Jump to content


Photo

$5 Million To Put A 30Mm Gun Turret On Stryker

Stryker 30mm gun turret

  • Please log in to reply
416 replies to this topic

#41 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,684 posts

Posted 21 October 2015 - 0639 AM

I think the US Army should just buy Boxers and Pumas and call it good. Plus, they look quite impressive :D


  • 0

#42 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,814 posts

Posted 21 October 2015 - 0849 AM

It's really not a question of what toys you issue to play with but the strategy. Even the FRG did not want to play the game of fighting them at the border, but opted for a mobile defense from the outset.

 

No, the terrain does not favor a standup fight, which is wasteful anyway. One needs to let the Rus move in, revealing their LOCs and hit them hard once their main efforts are established. If the Baltic can become a NATO lake, a significant challenge in itself, then our LOC will be secure, even if we are broken through in a sector. This will become more important if the White Russians opt for the dark side.

 

I'm not sure whose grenadiers will be quite so willing to die for Estonia, but it can all be won back if nobody gets itchy and tries a counteroffensive too soon.

 

All this is conventional warfare talk in any case, and perhaps we will have to study more the slippery kind of non-war that took place lately in the Crimea and E. Ukraine. The invaded NATO country will have to declare itself under siege, not dealing with an internal insurrection, I suspect. I wonder to what extent the NATO Treaty has been looked at for these kinds of things? I for one have not kept up with it since the 90s.


  • 0

#43 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,814 posts

Posted 21 October 2015 - 0851 AM

The Bear is not what it used to be? Recommend you take a look at Uncle Sam compared to 1988.


  • 0

#44 tankerwanabe

tankerwanabe

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,504 posts

Posted 21 October 2015 - 1058 AM

Seems to me that the intent of sending a Stryker brigade is a pony show more than anything. Then someone suggested that the Strykers don't look like "tanks" without a turret. Someone else said even with a turret, it's still not a tank. And the response was that civilians can't tell the difference.
  • 0

#45 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,457 posts

Posted 21 October 2015 - 1255 PM

Armor of any sort is far better than soft skinned vehicles and dismounts. Light armor just has it's own level of resistance to incoming fire. The ability to ignore some fire, especially low accuracy mortar and long range machine/cannon fire and exit the impact zone quickly is useful and makes a difference between some minor casualties and damage and significant mission killing casualties. 


  • 0

#46 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,279 posts

Posted 21 October 2015 - 1503 PM

Seems to me that the intent of sending a Stryker brigade is a pony show more than anything. Then someone suggested that the Strykers don't look like "tanks" without a turret. Someone else said even with a turret, it's still not a tank. And the response was that civilians can't tell the difference.

 

The 1st point is to make clear that we are going to make sure the 2nd ACR has some teeth and will not be simply slapped aside.  Mounting Javelin ATGMs on some of the Strykers reinforces the point.  The result will be force that, while it can't threaten offensive action, will be able to inflict notable losses on the units that attack it.

 

Moreover, even a light force by a major power would render a "Polite Green Men" operation impossible.  An Armor Cavalry Regiment will have enough combat power to squash unsupported infantry, even if said infantry are elite.  They would also stand a good chance of defeating other medium-strength combatants such as the BTR-82A.  The only way to ensure victory would be for Russia to commit MBTs and BMPs, likely with artillery support, and doing that would not be an attack that could be presented as "volunteers aiding oppressed locals".

 

Seen that way, better armed Strykers at the core of the 2nd ACR will raise the "minimum bet" for any aggressive action by Russia.  A properly positioned and armed force can make Russia go in big or not attack at all.


  • 0

#47 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,698 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 0821 AM

 

Seems to me that the intent of sending a Stryker brigade is a pony show more than anything. Then someone suggested that the Strykers don't look like "tanks" without a turret. Someone else said even with a turret, it's still not a tank. And the response was that civilians can't tell the difference.

 

The 1st point is to make clear that we are going to make sure the 2nd ACR has some teeth and will not be simply slapped aside.  Mounting Javelin ATGMs on some of the Strykers reinforces the point.  The result will be force that, while it can't threaten offensive action, will be able to inflict notable losses on the units that attack it.

 

Moreover, even a light force by a major power would render a "Polite Green Men" operation impossible.  An Armor Cavalry Regiment will have enough combat power to squash unsupported infantry, even if said infantry are elite.  They would also stand a good chance of defeating other medium-strength combatants such as the BTR-82A.  The only way to ensure victory would be for Russia to commit MBTs and BMPs, likely with artillery support, and doing that would not be an attack that could be presented as "volunteers aiding oppressed locals".

 

Seen that way, better armed Strykers at the core of the 2nd ACR will raise the "minimum bet" for any aggressive action by Russia.  A properly positioned and armed force can make Russia go in big or not attack at all.

 

 

No such thing in the US Army today.

 

Only Brigade sized manuver units (BCT) are Armor, Infantry, Stryker.

 

Closest thing is RSTA squadrons which is not armored cav.


Edited by Paul G., 22 October 2015 - 0822 AM.

  • 0

#48 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,698 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 0854 AM

I must admit I found it pretty strange looking at the BCT TOE recently and realised that Armour and Mechanised infantry Battalions didnt really exist anymore.  Doesnt make much sense to me, but I cant say the present day British Army establishment commends itself to me any better either.

 

Right.  Wait 5 years it will change back. The US Army loves to tinker. Stability = weakness...or so it seems.


  • 0

#49 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,279 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 0914 AM

 

 

Seems to me that the intent of sending a Stryker brigade is a pony show more than anything. Then someone suggested that the Strykers don't look like "tanks" without a turret. Someone else said even with a turret, it's still not a tank. And the response was that civilians can't tell the difference.

 

The 1st point is to make clear that we are going to make sure the 2nd ACR has some teeth and will not be simply slapped aside.  Mounting Javelin ATGMs on some of the Strykers reinforces the point.  The result will be force that, while it can't threaten offensive action, will be able to inflict notable losses on the units that attack it.

 

Moreover, even a light force by a major power would render a "Polite Green Men" operation impossible.  An Armor Cavalry Regiment will have enough combat power to squash unsupported infantry, even if said infantry are elite.  They would also stand a good chance of defeating other medium-strength combatants such as the BTR-82A.  The only way to ensure victory would be for Russia to commit MBTs and BMPs, likely with artillery support, and doing that would not be an attack that could be presented as "volunteers aiding oppressed locals".

 

Seen that way, better armed Strykers at the core of the 2nd ACR will raise the "minimum bet" for any aggressive action by Russia.  A properly positioned and armed force can make Russia go in big or not attack at all.

 

 

No such thing in the US Army today.

 

Only Brigade sized manuver units (BCT) are Armor, Infantry, Stryker.

 

Closest thing is RSTA squadrons which is not armored cav.

 

 

I've been hearing the 2nd Cav still called "Armored Cavalry" and its listed as a "Regiment" not as a "Brigade".  So I'm sorry if got the terminology wrong.

 

But even if we just think in terms of standard Stryker Brigades, the utility of the autocannon and missile armed units remains clear: They give the unit the firepower needed to fight their Russian counterparts and win, thus requiring Russia to commit heavy forces if it wants to undertaken offensive action with a likelihood of success.


  • 0

#50 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,698 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 0921 AM

 

 

 

Seems to me that the intent of sending a Stryker brigade is a pony show more than anything. Then someone suggested that the Strykers don't look like "tanks" without a turret. Someone else said even with a turret, it's still not a tank. And the response was that civilians can't tell the difference.

 

The 1st point is to make clear that we are going to make sure the 2nd ACR has some teeth and will not be simply slapped aside.  Mounting Javelin ATGMs on some of the Strykers reinforces the point.  The result will be force that, while it can't threaten offensive action, will be able to inflict notable losses on the units that attack it.

 

Moreover, even a light force by a major power would render a "Polite Green Men" operation impossible.  An Armor Cavalry Regiment will have enough combat power to squash unsupported infantry, even if said infantry are elite.  They would also stand a good chance of defeating other medium-strength combatants such as the BTR-82A.  The only way to ensure victory would be for Russia to commit MBTs and BMPs, likely with artillery support, and doing that would not be an attack that could be presented as "volunteers aiding oppressed locals".

 

Seen that way, better armed Strykers at the core of the 2nd ACR will raise the "minimum bet" for any aggressive action by Russia.  A properly positioned and armed force can make Russia go in big or not attack at all.

 

 

No such thing in the US Army today.

 

Only Brigade sized manuver units (BCT) are Armor, Infantry, Stryker.

 

Closest thing is RSTA squadrons which is not armored cav.

 

 

I've been hearing the 2nd Cav still called "Armored Cavalry" and its listed as a "Regiment" not as a "Brigade".  So I'm sorry if got the terminology wrong.

 

But even if we just think in terms of standard Stryker Brigades, the utility of the autocannon and missile armed units remains clear: They give the unit the firepower needed to fight their Russian counterparts and win, thus requiring Russia to commit heavy forces if it wants to undertaken offensive action with a likelihood of success.

 

 

In name only. Not just terminology but in doctrine. Cavalry exists in mission a the battalion level (RSTA Squadrons) but even in the ABCT (M3A3) it is primarily ISR role.

 

Strykers are potentally autocannoned armed units at this point. Even then Im not sure all the Strykers will have the 30mm.  They are still motorized infantry brigades and their primary role is as APCs.  Their main anti armor capability resides in the MGS, TOW and Javalin.


Edited by Paul G., 22 October 2015 - 0924 AM.

  • 0

#51 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,457 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 0948 AM

The gap that I see is the Recce units for Stryker Brigade Combat teams is that  they cannot perform counter Recce. 

Stryker_RV_front_q.jpg


  • 0

#52 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,698 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 0954 AM

The gap that I see is the Recce units for Stryker Brigade Combat teams is that  they cannot perform counter Recce. 

 

 

That is where I primarily see the 30mm Strykers going as the only real anti-armor capability they have there is the Javalin.

 

51 in a BCT.


Edited by Paul G., 22 October 2015 - 0955 AM.

  • 0

#53 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 1251 PM


The gap that I see is the Recce units for Stryker Brigade Combat teams is that  they cannot perform counter Recce. 

 

 
That is where I primarily see the 30mm Strykers going as the only real anti-armor capability they have there is the Javalin.
 
51 in a BCT.
Isn't there a TOW-launching variant of the Stryker, too?

Edit: yep, M1134 https://en.m.wikiped...Missile_Vehicle

Edited by 2805662, 22 October 2015 - 1604 PM.

  • 0

#54 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,073 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 1445 PM

 

 

 

I thought all the M3s were being converted to M2s?


  • 0

#55 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,837 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 2034 PM

The combat power of the Stryker units largely resides in their infantry.  And as we see in the ME, solid troops with ATGM's can defend very well.  S/F.....Ken M


  • 0

#56 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,868 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 2122 PM

Hope so, I couldn't see a lot wrong with the old layout. BCT, I can see the logic of. Having combined arms battalions to me makes little sense unless you are moving to get rid of them and move to a common hulled force. Which seems decades away, if ever.


Makes perfect sense. The MBT and IFV are to be employed together working in concert. Easier to train imho when the vehicles are permantly mixed in units to build better unit cohesion and have more training together. Sweden and a few others toy around with this as well. Heck, the old armored cav regiments were mixed. And soviet regiments of course also had integrated units of infantry and armour.
 Keeping the units neatly separated seems more like an administrative vestige.

Stryker BCT looks fairly sensible, even if I think they have the wrong vehicle for the role.


Has to fit C-130. Has to fit C-130. Has to fit C-130. ...
Was the mantra.
  • 0

#57 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,457 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 2316 PM

The combat power of the Stryker units largely resides in their infantry.  And as we see in the ME, solid troops with ATGM's can defend very well.  S/F.....Ken M

If your recce units bump into red force recce units, what then? Break contact with smoke if possible and get infantry up to a point to try and ambush the enemy recce? You have to stop and deploy infantry to have any sort of combat power with that single aspect of firepower invested just in the dismounts. I can get that for the line units but for the recon elements seems like they're terribly light. 


Edited by rmgill, 22 October 2015 - 2317 PM.

  • 0

#58 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 2350 PM

If your recce units bump into red force recce units, what then? Break contact with smoke if possible and get infantry up to a point to try and ambush the enemy recce? You have to stop and deploy infantry to have any sort of combat power with that single aspect of firepower invested just in the dismounts. I can get that for the line units but for the recon elements seems like they're terribly light. 


Advance with overwatch provided by the ATGM (TOW) Strykers. 2km bound leapfrog or caterpillar. Why 2km? Advance half the effective range of the element providing overwatch.

Edited by 2805662, 22 October 2015 - 2351 PM.

  • 0

#59 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,814 posts

Posted 23 October 2015 - 0024 AM

Recce works best by stealth, contact is usually reported and broken, if possible. The old [ROAD period] ACR was designed primarily for the recce in force mission, a regiment operating in advance of a corps. Recce at Bn-Division level is something else.

 

In this case as in other forms of combat, it is not a weapon for weapon exchange. That's for 1st person shooter gaming, not real military operations. Combine arms works day and night now and comms is no longer a matter of luck.

 

I know we are hung on getting AFV tech data down pat, but it must not be mistaken for doctrine nor tactical proficiency. What KenM posted above is a case of clear professional thinking.

 

When the army first deployed a Stryker Bde to Iraq, c.2004-5, the Army PR boasted that it was being sent because the 'Stryker is ideally suited for urban combat.' Some things remain inexplicable.


  • 0

#60 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,698 posts

Posted 23 October 2015 - 0747 AM

 

 

The gap that I see is the Recce units for Stryker Brigade Combat teams is that  they cannot perform counter Recce. 

 

 
That is where I primarily see the 30mm Strykers going as the only real anti-armor capability they have there is the Javalin.
 
51 in a BCT.
Isn't there a TOW-launching variant of the Stryker, too?

Edit: yep, M1134 https://en.m.wikiped...Missile_Vehicle

 

 

I should have been more clear.  There are 9x ICV-ATGM in the Stryker BCT, all in the AT Co, none in the Recon Squadron.  The only anti-armor weapon they have for counter-recon is the Javalin.


Edited by Paul G., 23 October 2015 - 0753 AM.

  • 0