Replies

So lemme see here. We got the venetian-blind RPG catcher shell, inside of that, we got the ceramic HMG-stoppers, proof against the 14.5mm COMBLOC round, but not the 23mm COMBLOC, which is kind of hard to hide, but was produced in the millions. Then finally, we get down to the actual Stryker

So the first two RPG rounds blow away all this crap, then what happens? Please God, the boys will dismount about a mile from town and go in in some appropriate patrol formation, with artillery back-up, and on-call air. THis is a big taxi-cab ... no kind of fighting vehicle.

You could not drive this thing down an American alley.It will be immobile and helpless in the rabbit warren towns and villages of the rest of the world.

We got the venetian-blind RPG catcher shell, inside of that, we got the ceramic HMG-stoppers, proof against the 14.5mm COMBLOC round, but not the 23mm COMBLOC, which is kind of hard to hide.

My understanding is that the ceramic armor not only failed livefire testing with 14.5mm ammunition, but also was penetrated by hits from the 12,7x108mm DShK heavy machinegun sometimes referred to as a *.51 caliber* and slightly more powerful than the US .50x99mm M2 Browning MG with which the Stryker is armed.

The 12,7mm Dash-ka is not exactly *concealable* under a jacket, no mor than a .50 M2. But it's easier to move than a 14.5mm KPV or PTRD rifle, and should be quite capable of chewing the tires right off one side of a Stryker, and when used from above, as from atop a city roof or the sides of a mountain pass [as when the Afghan Mujahadin ambushed Soviet BTR wheelies in Afghanistan and cut through their roof armor from above] should cut through the Stryker's half-inch steel top plating like hot marbles through butter. And the KSVK semiauto 12,7 Russian rifle equivalent of the M82A1 Barrett Light Fifty should do the same.

-archy-/-

Well, you've hit on the main point of the vehicle. The Stryker is NOT a fighting vehicle. The vehicle exists to move the squad, not the squad for the vehicle like the Bradley.

That venetian blind RPG armor that you are so contemptuous of is the best that can be made for the weight of it. Is it perfect? Of course not, but we lost a few Abrams to RPGs during the war, too. Would you prefer to use the reactive armor that weighs even more, which would reduce mobility? The limitations of reactive armor are the same as the slat armor, and it's heavier. True, the best would be a combination of both, but the vehicle can't have unlimited weight.

The difference is tactical. Name a vehicle that can be dismounted 200 miles from the AO at a secure airfield and can get to there in 4 hours, with the soldiers inside still ready to fight and not fatigued from having their dental fillings rattled loose. I've ridden in Bradleys, M113s and Strykers. The Stryker ride is far superior. Will it do everything a Bradley can? No. Can a Bradley carry a 9 man squad? Not the last time I was in one.

That said, the vehicle cannot be used like a Bradley. The Bradley is actually used like a grounded HIND helicopter: it's a light tank that carries a few troops. The emphasis is on the vehicle, not the squad. With the Stryker, the emphasis and therefore the tactics, training and doctrine need to be different, and based once more on the squad.

The Marines use the LAV-25, which is a roughly similar (true it has the M242 Bushmaster on it, which allows a greater standoff range), and has significantly less armor on it, because they felt that the maneuver advantage was more important. The Marines will only use the add on armor for stuff like Embassy evacs or other stationary things, where mobility and speed aren't so important. If they lost any in Iraq, it was only a couple.