Stryker Strikes Out

19 August 2003 | FReeper "Matthew James"

[Matthew James]

Bump.

[Squantos]

Please excuse my limited knowledge of your profession but I was always trained to understand that the APC was to get to the fight, not drive thru the fight. When main battle tanks or scouts encountered tank killer teams the troops dismounted to engage and the gunner / driver of the APC provided overwatch and heavy weapons support.

I understand the troops desire to have pretty much the same protection from 12.7mm and RPG threats but is it a realistic goal that can be accomplished with current technology in the numbers required ?

What country has an APC that meets this requirement of C-130 deployable and withstands PG-7 and heavy machinegun, ect ect.....??? My world of limited armor use revolved around the M60A3 MBT with an M9 dozer blade attached and the M113 for EOD work .

Is the real issue here trying to make an APC a fighting vehicle. I'm just confused with such details, educate me if ya have time .

Stay Safe Ya'll !

[centurion316]

And your point is? Why don't you compare the Stryker with, say the F-15E. That comparison would be about as meaningful as this one.

Do you know how many Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) equipped Mechanized Infantry Battalions are to be converted to Stryker equipped combined arms battalions? The answer is two: 1st Bn, 23d Infantry, and the 5th Bn, 20th Infantry, both belonging to the 3d Brigade, 2d Infantry Division which is the only heavy brigade to be converted. All of the rest are light infantry brigades. Therefore, you should compare a foot-mobile light infantry squad with a Stryker equipped infantry squad. That comparison would be a little more useful.

[Valin]

bmp and bookmark

[Blood of Tyrants]

I don't know much, but I do know that a .50 cal will punch through 14.5 mm of armor as if it wasn't there, even at distance. If it won't even stop a relatively puny (for the battlefield) round like the .50 cal, then why even bother with armor at all?

The weapons systems suck. No automatic stabilization of the guns or optics. Slow target asquisition and engagement.

Basically, all you have hear is a fancy, expensive truck that would get it's @$$ kicked by a soviet BMP or US Bradley.

[LenS]

The problem with that type of APC is that it slows down the advance if you have to stop for every opponent with a .50 cal. As we saw in Iraq, speed wins battles if it can be done. The Bradley is powerful enough to provide that speed since it's troops only have to stop for major threats. It also has the advantage of being able to take on the older tanks we often find in potential opponent's inventories.

The problem with the Stryker is that they've compromised out all the possible advantages of a medium APC but kept all the disadvantages and added in high costs just for fun. For now, it's better to stick to a mix of Hummer's and Bradley's for moving infantry via ground vehicles.

[Travis McGee]

MJ, are you submitting this to any pro. pubs?

[joesnuffy]

It is important to note that General Shinseki and his supporters (during the vehicle selection phase of Stryker’s development) attempted to seed disinformation by claiming that wheeled vehicles are more mobile than tracks, in a blatant attempt to effect vehicle selection. There are also many allegations of rigged tests in favor of the wheeled vehicle, and Shinseki has stated that his ultimate goal is to rid the Army of tracked vehicles. But despite Shinseki’s disinformation attempts, armor experts know very well that wheeled vehicles cannot compete against tracked vehicles for mobility

Perhaps Shineski (the black beret pimp) should run as vice prez along with Clark...apparently they share some of the same character disorders than General Shelton illuminated yesterday...

General Shelton's remarks on Gen Clark

[Flyer]

You writing style reminds me of tangofox.

[Seydlitz]

Right on target. The overwhelming majority of crticism against the Stryker is based on a total misunderstanding of the vehicle's tactical role.

Before someone writes another of these lame comparisons of apples and oranges, please read Kurt "Panzer" Meyer's Grenadiers, or (to a lesser extent), Hans von Luck's Panzer Commander to see how light armoured vehicles are properly employed. At the very least, any book on a fellow named Erwin Rommel might shed some light on the subject (Rommel usually detached the light armoured units from their parent divisions to be used under his direct command).

Finally, as a kid during the early 1980s, I remember everyone shrieking about a new death-trap, so deadly and poorly designed that the armour would burn on impact, killing everyone inside. The name of that death-trap? The Bradley.

[RightWhale]

Is the real issue here trying to make an APC a fighting vehicle.

It's a flexible weapon, capable to some degree of many things. It's going to be up to the tactical commanders as to how it is used, and tactics will no doubt evolve as the vehicle gains experience. Right now it appears to be an APC, high profile, heavy, expensive, but fast on the highway. Sounds like my SUV.

[Petronski]

I remember everyone shrieking about a new death-trap, so deadly and poorly designed that the armour would burn on impact, killing everyone inside. The name of that death-trap? The Bradley.

HBO even did a movie about it. The Pentagon Wars

[jospehm20]

Light, with a 105mm gun? What is your idea of heavy?

[Rash32]

Your right...it is a troop taxi with a computer store's worth of high tech PCs in-side.

It is not meant to go toe to toe with a tank, but to place soldiers in the right places at the right time...fast.

[historian1944]

You are correct. Critics have gotten hung up on the paradigm shift from Armored Personnel Carrier to Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the latter which places emphasis on the vehicle, not the squad.

The Strkyer exists as a way to get the 9 man infantry squad to the fight, and provide a base of fire. It is not intented to do the entire job itself, it exists to provide transportation to the squad.

The Army provided, in the ORD for the vehicle a large set of mutually exclusive requirements to be met. Some of them have been met, some never will be, until the technology to allow it exists. Barring getting the Air Force to come up with a replacement for the C130, the weight/protection will always be a tradeoff.

Lastly, the Marine Corps LAV-25 has armor that will only protect to 7.62 ball, fired from AK-47 at classified range, and they lost very few of them in Iraq. True, the Stryker doesn't have the 25mm cannon, so it is an imperfect comparision.

[historian1944]

The vehicle does not have 14.5mm of armor on it (where did this misconception come from?), the armor is supposed to be capable of stopping 14.5mm rounds, fired from the former Soviet machine gun. I can assure you that the armor needed to do that, and the armor on the vehicle is more than a half inch thick.

For armor protection, perhaps you should talk to the Marines, their LAV-25 is significantly less protected than the Strkyer.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yes, but the Marines aren't so stupid as to try to replace their M113's and tanks with LAV-25's either.

[historian1944]

And these vehicles are not currently replacing M113s and tanks in Iraq when they arrive, either. We're talking about a force of around 3000 soldiers, intermixed with the rest of the 160,000. There are currently plans for 6 Stryker brigades. That is not nearly a large enough force to convert the entire army to Stryker brigades.

Future Combat System (which will probably be wheeled also-not my choice) is the expected replacement for the legacy force, sometime (the yardstick keeps moving, it may be slipping backward) around 2010, which will mean that the Abrams will be somewhere around 30 years old at the time (with block improvements, of course.) The whizbang technology that FCS is counting on is probably not going to be around, so expect to see Abrams and Bradleys prowling around battlefields for at least the next 20 years or so. This is not the end of the tracked vehicle on the battefield, and the Stryker (if used properly) can provide a useful capability for the Army.

[Squantos]

That's just my perception as to this new and improved.......setting here on the couch in retirement I yeild to those still in the arena to bring me up to speed.

Thanks ........Stay Safe !