Strykers? In *MY* Twilight:2000? It's less likely than you think.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

**************************
*Click here for a free check-up!*
**************************

I like the Stryker...but I also like the F35, the F22, electromagnetic catapults and the FN/SCAR. I just don't see them as being in "my" T2k game...universe...as I don't have a real game, but anyway...

I think the stuff the Stryker is currently being tasked to do or expanded to do, the LAV would've gotten the nod - the AGS, for example. Your thoughts? Or have we had this discussion too many times?

[Legbreaker]

When did the Stryker enter service?
My (uninformed) guess is post 1997 so in a V1 or 2.x, it's just not going to happen.
There's also the whole doctrine thing. The Cold War called for heavier units able to stand up to the punishment a Pact offensive could deal out, while the Stryker concept was born from the cake walk of the two Iraq invasions and other post cold war events.

[Raellus]

In my T2KU (v1.0 Timeline/alternate universe), the LAV-25 gets the Stryker's job as the Army's wheeled APC. There's even a LAV-25 hull mounted with a reduced pressure 90mm gun in the v1.0 U.S. Vehicle Guide (page 32). They call it the MPGS-90.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Raellus

In my T2KU (v1.0 Timeline/alternate universe), the LAV-25 gets the Stryker's job as the Army's wheeled APC. There's even a LAV-25 hull mounted with a reduced pressure 90mm gun in the v1.0 U.S. Vehicle Guide (page 32). They call it the MPGS-90.

Oh yeah, that's right! I'd wager the LAV could handle the MGS's automated turret with the 105.

[natehale1971]

In my setting, the Strykers are amphibous (as are all of the variants)... and used by light mechanized units.

Web's idea of specialized units is something i've talked about as well.. namely units that fill Peacekeeper and nation-building roles.

Of course my setting's post-twilight world had the brigade combat teams carrying on the divisional linage and heritages... so it's alot easier for specialized units to be created, and allows for alot more flexiblty in setting up your taskforce/battlegroup (aka Corps).

I just can't decide if the new Brigade Combat Teams that are carrying the legacies of the Infantry, Cavalry and Armor Divisions forward should be led by a Colonel or a Brigadier General. The British Army, the Brigade Combat Teams are commanded by a Brigadier or course..

[Targan]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

In my setting, the Strykers are amphibous (as are all of the variants)... and used by light mechanized units.

It has always seemed strange to me that the Strykers lost the LAV-25's amphibious capabilities. Can anyone provide any specific info on what caused the loss of that capability, or perhaps more relevant to Nate's post, what it would take to return amphibious capabilities to the Stryker?

I guess what I'm saying is, in your universe Nate would such a vehicle still really be a Stryker? Would it perhaps make more sense to say the vehicles being used in your universe are US-produced LAV-25s with some or all of the Stryker's features?

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Targan

It has always seemed strange to me that the Strykers lost the LAV-25's amphibious capabilities. Can anyone provide any specific info on what caused the loss of that capability, or perhaps more relevant to Nate's post, what it would take to return amphibious capabilities to the Stryker?

I guess what I'm saying is, in your universe Nate would such a vehicle still really be a Stryker? Would it perhaps make more sense to say the vehicles being used in your universe are US-produced LAV-25s with some or all of the Stryker's features?

Well... the family of Stryker vehicles were deveoped for peacekeeping missions... the 1990s in my campiagn were full of oppurutnities for peacekeeping missions in Africa (the grouth of the Congo Pact caused alot of strife like Darfur, Rowandan genocie and the like), South America (Columiba's problems with FARC spread throughout the region) and Middle East (yeah... it was bad, think arab spring... just with alot more combat - like in Libyan Civil War).

the fact that the Strykers are nice and quiet when compared to tracks, they allowed peacekeepers to sneakup on badies... and the remotecontoled turret allowed the strkyers to find nasty surprises before it was too late.

The Stryker MGS might not replace the M1 as a mainbattle tank.. it did give light units what they needed.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

...the remotecontoled turret allowed the strkyers to find nasty surprises before it was too late.

NOTHING is as good as the Mark 1 Eyeball. In fact, reliance on cameras, periscopes, etc actually degrades awareness and visibility, unless high tech devices such as thermal are used (but even they have some fairly serious limitations).

[Targan]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Well... the family of Stryker vehicles were deveoped for peacekeeping missions... the 1990s in my campiagn were full of oppurutnities for peacekeeping missions in Africa (the grouth of the Congo Pact caused alot of strife like Darfur, Rowandan genocie and the like), South America (Columiba's problems with FARC spread throughout the region) and Middle East (yeah... it was bad, think arab spring... just with alot more combat - like in Libyan Civil War).

the fact that the Strykers are nice and quiet when compared to tracks, they allowed peacekeepers to sneakup on badies... and the remotecontoled turret allowed the strkyers to find nasty surprises before it was too late.

The Stryker MGS might not replace the M1 as a mainbattle tank.. it did give light units what they needed.

I agree with all of your above post, Nate. Not sure how it relates to my questions, though, which still stand:

Originally Posted by Targan

It has always seemed strange to me that the Strykers lost the LAV-25's amphibious capabilities. Can anyone provide any specific info on what caused the loss of that capability, or perhaps more relevant to Nate's post, what it would take to return amphibious capabilities to the Stryker?

I guess what I'm saying is, in your universe Nate would such a vehicle still really be a Stryker? Would it perhaps make more sense to say the vehicles being used in your universe are US-produced LAV-25s with some or all of the Stryker's features?

[natehale1971]

basicly the Stykers in my campiagn are alot of the good things that the Strykers' have IRL, with the amphibious capabilities of the LAV25... it's a new design, thus i can use the new versions of Strykers as an amphib version of the Strykers... the ability to carry 10 troops in the Infantry Carrier Vehicle was just too damn good not to have in a light APC.

The American Lisence-built Wesiel 2 AWC are pretty much the same as those made by the Germans, with only a few moderations to them... Namely using their lightness, and their abiltiy to operate as mini-Bradley's.. being carried in the belly of heavy and medium-lift helicopters are just to damn good to pass up for use by the Air Assault, Airborne, US Army Rangers formations.

Giving them something like that in a support role is what i was going for. Basicly they have a platoon in heavy company of the M69 Gavin AWC series of vehicles that are capable of providing support for their operations until the "Big Boys" can some in with the real self-sufficiant artillery instead of the AWC automaitc mortars, their mimi-infantry fighting vehciles and armored gun systems.

I'm still trying to come up with the kinds of thing that US Army units fulfilling the Peacekeeper/nation-building role use. It'd be a Light Infantry Brigade Combat Team. But that's all i know at this point. I like Web's idea of having older and 'wiser' troops drawn from the Reserves... Though I had thought of using the US Territorial Guard in that kind of role. Or at least having them provide the Regular Army, National Guard and Reserves the training they'd need to arry out peacekeeping and nation-building.

Because a Border Guard type command does that speciality form of 'combat' every day!

Strykers would be great for Territoral Guard/Border Patrol... bcause they can drve on the highways without tearing up the blacktop.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

When did the Stryker enter service?
My (uninformed) guess is post 1997 so in a V1 or 2.x, it's just not going to happen.
There's also the whole doctrine thing. The Cold War called for heavier units able to stand up to the punishment a Pact offensive could deal out, while the Stryker concept was born from the cake walk of the two Iraq invasions and other post cold war events.

The Stryker was also delayed years by wrangling and arguing in Congress, the Senate, and the Pentagon, and the design of the Stryker changed several times during its development and the time allowed by that wrangling, some for the better, some for the worse. The Stryker that appeared (probably in small numbers, if any) for the Twilight War would not be the same Stryker we use today.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Well... the family of Stryker vehicles were deveoped for peacekeeping missions...

Yes good point in Canada we devolped the Cougar, Grizzly and Bisson and now the LAV III (which is a Stryker with a 25mm Turret)

The frist three were developed for frist a vehicle for the Reserve Force but then being taken by the Regular Force for UN deployment

I don't see them being used for combat in europe unless if for Scouting and Recon, I see alot being used in Canada due to the plant being here

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Targan

It has always seemed strange to me that the Strykers lost the LAV-25's amphibious capabilities. Can anyone provide any specific info on what caused the loss of that capability, or perhaps more relevant to Nate's post, what it would take to return amphibious capabilities to the Stryker?

I guess what I'm saying is, in your universe Nate would such a vehicle still really be a Stryker? Would it perhaps make more sense to say the vehicles being used in your universe are US-produced LAV-25s with some or all of the Stryker's features?

Because the people that write the specifications in the Pentagon forget that 80% of the planets surface is water.

It if I am not to far off was built with Europe, Africa, and the Middle East in mind. Confidence (over Confidence?) in Bridging, pontoon, and ferry equipment possibly.

Lost Institutional knowledge? Gen. Shinseki needed to ram it through the system before an new JCS killed the whole Transformational Army scheme.

The Stryker lest anyone forget is meant as the "Interim Vehicle" which will be tested and bring about Doctrine for the "Future Combat System".

BTW SecDef Gates killed the FCS program as costly and not producing significant gains.

Budget, design, and Branch competition probably played a part.

Budget. The accountants were screaming about costs. Adding amphibious to the design probably would have greatly increased the per unit price. Which would have killed the program regardless of how great it could be.

Design. The complexity of amphibious capability is well tested. It increases maintenance cost for a task not often called into play.

Branch. The Army probably........ well probably said "Eff U" to the Navy and the Marine Corps. Not like the other Services collaborated on the LAV. It is the Budget games played the Services, loosely moderated by the JCS, and refereed by the SecDef.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

It is the Budget games played the Services, loosely moderated by the JCS, and refereed by the SecDef.

It's gonna get worse. Remember "hollow force" back in the late 70s? Yeah what's coming down the pike is going to make that look like our post-Reagan military