Let’s say Biden ordered a Stryker BCT into Ukraine to support Ukrainian military operations on the frontlines. Would the Stryker fare ANY better than a BTR, or would they just get slaughtered? Does doctrine and training overcome ATGMs? How combat effective would the brigade be?
well at least 3 strykers have already been turned into scrap metal over there im going to go out on a limb and say they would fall to ATGMs and mines, and arty, just like anything else
yes anon, that's what AT weapons are supposed to do
>ATGMs
>Russia
Lol, lamo.
yes? It's orkishly crude but it is a big bastard that you don't want fired at you.
stryker brigades have dismounts to pre-emptively engage enemy ATGMs
they also have mortars mounted in strykers to suppress enemy ATGMs
they also their own FOs in each battalion HQ, and their own 155mm artillery in the brigade for long range fire
strykers are covered at short, medium, and long ranges against enemy ATGMs
in addition to their own smoke, thermal cameras, and 30mm cannons to shoot back at enemy ATGMs and do a sagger drill
Not only is there a fires officer at BN, each company/troop has a FIST team with an Artillery officer, NCO, and soldier to direct fire missions.
>confirmed that Ukrainians have absolutely no fucking idea how to utilize armor, let alone personel carriers
>be a retard thinking Americans will have this problem
The biggest killer of the strykers in a US engagement will be the same as always, mines and ieds.
Why did you blur out that mans face?
He is a moron is why you can not see his face you gay
>Would the Stryker fare ANY better than a BTR
for starters, strykers are more armored
14.5mm protection with add-on armor
they also have thermal sights as standard, and at least 2 strykers in the company have 30mm cannons
>Does doctrine and training overcome ATGMs?
strykers have their own ATGMs
and they have the dragoon variant to shoot at anoyne with an ATGM
also, just like BTRs, strykers are doctrinally flexible
if its too hot for vehicles, they can just park the strykers far away and keep them in reserve and proceed n foot
and the strykers only engage when they are needed
although its usually just better to have the extra firepower in battle
>How combat effective would the brigade be?
very effective at their specific job
which is a fast reaction force to quickly plug holes
an enemy infantry battalion creating a local gain could be countered with a mechanized force that can quickly respond by zooming down roads at full speed
they still have more than enough firepower to bully non-armored units and the speed and light footprint to be able to be deployed on a lark
>if its too hot for vehicles, they can just park the strykers far away and keep them in reserve and proceed n foot
AHAHAHHAHHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
>proceed on foot
in the fucking minefield?
mosquito attack?
you cant be serious
>"just proceed on foot!"
>doesnt understand flexible doctrine
stryker dismounts can either act purely dismounted and have the strykers maintain standoff until absolutely needed
which is literally how the M113 and BRT are deploted
or they can fight mounted and have the stryker follow closely, which is what the dragoons are for
and allows them to follow up any local gains they make
they do either depending on the tactical necessity
>"just proceed on foot!"
sounds sociopathically insane, given everything that has been seen so far
>sounds sociopathically insane
not really
its just something they can do when the tactical situation calls for it
they are still much more heavily armed than a light infantry unit and the strykers are still on call to move in to engage if necessary
as opposed to something like an M113, which always lets their dismounts out a distance away from the battlefield, the stryker can fluidly move between APC and IFV role which is its main purpose
>as opposed to something like an M113, which always lets their dismounts out a distance away from the battlefield, the stryker can fluidly move between APC and IFV role which is its main purpose
what does this even mean in a fucking cornfield?
absolutely nothing of what has been demonstrated in their use has been urban, semi-urban, or even in a population center of any kind
how could dismounting in an open field w/no trees littered with mines (5 per sq. meter) be even remotely considered as a tactic
it sounds like assisted suicide
>what does this even mean in a fucking cornfield?
you dont seem to grasp how APCs were used
APCs are differentiated from IFVs because they do not follow infantry into battle, they act independently after they empty out and will usually head out to a terrain feature and await further orders
this is exactly how M113s and BTRs were used
while they primarily fought dismounted they still benefited from faster operational movement due to having tracks at their disposaal and the ability to carry much more gear because they only had to walk the last 100m instead of the whole way
a stryker is an IFV/APC hybrid, meaning it can either fight mounted or dismounted depending on the situation
>how could dismounting in an open field w/no trees littered with mines (5 per sq. meter) be even remotely considered as a tactic
dismounting usually occurs at a terrain features or somewhere safe
dismounting under fire is a last resort
>it sounds like assisted suicide
compared to walking?
light units only have brigade-level trucks to move them around behind lines
heavy units have tanks and IFVs for maneuvering under fire
and the stryker is a medium unit that can take more fire and has more speed than a light one but are less logsitically demanding and more infantry-heavy than a heavy one
>it sounds like assisted suicide.
This is one of those counter intuitive situations. You are not safer driving across that open field full of mines in a vehicle. In the Stryker for example you are 1 target that has 13 casualties. If you dismount first you are now 12 individual targets with 11 rifles and a Canon. You can send some tanks in front to provide some cover, but you want to maximize number of potential targets and number of individual firing positions.
If you had air power the conversation would be different, but they don't so this is what they have to do.
there is objective, 1080p evidence that 12 dismounts will turn into 12 300's in about 30 minutes time if dismounted
dismounting all but ensures everyone is dead
there is a distinct, and certain reason not one episode of an IFV/APC dropping its load on foot ever in this entire war
its literally suicide
literal, actual suicide
~~*we*~~ have to be better than this
you may like to quote doctrine books or shit learned in desert storm, but this is neither
dismounting is objectively suicide, its not "distributing the casualties"
or
"micro-probing for where the mines are"
its just simple suicide
> 12 300's
snowmoron detected. stop spamming the board, brainlet. there's a reason this shit is in the fucking manuals, it's to reduce target density and increase mobility, because producing 9 gorillion ifv's to carry all your troops is unfeasible, ifv still wouldn't tank a fucking minefield and you're implying that trenches don't exist in addition to infantry being useless. go kys yourself
Everything we've seen so far has been an uncanny resistance to advancing on foot.
These are battle taxis with a field gun on them, not battering rams. You're SUPOSSED to drop your troops off before you get to the combat zone and then use your fuck off gun that can hit targets at over 1km. Troops advance and they tell the vehicles in the rear to destroy any covered positions they find.
What you DON'T do is pile all your troops into the vehicle and drive it right up to the enemy position like your gonna breach it with the vehicle and dump all your troops inside. These are not tanks, you are not safe from conventional anti-tank charges inside. Do not put all your people in one big target and drive it directly at the enemy.
1000+ webms later, we do not see IFV's dropping their load of afu meat off to "proceed on foot" through hostile, open-air minefields
I re-iterate
its assisted suicide to walk on foot through minefields
there is no tactical value to a stryker providing "dismounted fire support" in an open field with no fucking trees
what has happend to this place?
how could ANYONE suggest that "walking on foot" is tactically more sound than using the vehicle?
not a one of these vehicles has hit any "defensive position" urban area or 'enemy position" where dismounting for a foot attack would make any sense at all
>Do not put all your people in one big target and drive it directly at the enemy.
even worse, disperse your men into an echelon on foot, and take 9 casualties in a wide open field
I dont get how you think "PROCEED ON FOOT!" is a legitimate tactic ever, anywhere
>1000+ webms later, we do not see IFV's dropping their load of afu meat off to "proceed on foot" through hostile, open-air minefield
you are confusing IFVs with other types of vehicles like APCs
IFVs fight alongside the rest of the rifle platoon, APCs merely dismount their passengers and then leave, usually at a terrain feature or a safe distance from the fighting
>its assisted suicide to walk on foot through minefields
strykers, or M113s, or BTRs, arent going to unload their dismounts in the middle of an open field
they will deploy them in cover and they fight dismounted for the rest of the battle
though in the BTR and M113s case they will only fight in self-defense, while the stryker can return to the battlefield if needed such as to provide support or to pick up their dismounts
>how could ANYONE suggest that "walking on foot" is tactically more sound than using the vehicle?
they do use the vehicle, but they operate more flexibly than with a mech infantry platoon
they arent necessarily tied to their vehicle, they can fight mounted or dismounted depending on what the situation calls for
>not a one of these vehicles has hit any "defensive position" urban area or 'enemy position" where dismounting for a foot attack would make any sense at all
fighting dismounted in urban areas does make a lot of sense, since infantry will need to enter buildings where the vehicle cannot follow
so it would make more sense for the vehicle to wait somewhere safe than it would be to stay near the fighting while its dismounts are away indoors
stop
literally stop telling me what the instruction manual says about acronym vehicles
not one sane person
not one sane soldier
would agree with you that hoooooorah dismounting from the vehicle in a cornfield is a good or even remotely feasable idea
100/100 troops would report that as suicide
1000 videos later, not one Russian not one ukrainian video of troops scattering from the bmp/bradely into a foot attack
not one video of a stryker-crew dismounting and dispersing on foot
you literally cannot do that in a cornfield
and if you did, its tantamount to individual suicide
>literally stop telling me what the instruction manual says about acronym vehicles
its almost like the difference in use case is why they are called different things
>would agree with you that hoooooorah dismounting from the vehicle in a cornfield is a good or even remotely feasable idea
you seem obsessed with the word cornfield
but if the stryker platoon decides that its not safe for their vehicle, then they will dismount in cover and proceed on foot
the vehicle isnt just gone, its still on standby, they are just taking an infantry-first approach, which can be advantageous in complex terrain like forests or urban terrain
>1000 videos later, not one Russian not one ukrainian video of troops scattering from the bmp/bradely into a foot attack
dismounting under fire is a last resort
more common for IFVs, who will only dismount when engaging targets, but generally you dont dismount in an open field
>you literally cannot do that in a cornfield
unless theres an emergency, then dismounting occurs at a terrain feature
>then they will dismount in cover and proceed on foot
THERE IS NO COVER IN A FUCKING FIELD
WHY CANT YOU ACCEPT REALITY?
WHY?
>unless theres an emergency, then dismounting occurs at a terrain feature
THERE ARE NO "features"
what arent you understanding about the objective reality of what is demonstrably seen in the current 'battlefield'?
why do you incessantly keep telling me handbook/instruction manual "best practices" when the reality of the battlefield its deployed in, is fundamentally no representative of what your handbook says
>"just dismount under cover ! easy!"
what if there is no cover?
then what?
>THERE IS NO COVER IN A FUCKING FIELD
thats why no one dismounts in the middle of a field unless the vehicle is on fire
>why do you incessantly keep telling me handbook/instruction manual "best practices" when the reality of the battlefield its deployed in
you really dont understand that the answer to your question is right there
no one is dismounting in the middle of an empty field
neither IFVs nor APCs are going to do that
they will dismount when they reach their destination
>what if there is no cover?
you do realize that the duty of the company commander is to read the map and determine where to advance
>thats why no one dismounts in the middle of a field unless the vehicle is on fire
there are a dozen posts in this thread telling me the express purpose of an APC/IFV is to distribute troops from a covered position, to advance on foot, while the vehicle provides covering fire
this comes "straight from the instruction manual"
again, why not have the troops in the IFV/APC and use junk cars filled with concrete sent to kamikazi into the field and detonate a path?
surely there are used cars still in ukraine right?
I had dozens of people tell me im retarded because the purpose of the APC was to drop troops undercover, (despite, no cover) so the men are a less dense target.
we have seen this is sucicidal, as the mine-density is out of this world
>1000 videos later, not one Russian not one ukrainian video of troops scattering from the bmp/bradely into a foot attack
You've not looked that hard
>would agree with you that hoooooorah dismounting from the vehicle in a cornfield is a good or even remotely feasable idea.
If you're dismounting in a cornfield under fire you've already done the stupid and advanced into the combat zone. You should have dropped off your guys in a covered position where they can advance from while the vehicle falls back to a safe firing position.
What you're so desperately wanting is called a tank. These are not tanks, if you use them like tanks you will kill everyone inside without being able to take advantage of the reason you brought 11 people with you in the first place. Do you think they're cheerleaders or something? If they're not outside clearing the infantry while the vehicle destroys the emplacements then why the fuck did you even waste the space and the fuel bringing them.
>You should have dropped off your guys in a covered position where they can advance from while the vehicle falls back to a safe firing position.
THERE
ISNT
COVER
IN
A
CORN
FIELD
period. full stop
finally, you fucking agree with me
>its suicide to dismount from the stryker
it was that easy for you to say, but instead you retardedly quoted me acronyms and instruction-manual doctrine, as if it means absolutely fuck all in real life
>hurrr durr
I get it, in an ideal "nato" situation, it would look like halo, with spartans running in and out of the APC/IFV while advancing all over the battlefield,
but
IRL, in the cornfield, this is assisted suicide
>If they're not outside clearing the infantry while the vehicle destroys the emplacements then why the fuck did you even waste the space and the fuel bringing them.
this is the million dollar question fuckhead
why are they even using these vehicles, when there is no cover, no 'terrain features' no place to dismount, no reason to dismount, and anti-personell/anti-vehicle mines 5 to a square meter
it sounds like, and plays out like, assisted suicide
why not solely proceed on foot if what you say is the case?
why bring the stryker at all?
literally just have the men disperse in an eschelon, and walk it
hell, why not give every guy an individual moron-whipper-5000 to trigger the mines, like a chain-whip or cat-o-9tails?
why not have used cars with quick-crete poured in the trunk, and a brick on the accelerator, clear the way forward?
surely there are still junk cars to be found for such a job?
>it was that easy for you to say, but instead you retardedly quoted me acronyms and instruction-manual doctrine, as if it means absolutely fuck all in real life
you really dont get it
>IRL, in the cornfield, this is assisted suicid
you are really hung up in a cornfield
>why not solely proceed on foot if what you say is the case?
light infantry does, thats what makes them light
but this comes at the cost of reduced operational mobility because they only have unarmored trucks at their disposal
APCs allow them to approach the area of operations protected from artillery splinters and to carry much more equipment because they only have to walk the last few hundred meters
but strykers arent pure APCs, they can fight mounted or dismounted depending on the situation
I had dozens of people tell me im retarded because the purpose of the APC was to drop troops undercover, (despite, no cover) so the men are a less dense target.
light infantry dismount from trucks, they cant get as close to the front as something with an armored roof
so they are limited in what weapons they can carry and how quickly they can move around the battlefield
but they are very logistically light and obviously have a lot of infantry in them
strykers fill a medium role, they are faster and better protected than light units, but they have more infantry and less logistical footprint
In your brain
>infantry is useless
>supporting high caliber cannon fire is useless
>APC/IFV can survive mines and rockets meant for tanks
>the only way to advance on foot is to banzai charge across the first open field you see because terrain and tree lines don't exist.
>shits dangerous so why even do it instead of this nothing I've suggested even though I know better than the fucking doctrine these were designed around.
>shits dangerous so why even do it instead of this nothing I've suggested even though I know better than the fucking doctrine these were designed around.
i said take used cars and pour quick-crete in the fucking trunk, and send those ahead as suicide bots, you disingenuous gay
that way, you can stay inside the fucking stryker, and proceed on the cleared path, without having to dismount 12 potential 300's into a fucking death-field
>you are really hung up in a cornfield
implying what?
that the cornfield ISNT the real-life situational battlefield?
what are you trying to say?
1000 webms of crossing a field are fake?
you literally have nothing to say
you have nothing to say but quoting me the theoretical, 'handbook/instruction-manual' best practices for whatever acronym vehicle youre referring to, rather than the actual 'applied science' of its real-world use
there is no further reason to (you) you.
all you can do is tell me what the ideal nato-handbook says
thats it
>implying what?
no one is dismounting in the middle of a cornfield
they dismount in cover
>1000 webms of crossing a field are fake?
you will notice they dont dismount in the field
they dismount in cover
the difference between an APC and an IFV is that the APC leaves the infantry afterwards because their armament isnt heavy enough while an IFV does
>you literally have nothing to say
its literally just explaining that fighting dismounted is a legitimate tactic
there are times when you dont need the vehicle following you around everywhere
the stryker being an APC/IFV hybrid can fight both mounted and dismounted if it fits the situation
>they dismount in cover
there is no cover, anywhere
but you keep telling me what the instruction manual says, over and over and over and over
and despite what the manual says, the conditions the strykers and the ifv's are objectively in, do not , cannot and will not be representative of the instruction book
thus, new tactics, and new methods must be used, diametrically different from the ones you insist are in the instruction book
>wow Ivan that truck is was genius, but do you really think it's smart for us to try and shortcut across the field without infantry clearing the tree line. What if they have a missl-ack.
Look in not knocking your attempt at mine clearing, but you're still making the fundamental mistake of wanting to advance out of cover in a light armor vehicle with no infantry support. Literally the thing everyone screams about when another webm comes out with a group of vehicles from both sides disabled in a field because they thought they were clever and could take the shortcut.
>but you're still making the fundamental mistake of wanting to advance out of cover in a light armor vehicle with no infantry support.
no the afu is making that mistake
im asking why the fuck are they doing that, when a multitude of other options exist
I had a dozen people in this thread tell me the instruction manual states, the apc drops you off and fucks away, or the ifv drops you off and supports you via fire-support
neither is happening IRL because there is no cover, there is no drop-point, and there are so many mines, that sweeping the ground on foot leads to 100% casualties
>I had a dozen people in this thread tell me the instruction manual states, the apc drops you off and fucks away, or the ifv drops you off and supports you via fire-support
and for some reason you havent actually absorbed any of that information
> that sweeping the ground on foot leads to 100% casualties
what do you think all those rifle platoons are doing, the ones without organic vehicles?
advancing on foot and under cover
stryker units will ride most of the way under armor and then proceed to act as a rifle platoon but with the ability to carry much heavier armament because they can stash a few extra javelins with them in the APC and not have to carry them the whole way
alternatively, they ride in the stryker the whole way and only dismount when they engage a target
which is the main strength of the stryker company in comparison to a an infantry one or a mechanized one
they are a very flexible response unit that can take many approaches while having a high intra-theatre mobility thanks to their wheels
how do you think these units act like?
do you think that the rifle section of a bradley just never leaves their vehicle?
>neither is happening IRL
Did you ever think that you're a victim of survivorship bias right now?
Of course this is happening, but I think you've exposed yourself to mostly videos released when a side kills a group not following the rules and paying the price for it. Next time you watch a video about an ifv or a tank being effective (not about ones being blown up in a field) instead of focusing on the vehicle, try to count how many people you can see moving in the trees around it. You'll be surprised.
>Stryker BCT in Ukraine
already flopped.
Less Stykers died than T-90Ms or KA-52s my little chug morons. .
>No air power
The only power that will matter is that they have counterbattery radars working along M777A2s and the Stryker just straight up better BTRs, outside that, they would be better than your average infantry brigade, but that's about it.
The Arty batteries tho would probably be the best in the entire theatre of war, and if exploited right it could ensure you pushes more constantly then what either side does on the regular.
Would they get suck in mud/craters? I thought Ukraine is having issues with mud right now or is it freezing up now?
>southern ukraine in late august
>freezing
Why is the engine compartment burning so furiously in this BTR Stryker? Could the engine still be running?
What am I looking at here?
>all doors open
I bet the russians set it on fire after the fact for more propaganda points
There was a telegram post by a Russian colonel. That said they reused destroyed Ukrainian equipment to create more footage for their bosses.
>Let’s say Biden ordered a Stryker BCT into Ukraine to support Ukrainian military operations on the frontlines. Would the Stryker fare ANY better than a BTR, or would they just get slaughtered? Does doctrine and training overcome ATGMs? How combat effective would the brigade be?
You can destroy literally any vehicle, but that doesn't show effective it is retard.
It's like all the Bradley or T90's destroyed, you don't know how effective they were before they get deleted.
How many Strykers were sent?
They would be effective but in a very limited way due to low numbers and not having ALL THE SHIT THAT IS SUPPOSED TO GO WITH THEM TO MAKE THEM WORK.
Militaries are an organic whole. If you want a US BCT to perform like a US BCT you need it as part of a US force with US air power and US EW, US recon and sensors going, and US artillery working.
Now, if you used some ABCTs in the context they are meant to operate in, with F-35s in the sky, Growlers jamming, artillery systems raping, drones scouting, etc., then yeah, you could probably blow a hole in the Russian line straight to Mariupol, but this is because when Russia scrambled air assets to stop the penetration we'd have F-22s and F-35s waiting for them.
Strykers are great for nighttime movement. Driving them around in daylight with ATMGs in a open field is a waste.
Its just resting.
Do these BCTs have mine-removal capabilities?
SBCTs have a pair of engineering companies for obstacle removal
they also have the ability to simply go around them
>has US networking and support facilities since you're sending a brigade
>better situational awareness
>better operational mobility
Yes, unquestionably they'd perform better.
At the end of the day, its still just a battle taxi like the BTR series and is just as vulnerable to RPGs, mines, etc so they'd get destroyed just the same, especially since they'd be trying to use Soviet style doctrines.
What, do you think that just because the west makes something its a wunderwaffe? Western gear works better because of all the other soft factors like training, support and combined arms being a central tenet of western doctrines unlike what we've seen in the Ukraine war
>mines
strykers have V-bottoms as standard after iraq to resist IEDs, giving them way more protection against mines
>If incoming fire is overwhelming can they go to ground and stay there?
if they go to ground, it pins them in place and opens them up to being flanked by an enemy counter-attack
if faced with enemy artillery barrage, then it would be better to stay inside the armored vehicle and keep driving while alerting the brigade artillery to return fire
How much aggression are troops supposed to display on the assault? Keep going forward until ordered to stop? If incoming fire is overwhelming can they go to ground and stay there?
APC's and IFV's and even Tanks aren't expected to stand up to ATGM's
It's in the name. Anti-Tank.
Not even the bradley can expect to survive a hit from an ATGM.
That is why Strykers move fast alongside infantry and Bradleys use their superior situational awareness to flush anything out before it launches an ATGM at them.
Unlike russia who could learn new things regarding "combined arms" from the french. IN WW1
>Unlike russia who could learn new things regarding "combined arms" from the french. IN WW1
Honestly I blame the soviet fixation on NBC warfare. They kinda imagined future warfare to be a hellscape that was crossed by sealed vehicles that soldiers shot out of and nobody ever dismounted. Because of that they never really practiced ground level combined arms. Meanwhile the west got sucked into proxy war after proxy war and developed solid combined arms doctrine and kinda let their NBC capabilities slide.
fair point, the fact that before this war you could easily buy firearms in exchange for dollars or euro's
at most russian military bases might have something to do with it aswell.
Or perhaps the distrust or lack of funds for a professional army as opposed to one based on consciption, an army that everyone leaves the moment they have had their mandatory service.