"Never Bring a Stryker to a Tank Fight" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleUseful 3D models for concrete barriers.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 02 May 2017 9:34 p.m. PST |
"Any armchair Patton will tell you that it's not a good idea to use a Stryker formation against a tank formation. But in a recent article for the Modern War Institute, Capt. Andrew Gregory argues that adding a 30-millimeter cannon to the Stryker would make it a more lethal weapon system—an upgrade he says is made necessary by changes in the contemporary operating environment. While he notes that the up-gunned Stryker still shouldn't be used to directly engage armored formations, his argument is short of convincing. The reality is the Stryker was not designed to trade shots at distance with an enemy armored force, and by adding a 30-millimeter cannon it will only create a false sense of security and encourage commanders to do just that. What is a Stryker? The Stryker is an eight-wheeled armored vehicle that, along with the black beret, was an initiative brought forth by former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki. Initially called the interim armored vehicle it was intended to be a bridge between the combat vehicles of the time and a future combat system that never came to fruition. The Army made a clear distinction from the M2 Bradley, which is designated an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) by designating the Stryker's most common variant as an Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV). The difference between an IFV and an ICV seems subtle at first, but their use in doctrine could not be further apart. The Bradley was designed to fight through to an objective, only dismounting its small number of infantry once it arrived. Infantry, however, is not the priority with the Bradley. This made it a good vehicle to fight alongside M1 Abrams Tanks. The Stryker on the other hand has a different job entirely…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
emckinney | 02 May 2017 11:11 p.m. PST |
Why didn't the A-6 have a gun? The navy didn't want some idiot bomber pilot strafing anything … or, worse yet, dogfighting. |
soledad | 03 May 2017 12:04 a.m. PST |
Can only agree. The Striker is a lightly armored taxi. It cannot fight. Just like the M113 it is supposed to transport soldiers who dismount and fight, not fight by itself. Especially not against tanks or IFV:s. |
Gaz0045 | 03 May 2017 1:14 a.m. PST |
Go the whole hog and stick the Swedish 40mm on it….. link |
Tired Mammal | 03 May 2017 5:01 a.m. PST |
Just would make it more expensive, harder to maintain, more spares to lug about and an infantry man would be lost to become a gunner. If these units need this sort of support give them the proper vehicles for that mission or use somebody else. |
Cosmic Reset | 03 May 2017 5:15 a.m. PST |
Several thoughts: If doctrine dictates that the Stryker not be used like a tank, why are officers trying to use them like tanks in training exercises? Have they not been taught doctrine, or are they just idiots? Since tanks, which are generally designed to destroy tanks, tend to carry 100mm and larger ANTI-TANK guns, why would anybody, particularly those extensively trained by the Army, and particularly in the use of the Stryker, believe that a 30mm cannon is sufficient to destroy tanks. Refer back to my "idiot" question above. Given the proliferation of anti-tank missiles on the battlefield, particularly those with a range of 2000ish meters, and that can and are being carried by light and irregular infantry, why would anyone think that arming a Stryker, which by doctrine is used to cover it's infantry with it's main weapon, think that giving it an weapon that has half of the range of weapons likely to be encountered and specifically deployed to kill it, would be a good idea? Since we know that tactics and doctrine never evolve, we can expect that the Stryker will never be asked to perform beyond or outside of it's originally intended doctrinal envelope. Except maybe in training exercises. Why are they talking about adding a 30mm gun to the Stryker? Wouldn't that be somewhat impractical, and create unnecessary and extra logistical tail as opposed to putting the 25mm chain gun on them and supporting it? Can the Stryker really carry a larger cannon and ammo without impairing it's ability to adequately house it's infantry squad? The 30mm may not be a good idea, nor the best weapon in this application, but this particular argument sort of strikes me as being equally valid as the argument not to give troops automatic weapons, because they will waste ammo. |
Tango01 | 03 May 2017 10:37 a.m. PST |
Good points!. Amicalement Armand
|
Lion in the Stars | 03 May 2017 11:34 a.m. PST |
A friend of mine, a Stryker officer, says that the Stryker doesn't need a 30mm, it needs something big enough to destroy obstacles on the battlefield. Which is probably at least a 50mm, if not much bigger. And that big freaking gun should be on every truck. Basically, something close to the MGS, but that actually works. Doesn't need to be the huge/long 105mm, could be a low-pressure 90mm or something odd like the WW2 vintage PAW600, which was basically a direct-firing, breech-loaded mortar. The way to prevent such a vehicle from being used as an ad-hoc tank and getting blown to hell is to only issue a couple AT rounds and all the HE. |
zoneofcontrol | 03 May 2017 2:36 p.m. PST |
Couldn't they just buy some Merkavas from the IDF? Or adapt the M109 turret to fit the M113 body? I feel the stirrings of the movie, "The Pentagon Wars 2: The Second One." |
Lion in the Stars | 04 May 2017 6:15 a.m. PST |
Not Invented Here for the Merkava, and I doubt that the M109 turret would be stable on an M113 chassis. My idea was an HEP round for the 50x330mm Supershot in a Bushmaster III gun. But I'm not sure that the 50mm shell packs enough explosive to be really usable for the purpose. Even the Wehrmacht went with 75mm guns for HE-chucking, after all, but maybe modern explosives will work better. The PAW600 is an 81mm mortar, direct-firing a custom HEAT round, as well as any other 8cm mortar round. Doesn't have as much elevation as an actual mortar, but could chuck that 8cm HE shell 6km. |
|