Why you should be skeptical of the skeptics

[Buq-Buq]

I'm pretty certain that the M1A1 in the photo with the Iraqi TV reporter is B24, 3/7 CAV. The vehicle was damaged by friendly fire (25mm from Bradley Fighting Vehicle) and abandoned on 26 March 2003 near An Najaf. The clue to the identity of the vehicle is the 'skull-in-CVC' cartoon on the left turret face, and the '/92' formation sign on the side skirts (visible in other views). The vehicle was subsequently recaptured by U.S. forces, and has appeared in commonly-available photo-references of Abrams' damage (including the Abrams Tank Systems' AAR).

From photos of the tank taken after its recapture, it would appear that the vehicle was not "destroyed to prevent use by enemy forces" — although, as sgtgoody (esq) points out, the insides are not seen. Certainly, at a minimum, I would suppose the vehicle would have required a new power pack, given the damage to the rear from the 25mm fire.

Mark

[Battlefront.com]

Hof,

I'm not up-to-date on this ever-changing Shmyker topic, but I thought the mortar carrier can *not* fire the intended prime 120mm weapon from inside the vehicle, it has to relegate to the 81mm for that.

but if they changed that, then that's okay.

Yes, the "B" variant now in production and service (not sure if the SBCT in Iraq now has them) can fire the 120 from within the vehicle on the move. It is the secondary mortar that must be fired from outside.

that combatreform page sure is far out on many things. it is heavily biased and I see it just as such; in a way one could see it as a way of fighting fire with fire:

there is so much pro-Stryker propaganda spin being spouted by the politico-military-industrial complex ? that pages like combatreform are a counter-weight in this battle.

I disagree. Coming up with a crappy and obviously conceptually biased line of argument doesn't do anything to help things. In fact, all it does is confuse matters more. We spend time arguing about stuff that isn't true instead of focusing on the stuff that is. Disinformation always benefits the party with the most to gain. In this case it would be the military industrial complex.

I still disagree.

that's like saying the Shillelagh system of the M60A2 was a Shillelagh issue, not an M60A2 issue... or that the malfunctioning auto-loader on the T-64 was an issue of the autoloader, not the T-64, or that the broken ceramic tile of the Columbia was an issue of the ceramic tile and not of the Columbia...

But when the criticism is leveled at the concept of space shuttle or a main battle tank, and how it is used, then it is a crap argument. It is akin to saying the original M16 was a piece of crap and therefore infantry units and their tactics were useless, and instead the whole army should have been armed by monkeys with rotten fruit instead.

the FBCB2 issue is a Stryker issue because the Stryker system / concept was purposely created with a FBCB2-esque system at its core...the Bradley and the Abrams *can* use the FBCB2, but they weren't built with the FBCB2 in mind... for them it is an additional plus, for the Stryker it's more of a conditio sine qua non, a requirement; its been built around it. The FBCB2 supposedly will make up for lack in armor and armament.

Yes, but if FBCB2's cooling and speed problems are fixed, does this now mean that the concept of a Medium Force is now 100% valid? No. The two are related, but they are not the same.

I don't doubt the ingenuity of the crews for a second, it is always impressing how the frontline troops come up with makeshift yet decisive ideas for modifying/augmenting their equipment or in developing tactics on how to best use them.

Which neutralizes some of the criticism. Should FBCB2 be improved? Yes. Does its current limitations mean that the Stryker concept is crap? No.

ok, but do they actually use UAVs a lot in Iraq ? because my impression is that they don't, but my impressions are very narrow and limited.

Yes, UAVs are being used a ton in Iraq. In fast paced action they are used as recon, for stability ops they are used like the cameras in department stores. They keep an eye on things. And if some bozo decides to take pot shots at it, all the better. Now the shooter has shown himself and he can be hunted down and taken out before he does something more serious like detonate an IED or snipe a soldier.

Steve

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Dinger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In addition the horse requires feeding, has a relatively short operational life, cannot be upgraded, and you need to own several of them in order to be sure of having one good one for battle.

The MECS has been employed for over 3000 years. </font>

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

and yet 2 of the 3 world-empires in the era were based upon foot soldiers that regularly defeated their horse-mounted opponents (Rome, China)

All of the great empires (and almost all of the modest ones) relied on combined arms. This included cavalry to a lesser or greater extent. Nothing much has changed...

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Buq-Buq:

I'm pretty certain that the M1A1 in the photo with the Iraqi TV reporter is B24, 3/7 CAV. The vehicle was damaged by friendly fire (25mm from Bradley Fighting Vehicle) and abandoned on 26 March 2003 near An Najaf. The clue to the identity of the vehicle is the 'skull-in-CVC' cartoon on the left turret face, and the '/92' formation sign on the side skirts (visible in other views). The vehicle was subsequently recaptured by U.S. forces, and has appeared in commonly-available photo-references of Abrams' damage (including the Abrams Tank Systems' AAR).

From photos of the tank taken after its recapture, it would appear that the vehicle was not "destroyed to prevent use by enemy forces" — although, as sgtgoody (esq) points out, the insides are not seen. Certainly, at a minimum, I would suppose the vehicle would have required a new power pack, given the damage to the rear from the 25mm fire.

Mark

Buq-Buq/Mark,

thank you for this absolute groggy vehicle ID !

commendable !

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, the "B" variant now in production and service (not sure if the SBCT in Iraq now has them) can fire the 120 from within the vehicle on the move. It is the secondary mortar that must be fired from outside.

:

ok, good then.

though I wonder how they eventually solved the problems.? (simple structural strengthening after the Herkybird requirement flew out the window?).

you know, thats what irks me, or, rather, makes me feel somehow uncomfortable around current military technological developments. it is not only hard to grab hard facts, it is hard to even follow what's going on, to see where things are heading.

in twenty years we can look back and clearly see which versions and subvariants eventually became *the* Stryker that we all know then (in twenty years), and which were simply dropped. all major programs show that - only hindsight shows which paths eventually were taken.

but right now, people like me don't really know, one can't really tell what's the current state of affairs unless you are the contract worker installing thze latest stuff or the soldier sitting in one of these things at the proving ground.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I disagree. Coming up with a crappy and obviously conceptually biased line of argument doesn't do anything to help things. In fact, all it does is confuse matters more. We spend time arguing about stuff that isn't true instead of focusing on the stuff that is. Disinformation always benefits the party with the most to gain. In this case it would be the military industrial complex.

I knew it...

I knew the pro-Sttrykeout military industrial complex was behind the combatreform page, they did that page to discredit the Shmyker critics.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I still disagree.

that's like saying the Shillelagh system of the M60A2 was a Shillelagh issue, not an M60A2 issue... or that the malfunctioning auto-loader on the T-64 was an issue of the autoloader, not the T-64, or that the broken ceramic tile of the Columbia was an issue of the ceramic tile and not of the Columbia...

But when the criticism is leveled at the concept of space shuttle or a main battle tank, and how it is used, then it is a crap argument. It is akin to saying the original M16 was a piece of crap and therefore infantry units and their tactics were useless, and instead the whole army should have been armed by monkeys with rotten fruit instead.</font>

[MikeyD]

The thing about this debate is as long as BFC keeps to their usual standards of accuracy, don't emasculate the enemy or beef-up Stryker brigade we'll soon be able to test out our theories and assumptions in the comfort of our own computer desks! The guys seem dedicated to getting the combat sim 'right', at least from the American side.

Along that line I'm thinking of CMBB. How many grogs complained bitterly that Germany with their mighty Tigers and Panthers were less formidable than they had imagined them to be? Or conversely, how many grogs complained about designed-in incompetence among the Russian forces? Whatever we get in this game, somebody's not going to be satisfied with how something was portrayed.

[c3k]

M Hofbauer,

I find your postings to be somewhat worthless.

You've marginalized yourself due to your use of terms such as "Shmyker", "Strykeout", and other derogatory words. Your refusal to type "Stryker" or even to use the proper "M" series designation shows that you are EXTREMELY biased against the concept.

If you have any valid points to make in regards to tactics, operations, technical shortcomings, etc., I have yet to see them.

Please start a "Let's all gather and hate the Stryker" thread and put all your posts there.

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

You've marginalized yourself due to your use of terms such as "Shmyker", "Strykeout", and other derogatory words. Your refusal to type "Stryker" or even to use the proper "M" series designation shows that you are EXTREMELY biased against the concept.

Can't say I didn't warn him

Hof, I am in fact getting tired of this discussion. I'm spending too much energy correcting the disinformation and not enough talking about what the game is all about. Now that the CGM article is out I'm going to switch to talking about that stuff. If you wish to continue posting criticism someone else will have to answer. Just assume that I'd likely reply "that's factually incorrect" or "you can say that about anything" or "that doesn't mean a hill of beans in real life" or something like that. Based on my past replies that's most likley what I'd find myself saying anyway

Steve

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

and yet 2 of the 3 world-empires in the era were based upon foot soldiers that regularly defeated their horse-mounted opponents (Rome, China)

All of the great empires (and almost all of the modest ones) relied on combined arms. This included cavalry to a lesser or greater extent. Nothing much has changed... </font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

[snips] Not so - the Roman Empire was at its greatest in the 1st & early 2nd centuries AD as an infantry force that had some cavalry - combined arms was NOT its long suit!!

Ok, then, how about "Men with pointed sticks -- the dominant weapon system for four thousand years"?

All the best,

John.

[Andreas]

"MWPS". I like it, has a nice ring to it.

The MWPS is an important, light-armored product for General Dynamics Land Systems. In November 2000, the GM/GDLS Defense Group, a joint venture between General Motors Defense and General Dynamics Land Systems, was awarded a six-year, $4 billion contract to equip the U.S. Army's Brigade Combat Teams with 20,131 MWPS systems through a series of orders, starting in 2001. These new systems became integral pieces of the Army's effort to transform itself into a more agile, deployable force. In February 2003, General Dynamics acquired its program partner GM Defense, placing the entire program under its Land Systems subsidiary.

The MWPS is a full-time bi-ped drive, selective four extremeties drive, lightly or un-armored system weighing approximately 85kgs in full deployment mode. The MWPS can reach speeds of 20 M.P.H., on the tarmac, has a maximum range of 40 miles, and is transportable aboard Cessna 152, C-130 and bigger payload aircraft. The basic Infantry variant (MWPS ICV) has armor that protects its sternum and shins from airborn delivery pointed sticks, direct delivery swords and slingshots. The MWPS ICV variants includes configurations for Reconnaissance (two Mk. I Eyeball Systems), Sword attack (one five-digit Hand System), Guided Missile Attack (One Eyeball/Hand fully automated Co-ordination System, BRAIN Mk.VIII) and Defense (Using a SHIELD Defense System) and Medical Evacuation missions (SHOULDER carrying system), a Voice-Activated Command System (Mk. II SHOUT), as well as carrying ability for weapon elements, Engineering equipment, Command Groups, and Fire Support Teams. The Mobile Sword System (MWPS MSS) variant consists of a Land Systems-designed Gladius mounted in a five-digit reach-out grabbing system that is integrated into the MWPS's arm and permanently attached to its body.

Fabrication and final assembly of all million variants of the MWPS are conducted in bedrooms and homes all over the country, permanently.

All the best

Andreas

[ November 05, 2005, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[flamingknives]

This suddenly seems relevant

from http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PAPS.htm

© Anthony G Williams

I recent came across this article in my files. It was first written some 25 years ago, but may still be relevant today:

The Portable Anti-Personnel System (PAPS)

The core of the PAPS is the CAPAM (Conventional Anti-Personnel Attack Missile) which unlike other missiles completes its propellant burn within the launch tube, thus enabling the solid-state, spin-stabilised and inertia-guided warhead to be propelled towards the target at a considerable saving in energy. This fire-and-forget capability has obvious tactical advantages and the lack of terminal guidance can be compensated by a ripple-fire technique to increase hit probability. The other essential elements of PAPS are the LM (Launch Module) and the CACS (Command And Control System).

The PAPS LM consists of a launch tube, aiming device and reload magazine. A feature of the LM is the ingenious use of propellant pressure to operate the entire LARC (Launch-And-Reload Cycle), rendering failure-prone power-operated systems unnecessary, and indeed well over 99% reliability is normally achieved. Total LM weight is in the one to five kilos range, and the smallest units can be carried in containers using strap-down techniques. A night-time electro-optical target-acquisition module (TORCH) may be fitted.

A feature of the LM is the low maintenance cycle requirement of the IRAN type (Inspect and Repair As Necessary) supplemented by an occasional wipedown with an oily rag. The CACS features limited self-repair capability and normally requires no maintenance, but efficiency becomes degraded unless placed in stand-by mode at regular intervals.

PAPS LMs are small, highly mobile and hardened, so enemy countermeasures concentrate on the CACS, which is larger and more vulnerable. The heart of the CACS is a bionic TADS (Target Acquisition and Designation System) which is highly sophisticated, capable of rapidly evaluating multiple threat priorities, and totally immune to ECM. The primary sensor for the CACS is an OLGS (Optical Location/Guidance System) with ATPW (Aural Threat Proximity Warning) backup. The CACS features limited autonomous mobility aided by an on-board TGNS (Tactical Ground Navigation System) of variable efficiency. CEP (Circular Error Probable) is highly variable depending on LM design and CACS efficiency. Near misses can be effective, however, as the distinctive aural signature of the CAPAM may temporarily paralyse the efficiency of enemy CACS.

Problems with the CACS still to be satisfactorily resolved concern the programming, which is very time-consuming and inefficient. Programmes also gradually degrade in performance unless reloaded at intervals, and deteriorate quickly under chemical (alcohol) attack. In combat conditions CEP increases considerably and the CACS may revert to Blindfire or IHTHIHS (I Hope To Hell I Hit Something) mode, or in extreme cases may cease functioning.

In summary, by comparison with other missile systems PAPS offers high reliability, very low cost and ECM resistance. The design of the LM and CAPAM is now felt to be mature. CAPAMs are often interchangeable between different LMs and represent one of the few NATO standardisation success stories. CACS are even more flexible and can be integrated into many other weapon systems. In the right circumstances, they can even be self-replicating (although in some cases this may be undesirable). Efforts are now concentrated on improving CACS programming techniques.

The next article will consider another neglected weapon system, the USRAPS (Ultra Short Range Anti-Personnel System). This is completely solid state featuring direct interface with the CACS, short training time, 100% reliability and no maintenance. It is a true multi-role system suitable for vital secondary tasks such as opening letters and peeling potatoes.

HOME

[GSX]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Steve,

My points weren't aimed at you, just general observations on the thread.

What can be said about the M! can be said about almost MBT, used in the wrong way you'll get problems. Likewise the Stryker, or indeed anything else.

Personally I am a big fan of the concept of Intermediate forces for two reasons.

Firstly being in the UK I watched the Uk army effectively split in to two. It had the BAOR in the Germany which went from Chieftan and FV432 to Challenger Warrior, while the bulk of the rest was light Infantry with armoured landrovers being rotated out of Ireland.

This made real sense given the two dominant missions of the time but left us with a situation where for rapid deployment and a crisis or heavy stuff could be moved by air, and or light stuff was too bloody light.

If you look at current MOD plans and what has been done over the last 5-10 years in terms of aquiring equipment and changing structures then we are well on the way to creating forces to fill that gap and in many respects they mirror BCT and a Stryker force.

Secondly, and this is a birt Bizare,

For a good few years I've been a member of the SNP's ( Scottish National Party) defence working group, looking at what kind of army we would need ( and could staff and afford).

We strted with the existing infantry regiments and then one of Light armour, Engineers and Artillery, plus some form of Special forces. About 10,000 in all.

However over time I have come to think that having say an Artillery regiment of 700, and say 50men in evry infantry battalion with 81mm mortars isn't the way to go.

Given that I don't see a nation of Scotlands size needing Braveheart SP 155mm or MRSL;s and that 155mm towed artillery is vulnerable it would be better to take that total of 1,000 men and divid up.

We would have an artillery training unit as part of a training regiment and give every Infantry regiment an artillery company of it's own with 120mm vehicle mounted mortars.

Do that with Engineers and light Armour and mechanise your infantry with a common wheeled vehicle and you end up with a Scottish army post independence that would to all intemts and purposes be a Stryker Brigade.

It would probably never be deployed as such, more likely Regiments ( which would be more like perminant UK battlegroups) would be rotated in and out,

For a small european nation with no real domestic threat, but a committment to playing a rule with the UN and EU, then it seems to make pretty good sesne.

So you can see why I am quite keen on CM:SF, for me it's a sort of "Future Scottish Army" simulator.

Peter.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha and HA!

An independant Scots Army indeed, no one would bloody join it!

Sorry, this is a bit out of thread, but I fell off ma chair laughing at this..........

We would end up with a poor mans version of the Irish Army.

Thanks for the laugh though.....

[Sergei]

Originally posted by GSX:

We would end up with a poor mans version of the Irish Army.

Stingy man's version, don't you mean?

[Peter Cairns]

GSX

Try checking some figures, for more than 30 years with less than 10% of the UK population, Scotland has provided Close to 12.5% of UK uniformed manpower.

At the height of GW1, it was estimated that between 20-25% of UK Army manpower in the field were Scots.

It's not Just Scottish regiments, but throughout the British Army.

On current numbers od the 104,000 in the British Army, some 12,000 plus are Scots.

recruitment won't be a problem for Scotland, maintaining it's current size and meeting it's commitments will be for the UK....

Sergei

Your a bit closer, Scotlands share of the UK's £25bn defence budget would be around, £2.25bn, I can't honestly see the Scottish public forking out more than £2bn, and probably about £1.8bn.

There aren't pacifists it's just given the choice of Schools and hospitals and tanks and planes, they won't go for the planes.

Having said that as we don't need Trident, or Hunter killers, No aircraft carriers or assalt ships let alone type 45 frigates, and probably not something as sophisticated as Eurofighter, things could and should get better for the army.

Look at Steves figures, yu can probably buy three Strykers for am M1A2, so we could probably get four six wheeled APC's for the price of a challenger. If our share of the challenger fleet is about 35, thats enough to buy over 100 Strykers.

Our share of the Typhon buy is 20 aircraft at £60m each, in theory if the army got half of that because we went for a cheaper aircraft, that could buy us 500 Strykers, near enough to mechanise a six regiment army.

Peter.

[Lars]

But what do you need the Strykers for without a Navy?

Seems to me you'd be better off buying the assault ships and frigates.

[Peter Cairns]

To do what we don't face a Naval threat and we would only use assault ships once very few years, why buy them when we can charter sea lift or hitch a lift from someone bigger, Like I said, the UK France and the like can keep the big stuff.

For your average UN peacekeeping making operation we're not going to be storming the beaches.

look at Sierra Leon, we had a helicopter carrier wiyth Harriers that couldn't bomb anything and troops with nothing heavier than Landrovers. The people on the front line were under equiped to pay for aircraft that we couldn't use.

Peter.

[Lars]

Well, you've effectively just handed control of Scottish foreign policy to the English then. Ain't going anywhere without them. So why bother with a separate Army at all?

But, if you're serious about Scottish independence, look at sea shipping rates compared to air freight. The need for some sort of Navy becomes rather clear.

[Peter Cairns]

Lars

Not if you are only using it once every couple of years.

On a major long term deloyment like Bosnia, you replace the troops every six months, but most of the gear stays put. If you are replacing a Mech Bn with another you don't switch the vehicles, just the men.

Shipping rates are high, but are you really saying that the cost of shipping the equipment for a Bn to the adriatic costs more than the running costs (including crew) of a 12,000 ton transport for two years.

Hell if it cost that much the world economy would grind to a halt.

New Zealand is going for a three type fleet,

MRV( multi role vessel, that can carry troops),

OPV ( Off shore Patrol vessel under 2,000 ton)

and

IPV (In shore patrol vessel under 500 tonnes).

The difference is that they see themselves having a role ( including humanitarian and disaster relief) in the Southern Pacific with very few other allies to help.

Scotland is in Western Europe where we thankfully have few disasters ( ok their is the Scottish football team) and a whole set of close EU allies who already have this kind of capacity.

It's not just the UK, but also France, Italy and Spain. Turn to any of these nations and say " we'll cover the cost if you take us and if not we won't go" and they'll do it.

Look at it from their point of view, the cost may be higher, but if they were sitting in port they'd have to pay the cost of that. This way all costs are covered so they gain.

In addition if they don't take us and we don't go, what do they do, seen their own troops or just let it fester. It makes sense for small countries that want to make a contribution to use the excess capacity of the large countries who feel they need to have the capacity to independently intervene.

It also makes sense for the EU, as it stops small countries wasting resources on half sized compromised versions of things that we already have enough of.

If the UK won't take us others will, particularly the US. If Scotland was to offer troops for Dufar if the US carried them, the C-17's would be in the air within 48hrs, because the US wants something done, but doesn't want to ( or right now can't) send it own people in.

This way both sides win, we can play a part, and the US can get what it wants without putting GI's in the firing line. But It only works if we have partners and a shared interest.

That's a good thing as it stops us being somebodies Monkey, while stopping us trying to be Little Britain and bite of more than we can chew.

As a small country we have limitations, the key is making the best of them and not trying to be something we are not.

We would be a relatively rich country of 5m, not a big player of 60m like the UK. Thats not weak or bad, just different.

Peter.

[hellfish]

I can't believe you guys are seriously debating this.

[Lars]

My point was more, "What if you want to go and "they" won't let you"?

As I said before, I think a Navy would be more useful for Scotland than a Army. Transport the other sods.

[Peter Cairns]

They have to be just about every major nation in europe plus the Us, in which case you'd have to be pretty nuts to go.

The US can go to places like Iraq, without the UN or EU, but not the likes of Scotland, ( or Norway, or finland, or Denmark, or Austria),.

Small Western European nations just don't do it, unless they have some special need or mandate, usually ex colonial, which Scotland doesn't.

Besides given the kind of budget we'd have by the time we bought a couple of assault ships we'd have a pretty thread bare army, and then we'ed be back to Sierra Leon, being able to independantly transport a force that was too lightly and poorly equipped to do the job, which would be a bad idea.

Peter.

[flamingknives]

Hang on, weren't the troops sent to Sierra Leone Paras and Marines? Light infantry, whose heaviest vehicle is the Land Rover with WMIK anyway?

Last I looked, they'd done a pretty good job, with minimal losses and were currently only present as advisors and training staff. Would heavy armour have been useful in that situation?

I recall there being some complaints about the SA80A1, but what sort of small arm you carry doesn't really effect ease of deployment.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

They have to be just about every major nation in europe plus the Us, in which case you'd have to be pretty nuts to go.

The US can go to places like Iraq, without the UN or EU, but not the likes of Scotland, ( or Norway, or finland, or Denmark, or Austria),.

Small Western European nations just don't do it, unless they have some special need or mandate, usually ex colonial, which Scotland doesn't.

Besides given the kind of budget we'd have by the time we bought a couple of assault ships we'd have a pretty thread bare army, and then we'ed be back to Sierra Leon, being able to independantly transport a force that was too lightly and poorly equipped to do the job, which would be a bad idea.

Peter.

Which brings us right back to why have an independent Scottish Army?

All you've done is added an extra layer (or three) of paperpushers, and the first time you pick kit that's not in the standard buy, you've increase costs.