What with 9 years of running this Forum creating the very game you seem to be unaware I created (with others, of course).

BTW, I was warned by one of the other "talented people" to watch out for your behavior and even suggested I bounce you out of here last week. Perhaps I should have listened to him?

Steve

[ August 07, 2007, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Ah... I see edits to your out of place commentary, molotov_billy. Just one question:

you aggressively attack potential customers on the forums.

What potential customers have I agressively attacked? I've slamed JasonC for dodging rational counter arguments to his flawed arguments. But that can hardly count sionce he's an existing customer and actually thrives on this stuff. He's made a name for himself doing this. If he didn't like the reaction he gets he wouldn't be so overtly abusive towards anybody with an opinion that differs from him. At least he's on topic in this thread, which is more than I can say for your posts.

Steve

[StrykerPSG]

Man, I have never seen one thread draw as much attention as this one, and felt I owed Jason some replies, so here goes:

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB]

We are not uninformed. We are highly informed. You are not any more informed than anyone here. You just have less appreciation for the analysis of others, while pretending otherwise.

I guess I find this statement sort of confusing. Because you read something somewhere, you believe you are better informed then I am? Pretty bold assumption that I just covered down on some equipment without vital feedback to either the government or the manufacturer. They both want to know what can make the vehicle more "fightable" and lethal. If something didn't work, what were the work arounds to fix it(TTP's)? Now, that isn't to say that prior to my assignment at Lewis, I was only privie to news articles and theorists that came out from every rock. To use one of your analogies from earlier, it's like being a cook (you)on a cooking show watching another cook (me) designing a recipe of sorts. Yes, you may have some better ideas, but you're not contributing, just assuming.

"We thought rapidly deployability would be critical because we expected wars to be short and brutal, we didn't see a 4 year long counter insurgency mission coming". Why would that be hard to admit?

Given that we are one of the last surviving super powers and by default of our self pronounced democracy building (911 responders)process it is in our best interest strategically to design a highly mobile and lethal organization to respond to these democracy building events. We also know that mobility and lethality are hard to combine while trying toreduce our logistic footprint. So, we sacrifice heavy armor (maintaining speed and airlift ability) and mount a smaller weapon system.

"We thought C-130 transportability would matter more than 14.5mm or RPG defense; when it didn't work out that way we uparmored and deployability suffered. But at least we got a handle on the threat from militia level irregulars and that means we are ready for the security mission".

This fight went out a while ago. It was designed and still is capable of transport on a C130. But Black Horse hit it on the head when he mentioned it is crazy to design a vehicle around a 50+ year old frame, not to mention there is the limitation of a wing box across the center of the cargo bay. However, this limits the SBCT's, not other users. Also, the truck is transportable with the applique armor package. It is the racks that pose a problem, so we developed a TTP for that scenario too.

"We thought they would be a lot cheaper to maintain than they are. New weapons teeth, maybe we can get it down in the future".

This one isn't necessarily true. The only maintenance issues were not having a vehicle power train that was going to handle an additional 5000 lbs of armor and operate in 140 degree heat. That isn't to say the powerplant failed higher then usual, just put unclaculated wear and tear. When we brought the trucks back after two years of fighting, average miles put on the chassis were around 70,000. For any vehicle, that is serious mileage. The only piece not designed properly were the speed ratings on the tires. we regularly achieved 65-70 mph and the tires developed much more heat then anticipated. Just meant we incorporated another TTP not written about and changed tires in 15 minutes or less. Try doing that on your regular car.

"The better commo and sitch awareness stuff is working as advertized. Let's extend it to other components of the force instead of pretending it is a reason to prefer Strykers forever".

Already addressed by Black Horse.

Or take the comment about 50 cals rather than 25s, made into a virtue as supposedly so much more discriminate. Um, it took the people running this sim less than a week to discover that the way Stryker infantry can fight in cities is to blow the living heck out of enemy occupied locations with Javelins at ranges up to a kilometer. Whereas being really, really discriminate about it is a good way to lose.

This one also addressed by Black Horse, but my twist is this: A normal .50 mounted on a pintle is very indescriminate. I routinely trained my gunners (TTP's) to utilize the RWS day sight and zoom in on the bad guy in the window or next to a house. Once zoomed in, burst the trigger to conserve ammo. End result was a disintegrated weapon system (using only about 10 rounds)since it's against the Geneva convention to shoot personnel with the .50 cal. A 25mm has way too much energy for that sort of sniping. This isn't to minimize the energy of a .50cal, but far less collateral damge, if any, just a nasty bloody room.

BCTs would get secondary ones - sweep this wide area that is expected to be relatively undefended, or follow and police up after this corps, or secure the bypassed bits using dismount strength in cities and patrol range, etc. Instead of just admitting that the thing is the analog of a German motorized division circa 1939-41, or a Russian second line, it has to be presented as some comic book hero in a maneuver fantasy.

Again, another false assesssment. This is based on what evidence? Is this an assumption because of the vehicles lighter armor? With it's advanced communications suite and it's more adaptive and agile mission capabilities, it is more then capable of going into unknown areas, securing them and having a greater capability of flexing combat power to areas of greater threat faster based on it's more rapid and responsive wheeled capabilites. even today, in theater, SBCT's are called upon and sought with great vigor because of their advanced communication suite, it's rapid ability to re-locate and the greatest asset which the HBCT's lack is the ability to put 11 man squads on the ground immediately. Do we lack the shock and awe effect of armor? Me thinks not. I base this on the agressive use of our vehicles, not entirely different then the older ACR's, which we gladly trace our lineage too as well. The difference here is our tanker converts in our MGS's know they have the same chassis as their Infantry bretheren and therefore are as fragile and vulnerable as the ICV, should they boldly use Cavalry panache and thrust their less armored vehicle into a bee's hive of T72's. So, it requires them to be bold and decisive thinkers that do not set the current pace of the battlefield, but rather work as a combined arms team to find, fix and destroy their common enemies.

So, Jason and Jon, I apologize for not entering into a more responsive and thorough dialogue with you sooner. Unfortunately I only get about an hour or two each night to read and enjoy these threads. I do not send this reply to enrage anyone, but to dispel the myth that we are ready reserves based on a lighter armored vehicle. I am truly amazed at the depth and heat of these debates. Again, they are fantastic, but when you discount the people that operate these concepts day in and day out and base your knowledge of specualtion of left and right wing reports, there is a possibility of becoming a Rumsfeld type persona and discounting what your actual theater commanders are telling you and listening to the media instead. Also, for those that do not understand the phrase TTP, it stands for Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. These items are rarely ever reported on ut are what we do as leaders to overcome and adapt to situations.

[Note - Battlefront.com edited the Quote formatting]

[ August 08, 2007, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Zipuli:

Patria AMV's

BTW Croatia just bought some as well.

It seems like only Germany is developing new TRACKED IFVs (Puma), everyone else is converting to wheeled.

i'm not sure what the criteria for new are, but

for example there's Swedish CV90, Spanish/Austrian ASCOD, Italian Dardo etc.

there are even some new tracked APC projects, like Swedish SEP and that Turkish what-if-M113-and-Bradley-mated thing whose name i can't remember.

[StrykerPSG]

Originally posted by PSY:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bradley Dick:

I'm VERY biased against the Stryker, with no real good reason. (other than tires, which go flat).

I've heard the argument bandied about that Stryker tires are actually an advantage, because if a tracked vehicle throws a track it's immobilized. The Stryker tires can run while flat, and the vehicle can continue moving even if some of the tires are lost. Tracks are clearly better for off-road and for turning radius, but tracked vehicles may actually be more likely to become immobilized.

I don't really know one way or the other, but am curious as to how some of you with actual experience would evaluate this argument. Care to comment? </font>

[StrykerPSG]

Originally posted by Guardsman11b:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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?

Are you really in the Army? There are so many things wrong with what you're saying that it makes me wonder. Have you been to basic yet? </font>

[Splinty]

Hey Stryker, I'm a Guard MP at FOB Rustamiyah and beleive me I spend most of my time alot more than 5kms outside the wire. In fact I spend almost all of my time outside the wire...

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I mean that in a very technical sense, not on a Taxi Driver sort of "are you talking to me" sort of way.

I do think that's the problem. You may not mean to, but you come off in a lot of your posts as having a really poor attitude. To be as blunt as possible, your posts are a tinge pig-headed about a variety of things - not just strykers, but game design and public relations as well. That's all we're really saying. I'm not trying to piss anyone off, which is why I edited my post. I like it here. I'm just trying to critique what I think needs work.

I've noticed that you tend to dismiss the opinions of others, such as in this case when you dismissed the casual observations of a guy who read a forum and noticed that it was strange for an employee to be having such an aggressive, and (no offense) a bit childish, interaction with his customers. To say that it's "your forum, your rules, your game" is sort of in the same vein, and sort of displays to the masses what this is really all about.

He's giving you perfect, precise feedback about the quality of your customer service. It's my humble opinion that you should examine that type of feedback and actually use it instead of dismissing it out of hand.

I do understand that JasonC won't be offended by any of it. He's a smart guy and I imagine he laughs at most of the nonsense that gets pasted in here. The feedback that I was trying to give here is that the casual observer would be affected by the behavior in the forums, not necessarily a specific guy who's been around for awhile.

What with 9 years of running this Forum creating the very game you seem to be unaware I created (with others, of course).

I suppose my point is that you've been turning away potential customers for that duration of time, and needlessly at that.

BTW, I was warned by one of the other "talented people" to watch out for your behavior and even suggested I bounce you out of here last week. Perhaps I should have listened to him?

Color me confused. I don't know what good a threat will do, though I imagine it's just another aggressive lash at a community member who happens to disagree with you, a thing a casual observer will see, and something that just doesn't mean that much to me at all.

It makes sense, considering that my first impression of "Battlefront" in reading these forums was just how often folks tended to banned for disagreeing with anything you said in a manner that wasn't to your liking. And you're right, it isn't personal because I don't know you. I'm observing blocks of text being thrown at eachother. Can you chill with the threats and name calling and just have an open-minded conversation, please?

I would question why you guys are so concerned with individual forum members at such a busy time during development. Who's the mystery man? Maybe I know him, or maybe he just knows me, or maybe he doesn't like my name. Or maybe you just made it up?

Have him come on and post. Let's chat.

[ August 08, 2007, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[StrykerPSG]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Hey Stryker, I'm a Guard MP at FOB Rustamiyah and beleive me I spend most of my time alot more than 5kms outside the wire. In fact I spend almost all of my time outside the wire...

Splinty, purposely went back in to edit and delete my posting. I do not want to start any flame wars as I should know there are many NG outfits attached outside the FOB, but by and large the NG infantry units we encountered were relegated to FOB security, at least the ones we ran into at the assorted FOBs in theater. The exceptions were transportation, aviation, engineer and also MP.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You really don't have a clue who I am, do you?

Seems to me to be a moot point. However you present yourself on the forums is what your customers and potential customers will see, and they'll make their judgements accordingly - that's simply how customer service works.

If you think it helps to tell us, then by all means, do so.

[ August 08, 2007, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Asok]

Originally posted by StrykerPSG:

This one also addressed by Black Horse, but my twist is this: A normal .50 mounted on a pintle is very indescriminate. I routinely trained my gunners (TTP's) to utilize the RWS day sight and zoom in on the bad guy in the window or next to a house. Once zoomed in, burst the trigger to conserve ammo. End result was a disintegrated weapon system (using only about 10 rounds)since it's against the Geneva convention to shoot personnel with the .50 cal.

This is bull****. The Geneva conventions (there are four conventions and three amendment protocols) are chiefly about the treatment of the wounded, the prisoners and non-combatants. There's nothing there about shooting personnel with a .50 cal. or anything. I realize that NCOs do not generally know anything about international treaties and have never read any of them - instead relying on word-of-mouth - but this particular piece of hokum is so far out there that I must speak out. StrykerPSG, which Geneva convention forbids using the .50 cal against personnel? If you think it was the Hague convention, instead, then please provide a specific reference.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

What needs an overhaul are the upper command echelons (civilian and military) that allowed itself to get sucked into a war it wasn't prepared to fight. No whiz-bang vehicle, tracked or wheeled, can win an unwinable war.

Hey, nobody asked you to elect said upper command echelon for a 2nd term.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Asok:

You can even find pages dedicated to this particular piece of nonsense. I have read "somewhere" that this fiction originates with the lovely 8x50cal AAMG wagen from WWII and Korea - Really nice tactically for chopping infantry, but big headache for the logistics and procurement boys wrt ammo usage..

Hence the fairy-tale about geneva conventions to stop vets from utilizing the AAMG system to suppress grunts.

[Fetchez la Vache]

*shimmy in*

I love threads which are largely composed of quotes. :-D

*shimmy out*

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by AdamL:

For Jason - who were the primary critics of the maneuver warfare doctrine from the "old school" and what happened to them?

I'm interested in the answer to that as well.

[Chelco]

Maneuver warfare is not the doctrine of the US Army. Even when their newest FMs claim so.

[average]

Getting off topic briefly:-

AP-I rounds are certainly not lawfully used against infantry. Same for HEI-T.

Slap and ball are good to go though, although sooner or later someone will take the point as a mater of customary international law its considered poor form to use 12.7mm stuff against people (ie the US Military considers it causes excessive suffering,as does the ADF and some other western militaries, ergo the prohibition has entered via custom as part of the laws of war.)

Now if I bust you violating customary international law I can take steps against you directly, irregardless of prohibitions and technical points about nationality. Whether practically anyone would do that on the point is doubtful.

Not to fear though, the ICJ isn't going to start inditing people for it anytime soon, they haven't even got around to good old fashioned war criminals let alone 19 year old punks lighting up the odd combatant with a .50 cal.

What I'm really curious to see is if anyone is willing to own up to the 49 convention basically making a lot of what the coaltion get up to in Iraq fairly illegal at international law.

Personally, I think 50 cal is a fair bit kinder than 155mm shake and bake fire missions.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by StrykerPSG:

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

Hey Stryker, I'm a Guard MP at FOB Rustamiyah and beleive me I spend most of my time alot more than 5kms outside the wire. In fact I spend almost all of my time outside the wire...

Splinty, purposely went back in to edit and delete my posting. I do not want to start any flame wars as I should know there are many NG outfits attached outside the FOB, but by and large the NG infantry units we encountered were relegated to FOB security, at least the ones we ran into at the assorted FOBs in theater. The exceptions were transportation, aviation, engineer and also MP. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

molotov_billy,

I've noticed that you tend to dismiss the opinions of others, such as in this case when you dismissed the casual observations of a guy who read a forum and noticed that it was strange for an employee to be having such an aggressive, and (no offense) a bit childish, interaction with his customers.

Poppycock I debate people, as I have here. I challenged JasonC's factually incorrect statements with factually correct ones. Opinions that run contrary to fact need to be dismissed as valueless. Opinions that are not necessarily based on fact must be considered in some greater context. You won't see me telling people they are wrong for not liking how we implemented WeGo, but you will see me chiding them for saying WeGo doesn't exist. If you can not understand the difference between the two, the obviously you will have a difficult time comprehending my responses.

As for my "aggressiveness", it is reserved for special cases. JasonC is one of them. That is why I suggested that you're lack of participation in this Forum over the last 9 years perhaps doesn't give you the sort of all knowing insight that you wish to think you have. There is a lot of history here so it is arrogant and rather foolish to think that you can know everything about how things work from such a short period of time. As I've said, JasonC purposefully constructs his posts to illicit such responses. We generally only oblige him after a couple of pages when it is clear that being offensive and evasive is all he has left.

I suppose my point is that you've been turning away potential customers for that duration of time, and needlessly at that.

Again, I think it is rather arrogant of you to presume that this i the case. I think most people appreciate the fact that I am honest and do not suck up or coddle certain personality types that tend to ruin Forums by turning them into places where substandard debate is the best that can be hoped for. Coddle a whiner and you get more whining. Give someone with a legitimate and well articulate complaint a solid, straightforward, and honest answer... you get a happy customer. These are lessons I've learned years ago and I don't really care if you understand them or not. Look at how many people are here with registrations dating back 4, 5, 6, even 8 years. Something must be going right here.

I define "poor customer service" as encouraging disrespectful and disruptive behavior in exchange of money. It does the respectful and productive customers a great disservice. I'd rather lose sales to those too immature to be here than to lose the mature ones due to the ill behavior of those who think $45 gives them the right to be counter productive.

Color me confused. I don't know what good a threat will do, though I imagine it's just another aggressive lash at a community member who happens to disagree with you, a thing a casual observer will see, and something that just doesn't mean that much to me at all.

You don't just disagree, you insult and do so without much precision either. Your comment about me doing a disservice to the hard working people that made CM:SF, in particular, is rather funny. Which is why I highlighted it. You said this not realizing that two people co-founded Battlefront and created the first Combat Mission (almost entirely) on their own starting in 1997. I am one of those two. I am also the one that did most of design and research for all the subsequent CM games, though with a LOT more help due to the increase in scope and depth. Still, if there is such a thing as a heart and a soul to the game, I am the keeper of the soul. Charles, the other half of the original equation, is the heart for without his programming there would be no life. What you also don't realize is that one of the reasons why Charles never posts here (or even reads these threads) anymore is because he has even less tolerance for people like JasonC than I do

My point here is that you claim to know much, but it is apparent that you do not. I say that from a factual standpoint, not one of opinion. Therefore, if someone should double check his posting style and manner of presentation, I would suggest that between the two of us you are perhaps in need of it more than I.

Also, I am not threatening you. I am very clear about such things and they are called "warnings" and not threats, though they are effectively the same. My point in bringing up the comments of someone else within our ranks is to illustrate that I am not the only one that finds fault with your presentation style.

In closing, there have been many people over the years that have taken offense to the way I conduct myself here. I don't mind that, because there will never be agreement on anything, much less someone's style. Each to his own. But the fact remains that the company grows, the Forums thrive, and I get far more people thanking me for not coddling those who wish to detract, destroy, and generally dumb down the quality of discussion on this Forum. As long as that is the trend, then I am content with that. I can't make everybody equally happy, so it is madness to try.

Steve