Future Combat System M12xx Missing in US OOB?

[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.

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Lampshade111

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

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lampshade111

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?

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Marcello

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?