Strykers vs T-72s: Tactics?

[Bahger]

The manual points out that the Stryker MGS is not designed as an anti-armor platform; no $hit, $herlock. If it spots a T72 from across the map, it will engage it but will inevitably be destroyed in any exchange of frontal fire. It will not acknowledge its inferior defenses and withdraw into defilade but will slug it out, suicidally. I have no idea how to fight a Stryker batalion against T-72s. The MGS units may as well be kept out of the fight and I'm not sure which, if any, weapons carried by the ICV can be deployed against T-72s with any reasonable chance of success. This raises a persistent issue for me with the game: How can I maneuver my vehicles into hull-down positions? How can the player ever know if his vahicles are defiladed?

I don't think I'm going to select Strykers for open combat against Red armor any more. How on earth are they supposed to operate effectively in real life with such poor anti-armor capability? Is the only option to dismount the infantry with Javelins?? Bradleys do a lot better than Strykers against 1980s-era Russian armor. How's that for progress?

[birdstrike]

Strykers vs. tanks is a big no-no. That's not what they are designed to do (with the exception of the ATGM Stryker). MGS are capable to take out tanks, but they should only do so, if no other assets are available. Think of halftracks vs. tanks - it's just not the same league. I had some success with MGS against older soviet armor (like T-55), but the newer ones will chew you up (btw. they will only withdraw when their AP munitions has run out).

Bradleys are somewhat better because of their TOWs, but I would choose a real MBT over a Bradley any time when dealing with enemy armor.

If you have to deal with enemy tanks and only have a Stryker force available, use the Javelins, that's what they are there for. Dismount some soldiers for AT overwatch and keep the Strykers out of sight from the tanks, (unless you have ATGM Strykers) or can use MGS in an ambush role. Also use other assets in your inventory, such as air or artillery strikes.

[YankeeDog]

Well, preliminarily, it's apples to oranges to compare a Bradley to a Stryker. They're a totally different class; a Stryker weighs about 60% of what a Bradley weighs, so you shouldn't expect it to have the same combat capabilities, any more than you would expect a Bradley to have the same combat capabilities as an Abrams.

Your primary AT asset is indeed your Javelin teams; as single Stryker platoon carries enough to easily handle a company of T-72s. The other major AT asset you have is the Stryker TOWs. They're far more effective against enemy armor than the MGS, and one-on-one, a Stryker TOW can easily handle a T-72, as long it gets first shot.

Overall, Stryker formations do fine defending against enemy heavy armor. Where they're weak is in an open terrain, meeting engagement against enemy armor. But it's not really doctrinal to engage with them in this type of situation; that's what the heavy brigades are for.

[Bahger]

Very helpful info, gents, many thanks. YankeeDog, you may be amused to learn that it was indeed a battle in the open, a QB meeting engagement. I guess I can try agin, planning for dismounted anti-armor offense but it seems odd to be taking on a third-world military at such a basic disadvantage.

BTW, any advice about defilade?

[Sgt Joch]

RUN!!!....RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!! :eek:

Actually, the only viable and effective tactic is using your javelin armed dismounted infantry to deal with the enemy armour while your strykers remain out of LOS. It works very well on defence and is also a viable option on offence, if you are careful.

I have seen ATGM strykers and MGS take out syrian tanks, but that is a much more iffy proposition.

[jenrick]

Your MGS can successfully take out a T-72 with a frontal shot. The problem I have seen is that they shoot HEAT and HE rounds first, then APFSDS rounds. I set up a test scenario just to see how well the gun system worked. The 105mm gun on the MGS is basically the same gun that was mounted on the M1, which should be able to punch through everything from the T-72 and older when using good ammo. My test scenario was at 2K yards from a hull down position versus successive waves of enemy armor, each improving on the last (T-55, T-64, T-72, and so on).

The HEAT rounds work fine against the T-54/55 and T-64. Against a T-72 you'll likely only get a mobility kill. The annoying thing is that the MGS will fire in order: HEAT, HE, and finally APFSDS when engaging enemy tanks. I watched one of my MGS fire off it's last few HEAT rounds, then it's entire HE load at an immobilized T-72, before finally killing it with an APFSDS round. Brewed it up with on round from the direct front.

I haven't bothered to setup a scenario to let me get my MGS down to APFSDS rounds to test how they do against the newest Red tanks, but I imagine they aren't going to fair all that well. It also doesn't matter much, as in game they will fire the improper type of ammo anyway, unless they are down to APFSDS rounds only.

So with all that said, the advice everyone else has given is spot on. Don't use them to tank hunt, use them as assault guns. They are great for APC/IFV's (though I did lose one to a BMP 3 the other day in a shoot out, which makes me wonder) and for blasting bunkers and suspected enemy positions. I imagine if they would use the proper type of ammo, they would be a good long range light AT force, primarily of use against older MBT's.

Far as going hull down, I fervently wish that the waypoint gave you details of being HD/partial HD/etc. in the direction your looking before you set it. I hate have to jiggle the dang things back and forth a few yards to get it right every time.

-Jenrick

[Other Means]

jenrick can you re-run the test? If it works that way repeatedly I'll make a bug rep for it.

PM me if it does.

Cheers.

[jenrick]

NP, I'll do that right now actually. Was going to set up one where Red enters after 5 mins or so for the first wave so I can pop off all my HE rounds and see what happens when I've got APFSDS as my ready round.

-Jenrick

[Bahger]

jenrick can you re-run the test? If it works that way repeatedly I'll make a bug rep for it.

PM me if it does.

Cheers.

Yay! It would be great for well placed hull-down MGS to have some chance against enemy armor because they are using the appropriate ammo. It will make Stryker ops all the more enjoyable -- and realistic.

[jenrick]

Okay preliminary testing shows the following:

At the 2K range the MGS defaults to firing HEAT rounds no matter the target, T-55 through T-90. I haven't managed to get one to live long enough against a T-90 to see if it'll pop off HE or APFSD after that point.

The MGS HEAT rounds will one shot stop any T-55 or T-62. I need to do some more testing on the T-72's to check which variants are one shot kills and which are multiple rounds kills.

Now after looking at it, the TAC AI behavior makes a little more sense. The MGS has only roughly 20 rounds available, and the default load is 10 HE 6 HEAT and 2 APFSD. With such a limited supply of APFSD rounds it makes sense that HEAT would be the primary engagement round. I would think however that when the T-72 drives on after getting whacked, that you might break out that APFSD round.

I'll post further results tomorrow.

-Jenrick

[dima]

Okay preliminary testing shows the following:

At the 2K range the MGS defaults to firing HEAT rounds no matter the target, T-55 through T-90. I haven't managed to get one to live long enough against a T-90 to see if it'll pop off HE or APFSD after that point.

The MGS HEAT rounds will one shot stop any T-55 or T-62. I need to do some more testing on the T-72's to check which variants are one shot kills and which are multiple rounds kills.

Now after looking at it, the TAC AI behavior makes a little more sense. The MGS has only roughly 20 rounds available, and the default load is 10 HE 6 HEAT and 2 APFSD. With such a limited supply of APFSD rounds it makes sense that HEAT would be the primary engagement round. I would think however that when the T-72 drives on after getting whacked, that you might break out that APFSD round.

I'll post further results tomorrow.

-Jenrick

Jenrick, just a hint to make Stryker survive longer in your tests. Load you test mission as Head-to-Head game (2 player) and give T-72 a small Cover Arc command. This will prevent it from shooting at your Stryker.

[ThePhantom]

Try my scenario Contact Front scenario-

"In some rapid-response, rapid-deployment scenarios, a heavy

armor force would not be deployed to the theater of operations in

time to achieve U.S. objectives within the time scales desired by

theater combatant commanders."

This scenario will task a battalion Stryker force, with air support consisting of two groups of two Apache gunships and basic 120mm/81mm mortar support, to achieve multiple objectives, defend against a full enemy mechanized threat and be ready to continue the next phase of operations. If all of this can be achieved, the light infantry SBCT will become the main deployable force in modern warfare, the king of the battlefield.

Gentlemen, the Stryker brigade must be capable of engaging main battle tanks because they will be the first deployed in future conflicts. Their high level of battlefield awareness is bar none the best any military has ever had. Any enemy formation that goes up against the SBCT better have more than just MBT’s or they will be “smoked” before they even know what’s happening.

[cmfan]

Could the fact that APSFD rounds, like all KE rounds, loose a good deal of their effectiveness at extreme ranges be a factor in the AI selecting them? In other words, could the AI be choosing to use HEAT in your tests because at 2K they are indeed more effective than KE rounds? How far are the threat tanks once they are engaged by APSFD rounds? Just a thought.

[Other Means]

jenrick, I've raised a report on it. I guess it's not as clear cut as you'd think at first look but that's not to say something shouldn't be tweaked.

[SgtMuhammed]

cmfan,

2k is well within short to point blank range for the 105mm Sabot so that shouldn't be a factor.

Phantom,

The Stryker Company IS able to defeat any threat on the battlefield IF used properly. Remember, the Stryker is TRANSPORT with a very secondary role as fire support. The main striking and defensive power of the company (and the SBCT as a whole) is the infantry. Deployed in good positions with their Javelins and supported by Air and Arty for the deep fight. The organic AT vehicles should be used as fire support vs infantry and to hold flanks and to act as a QRF against a serious armor threat. Different units require entirely different ways of thinking.

With the MGS, one thing to consider is that once a round is loaded it is a major pain in the rear to change it for another one unless you fire it. The gun is likely to have HEAT up because it is a more versitile round and can kill a vanilla T72 at any range. Plus it is much more effective against softer targets where a Sabot (APFSDS) round might just blow through the target without killing it. So the progression would most likely be, HEAT, AP, if facing a tank. That's how it would most likely be in real world engagements unless the crew were instructed to have a silver bullet loaded. So the game seems to be getting the initial round in the chamber correct but failing on the subsequent rounds.

[John Kettler]

jenrick,

I would NOT expect 105mm HEAT to get a frontal kill on a T-72, especially considering we spent billions in a crash program to field HEAT munitions which would, using things like a TOW 2 with standoff probe and a new 6" diameter warhead with dual trumpet design DU liners. As of 1985 or so, the U.S. concluded that nothing in our HEAT inventory save the Hellfire and the monstrous (173 lb. warhead) Maverick could get a frontal kill on a T-72, especially with ERA fitted. TOW 2 was part of our get well program.

I think you have a valid gripe, but it reminds me of the wails from the players clear back to CMBO about making the AI fire "T"/APCR/HVAP/PzGr40/Arrowhead against otherwise unkillable targets engaged frontally. The loadout on that was minuscule, too,

and loud were the howls from those whose tanks died while the AI tried what manifestly wouldn't work. Good luck!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sgt Joch]

The MGS ammo may be an issue, although in cases where I have seen the MGS fire the first shot, it usually gets the kill.

The bigger problem is that the MGS in game is nearly blind, so that it rarely gets the all important first shot.

The MGS is not an anti-armour vehicle, it is there to provide fire support to the SBCT dismounted infantry.

Your Javelin team is your designated tank killer.

[Darkmage]

I always found the MGS had a problem spotting enemy units. Is that how the MGS performs in the field or is a problem in CMSF? I thought it would be bristling with all kinds of high-tech sensors etc..

[Sgt Joch]

I always found the MGS had a problem spotting enemy units. Is that how the MGS performs in the field or is a problem in CMSF? I thought it would be bristling with all kinds of high-tech sensors etc..

apparently, it is like that in real life as well.

[Darkmage]

apparently, it is like that in real life as well.

oops.. bit of a flop then...

Seems the whole stryker concept didn't really work out.

[jenrick]

The wife's computer went down, and as she runs her business from the house my machine is currently not a gaming rig at the moment. I managed to sneak on here for a bit though. I'm going to try to sneak some more testing in later this afternoon/evening if possible though.

Initial thoughts on things:

I agree the MGS system should have a HEAT round as the round in the pipe for the reason's listed above. I'm curious if it's an TAC AI logic bug or something a little more insidious. If a HEAT round CAN get a first round head-on kill on a base model T-72, is the TAC AI that wrong for hammering HEAT rounds into a T-72 repeatedly? It's got 3 times as many to try to get a good kill with. I'd prefer to see the crew switch to a APFSDS round as the second round out, but I can sorta see the logic of keeping that in reserve for something like a late model T-72 or a T-90. I haven't seen a repeat yet of the HE before APFSDS issue that I saw previously, but I haven't had a red tank be a mobility kill and sit there and be hit repeatedly again yet either though.

The MGS does have spotting issues compared to an Abrams of whatever variant. Not sure why, I'm going to do some research on the MGS system to see exactly what kind of SA tools the commander/gunner should have to work with. The MGS also seems to have gunnery issues as well. I know a stationary Abrams in a hull down position at 2K yards is going to have 95%+ chance of first round hit. The MGS seems to be averaging around 85% or so (haven't bothered to count and do math, just looking it at), currently. Am I making an incorrect assumption that the MGS doesn't have a FCS similar to the original M1 at a minimum?

Far as a HEAT kill on T-72 frontally, my data indicates that a frontal hull hit on an early model T-72 should have a reasonable chance of success with modern HEAT munitions. Now start throwing on ERA, and upgrading the armor and there shouldn't be a chance of anything other then a mobility kill.

Well if nothing else this has turned into an interesting look at capabilities of the platform.

-Jenrick

[Sgt Joch]

we have to remember the MGS was designed to be a mobile gun platform to support a SBCT.

It was designed to carry a 105mm gun to provide quick direct fire support to the SBCT dismounts; based on a stryker platform, so it could be deployed as quickly and benefit from the advantages of a common platform.

In game, it should be held behind the front line, to be able to provide quick direct fire support to clean up bunkers, buildings, trench lines, vehicles, etc; In that role it works quite well.

The Abrams has better sensors because it was designed to be able to kill the best enemy tanks in the world, the MGS was not.

[SgtMuhammed]

The MGS was designed to work within the sensor and commo net of the SBCT so it is supposed to benefit from kind of a hive mind type thing. I think that was supposed to make up for any shortcomings in the individual vehicle sensor package.

I've never been in one though so I can't really say how good they are supposed to be able to see.

[dan/california]

They made a fundamental mistake with the MGS, it should have been a 105mm howitzer or a breach loading 120mm mortar. Either would have been far better at its actual job, and probably allowed for a lot more ammo as well.

[Chelco]

oops.. bit of a flop then...

Seems the whole stryker concept didn't really work out.

And what was the whole Stryker concept?

Kinda of a rethoric question dude, I'm not trying to pick a fight.