Then why in the hell did we buy that piece of cra-equipment Stryker, which is NOT RPG proof?
Unknown when new Stryker armor will be available
High-tech equipment 'taking some time' in development
By Jeff Schogol, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Wednesday, September 21, 2005
ARLINGTON, Va. — New armor for the Army’s Stryker fighting vehicles is still being developed and it is not known when it will be made available, military officials said.
The equipment is “taking some time” in development, with the aim being to keep the weight down while maintaining effectiveness, said Col. Robert B. Brown, commander of the 1st Brigade 25th Infantry Division Stryker Brigade in Iraq.
The Army decided in 2003 that the Stryker should have “reactive armor,” a high-tech surface that explodes on impact deflecting the blast and the projectile.
Currently, “cage” armor, designed to protect Strykers from rocket propelled grenades, is effective but makes the vehicle as wide as an M1 tank, limiting its agility, Brown told Stars and Stripes on Sunday.
Strykers first saw combat in late 2003, in northern Iraq. Prior to deploying, the light-armored fighting vehicles were equipped with a cagelike “slat” armor designed to catch RPG rounds so they explode away from the vehicles.
But a December 2004 report from the Center for Army Lessons Learned found the add-on armor caused the Strykers to roll over and did not protect exposed personnel from RPG shrapnel.
Neither reactive armor nor slat armor protects exposed personnel. But the 25th ID helped develop the Combat Ballistic Shield, which goes around the back hatches and has a bullet-proof window for vision, said Brown.
In a Sunday e-mail, Brown rebutted the CALL report, saying his unit had experienced no rollovers due to the slat armor.
“The rollovers we had would have occurred with or without slat,” Brown wrote. “I believe some Stryker rollovers have occurred due to the slat being top heavy, but we have not experienced this as we learned from other units and practiced extensively with slat prior to the deployment.”
Still, the slat armor adds considerable bulk to the Stryker: about 2.5 tons and about 3 feet in width, according to published reports.
The reactive armor would add about 7,000 pounds but only 12 to 14 inches in width.
The ASV’s advanced armour defeats .50 cal AP on the front, rear and sides of the vehicle. Its crew is also protected from 12-pound mine blasts under each wheel and fragments from 155-mm artillery shells detonated at 15m overhead.
I'm not sure it is RPG-proof.
As to why we bought so many Strykers and waited so long to buy more Guardians, that's a long, convoluted story. Bottom line: Guardian is too small to carry a motorized rifle squad, General Dynamics has more retired Vice Chiefs of Staff working for it, and Massachusetts and Indiana senators championed up armored humvees in order to bash Bush over casualties in unarmored humvees. Check the keywords above. Lots of threads on that.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet. The ASV is not RPG Proof. The M-1 tank is not "RPG Proof", although it will take a number of licks and keep on ticking. And, where did you get the idea that the Stryker is a "piece of cra-equipment"? The Internet?