Strykers vs T-72s: Tactics?

[jenrick]

So did some more testing with suprising results.

A MGS CAN one shot kill to the front ANY Syrian tank in the game with a HEAT round. I had a pair of T-90's destroyed with one HEAT round each within about a second of each other. Admittedly the other two T-90's then took the rest of the HEAT and APFSDS rounds without even a mobility kill. Dumb luck does happen, but sure surprised the heck out of me.

Onto the whole HE before APFSDS issue that spawned all this testing. I saw it reoccur twice with what seemed a repeatable condition. Both times the enemy tank (a mobility kill already in both cases) was being targeted. Just prior to firing the tank moves from spotted to a possible contact ("?" icon). The MGS then fired a HE round, soon as the tank was back to a spotted contact, it engaged it with a HEAT round. Saw this happen twice. Now does the engine track what round is loaded, or does it just pick what the TAC AI thinks is appropriate and fires it? In the grand scheme of things it's not going to be much different, but if that's the case I can see a couple of situations where things like this crop up.

So after killing a bunch of red force tanks, a MGS can one shot kill anything in the Syrian inventory if it gets lucky. Reliably it can do so all the way up to and including a basic T-72. However if you really want to be safe only the T-54/T-55's (regardless of model) never survived a hit. Had multiple occasions where a T-64 (don't recall the exact) took multiple HEAT or APFSDS rounds before it went down.

After doing some research on the MGS, I've established there's not nearly as much published data as on other pieces of US hardware. The bits and pieces I scavenged though seem to indicate that at least a stationary MGS should have a very high (comparable to the Abrams) chance of first round hits. Which it currently is not displaying. Most of what I read also seems to indicate that it should be fairly close to an Abrams even while on the move.

Far as tactics using the MGS, as noted, don't use them to hunt tanks. A Javelin can and will destroy any red force tank in only one shot, barring some very bad luck. A MGS can destroy any red force tank in only one shot, only with some really good luck. A MGS has the ability to put down a lot of HE fire onto enemy trenches and buildings very quickly, were as a Javelin squad as model isn't real useful for anything other then vehicle killing (which is does very well). Your MGS can provide over watch against a primarly infantry force, or against a force that has no MBT's and do so effectively. If you're not sure if the OPFOR has MBT's then dismount a javelin team or two to provide over watch, or use the ATGM vehicles to provide that overwatch. Treat your MGS as a super long range SMAW, that happens to be vehicle mounted and you wont be to far off.

I completely agree with Dan/california that the MGS should have something other then it's current gun configuration for direct fire support. If a vehicle has a weapon system that theoretically can be used for something, it's a sure fire bet someone will try it rather then be smart enough to get the heck out of the way and let someone better equipped do it.

-Jenrick

[Darkmage]

And what was the whole Stryker concept?

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

I thought the concept was to have an air mobile force that could deploy quickly to combat zones and hold their own until 'heavy' support arrived? I'm pretty sure that because they've had to put all that cage armour on strykers, now they're too heavy to be deployed by air as originally planned. Also as you can see the MGS isn't the best vehicle going with its spotting problems etc..

[Sgt Joch]

I suspect the gun choice on the MGS, as well as the limited ammo, was dictated by size and weight restrictions since the SBCT is supposed to be air deployable in 96 hours.

[SgtMuhammed]

Personally I think the MGS is a piece of crap. A combat vehicle designed by a committee. They could have removed that silly autoloader and stuck a crewman back there and filled the back with rounds. Worried about weight? Spread the rounds around during transport.

Even better, use a low velocity cannon as suggested by Dan and strap a Javelin lancher on the top of the turret for Anti-armor work. (I am amazed that every vehicle in the army doesn't have a Javelin strapped to the top.) They would have saved a ton of weight because they wouldn't need such a heavy recoil mechanism. I suspect the choice of cannon had more to do with branch rivalries rather than mission considerations. They weren't going to give a mobile gun to the infantry, and if you stick a low velocity cannon on it then it would have probably been manned by gun bunnies rather than tread heads. Since the clankers got it there was no way they were going to put a wimpy low velocity cannon on it.

[c3k]

My own opinion is that a low velocity weapon would be better suited to direct HE support of infantry. In that regard, and for ammo commonality, I would've thought a breech loading 120mm mortar would've been great. Of course, against any armor that choice could be somewhat lacking. Perhaps the 105mm was the least worse compromise solution?

Ken

[YankeeDog]

My own opinion is that a low velocity weapon would be better suited to direct HE support of infantry. In that regard, and for ammo commonality, I would've thought a breech loading 120mm mortar would've been great. Of course, against any armor that choice could be somewhat lacking. Perhaps the 105mm was the least worse compromise solution?

Ken

AIUI, the 105mm was selected basically because it's what the Pentagon had lying around in the closet, ready for use. The entire weapons system was kind of frankensteined together out of existing systems and prototypes.

I competely agree that a lower velocity, lighter weight weapon would have been a much better choice. Ideal would be one capable of firing a breech-loaded ATGM for back-up AT use. Weapon system on the BMP-3 is a perfect example.

For the record, I think the BMP-3 has some other weaknesses, but the 30mm autocannon/low-velocity 100mm with ATGM capability is an ideal weapon for infantry close support, IMHO.

[Sgt Joch]

There are rumors that the 105 mm gun was chosen simply because General Dynamics, which manufactures the Strykers, had the rights to that gun.

The gun has caused all sorts of problems however, since it was never designed to be placed on such a light chassis.

[jenrick]

A low velocity cannon firing a good HEAT round would have provided a similar anti-vehicle capability, with a much increased utility for general infantry support. Having the sucker be able to provide indirect fire support in addition would have been great, but not something I see foresee ever happening. I imagine the MGS will go down like the original M-60 and the Shillelagh, not necessarily a totally flawed idea, but definitely unworkable.

-Jenrick

[Elmar Bijlsma]

There are rumors that the 105 mm gun was chosen simply because General Dynamics, which manufactures the Strykers, had the rights to that gun.

I'm putting my money on the US arsenals being filled with 105.