Future Combat System M12xx Missing in US OOB?

[Akmatov]

Trolling through the US OOB I'm finding the M11xx Stryker vehicles, but none of the proposed Future Combat System M12xx vehicles. Given that they are the vehicles proposed for the future, I'm surprised they are missing. Am I just not finding them?

thanks

[DRG]

We pulled out all kinds of things that had been put in that OOB that had been "proposed" then died in development so right now when the final anouncement is made that "M12xx Stryker vehicles" are going to be issued to the troops THEN I'll put them in the OOB becasue it's now getting old putting things in then pulling them out again 3 years later when the project is cancelled

Don

[Akmatov]

I can sure understand that. The way things are going these day your OOB issues might get real easy - rifles, machine guns and hummers only.

But given that they were pulled out, I guess they were in at one time? I'm guessing I could find them in one of the pre-4.5 patches? Guessing I could load a copy of SPMBT and patch it up to the relevant patch and extract the OOB? If so, do you happen to know which patch I should check?

Thanks

[DRG]

There were no "M12xx Stryker vehicles" in previous patches

Don

[Marcello]

Trolling through the US OOB I'm finding the M11xx Stryker vehicles, but none of the proposed Future Combat System M12xx vehicles. Given that they are the vehicles proposed for the future, I'm surprised they are missing. Am I just not finding them?

thanks

The FCS chance of getting axed is too high to make developing the icons etc a worthwhile investment of time for the staff.
Besides its purported capabilities are not handled well by the game engine anyway. Even if it is not canned timeline wise it will probably just barely fit within the game, if that.

I can sure understand that. The way things are going these day your OOB issues might get real easy - rifles, machine guns and hummers only.

I would not be so dramatic.The various Abrams/Bradley/Paladin etc. are going to stay, possibly with incremental upgrades.
The remaining M113s may be replaced by a combination of Stryker/Bradley/others variants (for logistical reasons).
The US Army will never become a light mechanized infantry only, because the need for tanks has been demonstrated repeatedly in the recent years.

[EJ]

DON OR ANDY,
What influences whether or not you allow prototype vehicles for some oobs? I've played as China in MBT and used prototypes. I've also played GB in SPWW2 and done the same. I'm surprised there aren't more.....It adds just a little more interest to an already GREAT GAME.

[hoplitis]

Mmm ... "over populated" OOBs?

[Marcello]

DON OR ANDY,
What influences whether or not you allow prototype vehicles for some oobs? I've played as China in MBT and used prototypes. I've also played GB in SPWW2 and done the same. I'm surprised there aren't more.....It adds just a little more interest to an already GREAT GAME.

Open the US and the iraqi OOB with Mobhack and you will quickly see the answer. The US OOB is already nearly filled to max capacity. Adding prototypes will eliminate what little growth space is left. The iraqi one still has some space left so the odd, never mass produced, T-55QM2 is not a problem. Further Iraq has developed only an handful of prototypes. The US in the
1946-2009 timeframe has created God only knows how many Cheyenne/MBT-70/SgtYork/whatever.

[Suhiir]

DON OR ANDY,
What influences whether or not you allow prototype vehicles for some oobs? I've played as China in MBT and used prototypes. I've also played GB in SPWW2 and done the same. I'm surprised there aren't more.....It adds just a little more interest to an already GREAT GAME.

Not just OOB space tho.
Most prototypes tend to have near magical capabilities in terms of offensive and defensive effectiveness...if Andy and Don allowed developer/manufacturer capability claims to sneak into the OOB all ATGMs would hit 99.9% of the time under any circumstances, all aircraft would have pin-point accuracy, all tanks would be invulnerable, etc.
So until they can get some accurate, realistic data there's really no sense adding drawing board stuff to OOBs.

Also since the vast majority of that stuff (particularly in the US OOBs) never gets deployed they'd be constantly adding and removing stuff in the OOBs and any scenarios using the stuff would become unplayable.

[EJ]

Marcello and Suhiir,
Thanks for sharing your knowledge in answer to my question....

[Lampshade111]

While I did have a bad feeling that much of FCS would be canceled, I was kinda hoping to see the equipment including the Manned Ground Vehicles in WinSPMBT and other games.

Yet considering the MGV portion of the program has just been canceled under the new budget, it is definitely not worth the work. A MGV replacement plan is supposed to be in development and will certainly including heavier armor.

I thought the plan that the XM1202 MCS would eventually replace the M1 Abrams was crazy, and it seems Gates agrees. I would have liked to have seen a few divisions equipped with the MGV, similar to our Stryker brigade combat teams but with superior equipment. Yet we still need our heavy armored units and eventually those vehicles (M1A2 Abrams, M2A3 Bradley, M109A6 Paladin) need to be replaced eventually.

The core of this MGV-only U.S. Army concept seemed to rely on two beliefs. The first was that most future wars would be "peacekeeping" operations such as what we saw in former Yugoslavia. Second was this belief that heavy armor is no longer efficient and worthwhile in this age of precision guided weapons. So far, this does not seem to be the case in real life.

[Marcello]

The core of this MGV-only U.S. Army concept seemed to rely on two beliefs. The first was that most future wars would be "peacekeeping" operations such as what we saw in former Yugoslavia. Second was this belief that heavy armor is no longer efficient and worthwhile in this age of precision guided weapons. So far, this does not seem to be the case in real life.

Actually FCS was supposed to undertake a much wider spectrum of operations than peacekeeping, including conventional warfare against enemy armored forces and what not. Enemy tanks would have been identified and destroyed before they could have closed enough to engage the MGVs, or so was the theory.
The idea behind it was to have a force packing a heavy punch which could be deployed pretty much anywhere in a matter of hours/days, which dictated no heavy armor.
Even so I have my doubts about its feasibility even just from a logistical point of view.

I would have liked to have seen a few divisions equipped with the MGV, similar to our Stryker brigade combat teams but with superior equipment.

The Stryker units seem to have fared reasonably well in practice, give or take some tanks and such being attached for stiffening when necessary. I doubt there is a tactical niche between the Stryker and the heavy forces large enough to make the MGVs cost effective.

[Lampshade111]

True Marcello, they were built for more than peacekeeping operations but they were not built with large scale wars against modern armies (China, Russia, etc.) in mind.

As far as weight goes, I don't believe their would have been much of a loss of mobility when compared to the Stryker family. Supposedly three MGV or Stryker family vehicles would/can be carried in a C-17A. While possible I don't believe Strykers are commonly transported by the C-130J

[Suhiir]

<snip>
The idea behind it was to have a force packing a heavy punch which could be deployed pretty much anywhere in a matter of hours/days, which dictated no heavy armor.
Even so I have my doubts about its feasibility even just from a logistical point of view.

They already have such a force...the US Marines. :) :D

The problem is the only US Army "light" forces (Airborne, Rangers, Mountain) are too light and the Army TO&E doesn't give them enough inherent logistical assets to be self-sustaining for more then a few days.
Also, in general they're too specialized. Yes they're VERY good at what they do, but they're not really trained or equipped to handle tasks/combat outside the role they were created for.

I'm sure this will start some chicken-'n-egg arguments...but it's always been my thought that the US Army keeps trying to create brigade/division sized units for any contingency. And while those units are "ideal" for the role they were created to fill the US Army doesn't cross-train nearly as much as they "should".
The USMC tends to take a "building block" approach.
Determine the mission, use company sized building blocks to create a unit from batallion to division size to tackle it.
Sure, the unit won't, can't, be as well trained and equipped for any given task as a unit tailor made from square one for it would be. But the USMC puts a lot of emphasis on cross-training.

I wasn't a grunt myself, hell I'm female...but I've done everything from rubber boats at midnight to helo ops to mech infantry.

[Skirmisher]

I wasn't a grunt myself, hell I'm female...but I've done everything from rubber boats at midnight to helo ops to mech infantry.

You wouldn't happen to know anything about the ongoing construction of Deep Underground Military Bases, would you?

Or why military aircraft are always flying around "spraying" stuff into the atmosphere?

[Marcello]

True Marcello, they were built for more than peacekeeping operations but they were not built with large scale wars against modern armies (China, Russia, etc.) in mind.

They were never meant to slug it out in a Fulda Gap situation, however they were supposed to be able to handle some heavy conventional enemies. If one imagines an hypothetical but far more relevant than the above Georgia style scenario (not exact but along those lines) the US could use FCS equipped units to quickly establish local superiority against what the russian/chinese have at hand in the theather (with the bulk of the russian/chinese heavy forces weeks away costrained by railway capacity) and be able to dictate the terms of a negotiated solution from a position of strenght.
Of course one may end up with Trident and Topol having the final say on the matter.


As far as weight goes, I don't believe their would have been much of a loss of mobility when compared to the Stryker family. Supposedly three MGV or Stryker family vehicles would/can be carried in a C-17A. While possible I don't believe Strykers are commonly transported by the C-130J

The issue isn't theoretical carriage. The issue is: is there enough airlift to move sufficiently large units of them quickly enough and keeping them supplied once in theater, as well as mantaining the essential airlift services elsewhere at the same time?

[Imp]

Suhiir I have no military background but as US operates 2 forces always thought USMC role was fast response to any situation hence needs flexibility built in. Not expected to go head to head in a full scale war but more to hold till the big boys can turn up then they fill any holes.
As a civvy the odd specialist force for common problems makes sense but on the whole units should be multirole capable of dealing with any threat in an ideal world. To this end cross training & the building block approach makes perfect sense as you pick a force for the expected threat. Believe this is how the Brits to name but one work & I would think the major thing needed to allow this is good logistics support as a flexible force needs flexible supply.

[Suhiir]

I wasn't a grunt myself, hell I'm female...but I've done everything from rubber boats at midnight to helo ops to mech infantry.

You wouldn't happen to know anything about the ongoing construction of Deep Underground Military Bases, would you?

Or why military aircraft are always flying around "spraying" stuff into the atmosphere?

Not a clue :p

[Suhiir]

Suhiir I have no military background but as US operates 2 forces always thought USMC role was fast response to any situation hence needs flexibility built in. Not expected to go head to head in a full scale war but more to hold till the big boys can turn up then they fill any holes.
As a civvy the odd specialist force for common problems makes sense but on the whole units should be multirole capable of dealing with any threat in an ideal world. To this end cross training & the building block approach makes perfect sense as you pick a force for the expected threat. Believe this is how the Brits to name but one work & I would think the major thing needed to allow this is good logistics support as a flexible force needs flexible supply.

The USMC has taken it upon itself to become a flexable fast response force.

Between WW I and WW II the USMC needed a "reason" to exist so it developed and refined the amphibious warfare doctrine used during WW II.
For most of the Cold War the USMC was slated for Korea and Norway, places the primarily mechanized US Army was ill-suited to operate in.
Post Cold War they decided "fast response" was their new reason for existing.

True, the USMC doesn't try to claim it's intended to wage long-term ground combat. We never have "claimed" to be able to do so. Because if we did why have us? That's what the US Army is for. Political sleight-o-hand at it best!

I'll be the first to admit the USMC cannot go head-to-head with a US Army Armor/Mech in a mech warfare situation, VS an Air Cav unit in helo ops, VS the Rangers in raid type situations, and I'd never dream of claiming the Green Beenies or SEALS wouldn't eat us for lunch in their specialized roles.

But, while almost every ground combat force in the world claims to be multi-role capable...
They almost invariably they wind up tailored to some specific role except some small "elite" units (US Army Ranger for instance) and don't really "waste" training time and money on real cross training.

The USMC is unique it that it is the only large-scale (i.e. three whole divisions + reserves) force in the world that actively makes it a point to not tailor itself to any one specific role (not entirely true, I'd call us "Heavy" or "Assault" Infantry if pressed).

The USMC doesn't begin to have the long-term logistical capability the US Army has.
However...
The inherent capability of any US Army brigade/division is a matter of days if not hours before it MUST have outside support. In theory the USMC can operate for 90 days with it's inherent logistical capability. Could it really do so? Probably not...but it can certainly do better then a few days.

[EJ]

Suhiir,
It's different to hear a woman who is into war strategy gaming, discussing various military branches and their capabilities. What military branch did you serve? I've served in the US Army and Marines myself. I'm a Desert Storm vet.

[Akmatov]

In theory the USMC can operate for 90 days with it's inherent logistical capability

Building logistic support into the deployment package seems so logical. :)

Seems to me the Marines operate on a lean, aggressive, flexible mindset combined with being more selective than the Army, which is not as lean and not as flexible. I suspect this predisposes the Marines to be more quickly adaptable to unexpected situations.

[Suhiir]

Suhiir,
It's different to hear a woman who is into war strategy gaming, discussing various military branches and their capabilities. What military branch did you serve? I've served in the US Army and Marines myself. I'm a Desert Storm vet.

USMC 1974-1992.
Technically a Nam Vet...I was in before it was over...as a supply clerk.
In the late 70's and early 80's a lot of oppertunities opened up for females and I ended as a Military Police platoon sergeant during Desert Shield/Storm.

[Suhiir]

Building logistic support into the deployment package seems so logical. :)

I agree about the logistical support...but I was a jarhead what could I possibly know.

M - Muscles
A - Are
R - Required
I - Intelligence
N - Not
E - Essential


Seems to me the Marines operate on a lean, aggressive, flexible mindset combined with being more selective than the Army, which is not as lean and not as flexible. I suspect this predisposes the Marines to be more quickly adaptable to unexpected situations.

That and an aggressive improvosational attitude.

Look at it this way.
If your primary mission is beach assault falling back to regroup and try again tomorrow is NOT an option.