Posted on 05/03/2004 8:06:44 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
May 2, 2004: The American Stryker Combat Vehicle is seeing its first war in Iraq. As the Army’s newest armored combat vehicle, the Stryker has endured its share of criticism, some of which is not without substance.
The Stryker has some major advantages over its predecessors, the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier and the M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, such as speed and its ability to fire its heavy weapons from controls inside of the vehicle. However, its biggest weakness, ironically, is a new version of the four decade old Russian RPG-7 anti-tank weapon.
The Stryker was designed to be a well-protected vehicle capable of fighting in 21st century battlefields. Its armor is composed of a hard steel body enhanced with panels of ceramic/composite armor produced by a Germany company. The end result is armor that is far better than the original M113 APC armor, which was composed of aluminum and gave comparatively poor protection. The baseline Stryker armor gives all-around protection against heavy (up to 14.5mm) machine gun bullets as well as mortar and artillery fragments. An optional “appliqué” armor kit upgrades the armor and enables the Stryker to withstand RPG-7 rounds (just as the same additional armor does for the M-2).
A vehicle capable of stopping RPG-7 rounds sounds like every soldiers dream come true. This certainly proved to be the case for troops using the M-2 Bradley during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, all is not as it seems. It is true that the appliqué armor would stop a warhead from an RPG-7. However, it would not be capable of stopping a high-explosive warhead from an RPG-7V1 and 7VR, the latest model of the RPG series of anti-tank weapons. The RPG-7V1 fires three types of ammunition and is arguably the most power[ful] handheld anti-tank weapon on the market. The plain high-explosive warhead is capable of penetrating 600mm of steel armor (twice as powerful as an RPG-7) and the tandem warhead (designed to penetrate explosive reactive armor on tanks) is even more powerful. If hit by either warhead, a Stryker Combat Vehicle would be risk being completely demolished. RPG-7V1s are highly favored by guerrilla fighters and terrorists alike and don’t be surprised if a few Strykers in Iraq fall victim to this weapon in the coming months. The Bradley is also vulnerable to the RPG-7V1, as are M-1 tanks, if hit in the side or rear.
Cheaper copies of the tandem warheads are made in both Iran and China. Two years ago, a cargo ship called the Karine-A was boarded by Israeli commandos who found 50 tons of weaponry destined for Palestinian guerrillas. Among the arms found were large quantities of RPG-7V1s with tandem warhead, which would have significantly boosted the operational capabilities of Palestinian terror groups. The RPGs and their warhead, along with all of the weapons captured, were manufactured and purchased from Iran. Israel had been able to lean on the East European governments to stop most armaments shipments to Palestinian terror groups, but the Iranians consider it their sacred duty to do whatever they can to destroy Israel.
War making is always under constant evolution. Currently, guerillas have a great weapon in their RPGs. RPGs are so nasty against our fighting men, they would be the first weapon I would vaporize in Iraq if I had god-like powers
Alternately, or in unison, perhaps a SOG-like program, ala Laos/Cambodia,etc. where we infiltrate enemy lines and "contaminate" there stocks of RPGs. Sort of give new meaning to the term "short-round..."
Only down side I see is troop or non combatant on the ground is toast if the anti-tank round is fired over their head at the APC.
I suspect that such a system would be ineffective against a trained tank killer team using volly fire. Overloading ability to defend itself per se.
Just babbling..........I yeild to the subject matter experts for keeping em safe. I know how to punch em just don't know, short of troops on the ground acting as tripwire, how to counter an RPG-AT ambush.
Stay Safe !
yeah, but what kind of after-armor effect are there? And the tandem warhead works by detonating the reactive armor with the first, smaller charge, and then popping the larger charge a split second later. More effective but I don't know that I call it more "powerful".
And didn't the austrians/swiss come up with some 100mm+ rocket back in the 80s? something like 950mm penetration?
In many ways it is, but in many more ways, it really isn't. Fighting against small groups of heavily-armed but loosely-organized opponents is as old as the hills. Doing so in an urban environment is not a recent development either, as walled cities around the world can attest.
In my humble, armchair-general opinion, taking out the kind of enemies we face in Iraq will require tactics suited to the task.
Armored vehicles of any kind appear ill-suited to many situations our troops encounter, and should be deployed only where they offer advantages. They can be used to great effect in securing and patrolling open, rural areas which constitute the majority of Iraqi territory.
In the cities, however, our forces are faced with amorphous and difficult-to-detect threats, attackers dressed as civilians who know their neighborhoods, speak the language and effortlessly blend in with noncombatants. Armed with RPGs and IEDs, they have made the defeat of U.S. armored vehicles a cottage industry. Sending improved armored vehicles against such threats might reduce their success rate, but it will not change the fact that these enemies must be fought differently.
Thus we enter the domain of the "secret war", where soldiers don't wear auspicious uniforms or operate in formation. Instead, sympathetic locals, elite troops and "contractors" are organized into small strike teams capable of gathering and acting quickly on the often contradictory and unreliable intelligence that is typical of urban combat in foreign lands. While I have no inside information to go on, I am certain we are using such teams as a complement to traditional ground forces in Iraq. At least, I pray that we are, because there is a lot of work piling up for them.
Improving our armor is a moral imperative. Our troops deserve the best protection we can provide them.
But the ongoing war in Iraq will not be won by improved armor, nor by sending more troops to Iraq, but by using forces and tactics suited to defeating the kinds of enemies we face.
Today I was reading about a nifty little substance called aerogel.
Incredibly light (a cubic yard weighs 5 pounds), huge strength/weight ratio, extremely good thermal insulator.
I wonder what a thick layer of aerogel impregnated with tungsten carbide powder would do to a directed jet of hot metal?
...and making the sure the elements of the "secret war", aren't using the ops. to settle old scores...otherwise we're back to square one, therefore our intel. must be as complete as possible...w/ more agents on the ground.
Damn Jimmah Cartar/Sen Intel. Comm....w/ their destruction of the intel. services during Cartar's term. :/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.