The Stryker

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by brewmonkey

My concern with the Stryker is they went back to the battle taxi that the PC was. The stryker lacks a gun system like the LAV, which has the same M-242 Bushmaster that BFV does. Something about having that 25mm as covering fire makes me feel a bit better then having some .50.

But you have those 3 MGS's per company. The US Army equivalent of the AMX-10RC and Centauro - a vehicle with a gun just big enough to take out tanks, but whose armor can be defeated by most IFV weapons and many infantry weapons.

But I predict that the regular Stryker turret will soon have a Bushmaster and a TOW in place of the .50cal or MK-19.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

But you have those 3 MGS's per company. The US Army equivalent of the AMX-10RC and Centauro - a vehicle with a gun just big enough to take out tanks, but whose armor can be defeated by most IFV weapons and many infantry weapons.

But I predict that the regular Stryker turret will soon have a Bushmaster and a TOW in place of the .50cal or MK-19.

Not unless they throw away the weight restriction.

TR

[DanUCSB]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Not unless they throw away the weight restriction.

Exactly. And then we're back where we started. We have a Stryker, so we stick a Bushmaster on it to give it more punch (who could argue against backing up our boys with a bigger gun?), then, someone will complain that it's not survivable enough, so it'll get more armor (who could argue against giving the crew/passengers better armor protection?), then we'll find out we have to toss out the weight restrictions, because it's impossible with everything we want on the thing, and it'll start busting bridges and needing a C-5 to go anywhere. So we may as well have just used a Bradley.

The only way out of this never-ending upward cycle is just a common-sense view of what things are used for. If you want to send a Stryker on a mission but need it to have a bigger gun, use a Bradley. Because no one can win the 'no, this vehicle doesn't need any more armor' argument, as we're seeing with the HMMWV debacle. Unfortunately, I've never seen the NSN for 'Common Sense Module, General Purpose, 1 ea.'.

I'm with AL on this one. Why duplicate a capability our government already has?

[danjam]

Iraq is different. You guys are dealing with well trained ex-soldiers, and alot different types for fighting styles, I am guessing since they come from quite a broad range of countries. The amount and variety of weapons available to them are larger as well.

By the way we had a D9 on the Northern border get messed up with a Sager. They got the missile in the top portion.

M113s are used here precisely because Israel gets to use the aid money for US weapons/systems. As well as the fact that they are pretty good for the environment here (sand) However they are poor performers in the streets and the noise they make is big. Oh and annoying. This said, they are better than nothing and do the job...so far. I do better than most inside, since my height allows me :-) however it is a bitch to drive, and I always get complaints about the bumps ....
On a more serious note, we or rather I have used sand bags (poor mans armour) to protect the sides. Some units use a vulcan on top... This is .... nice.

With my very limited knowledge, compared to most here, I think professionalism will win the day and not the equipment.

Happy holidays all.

[danjam]

Just to add. The IDF do use a apc modeled on the T55 chasis as far as I have heard.
There are plans for something called the Wolf (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo.../wolf/wolf.htm)

I have not seen one ... yet.

[QRQ 30]

A basic premise in the military is: "If its new it won't work."

I can remember, at Hohenfels, the TCs wouldn't use the new fangled radar on their M-60 tanks. They said that the "flash to bang" means of range determination was superior. Until --- a unit took their ATT on a foggy day with very limited visibility. They had to use the radar and maxed the course.

When Jeeps were introduced we all complained that they would never work. What would happen if you ran out of gas. All you had to feed a mule was some oats, or just some grass in an emergengy.

Of course, on the other side of the coin, this being a capitalistic society, arms R&D and production means big bucks and jobs.

Never having been other than SF, I would still think that being able to fight from within the vehicle would be a plus. IIRC the M-113 is merely a means of transportation. I also hear the M-114 mentioned. IIRC that was a mobile command post.

[brewmonkey]

Originally Posted by QRQ 30

A basic premise in the military is: "If its new it won't work."

I can remember, at Hohenfels, the TCs wouldn't use the new fangled radar on their M-60 tanks. They said that the "flash to bang" means of range determination was superior. Until --- a unit took their ATT on a foggy day with very limited visibility. They had to use the radar and maxed the course.

When Jeeps were introduced we all complained that they would never work. What would happen if you ran out of gas. All you had to feed a mule was some oats, or just some grass in an emergengy.

Of course, on the other side of the coin, this being a capitalistic society, arms R&D and production means big bucks and jobs.

Never having been other than SF, I would still think that being able to fight from within the vehicle would be a plus. IIRC the M-113 is merely a means of transportation. I also hear the M-114 mentioned. IIRC that was a mobile command post.

Production of military equipment played a huge roll in dragging the US out of the Great Depression.

One thing I liked about the Bradley when I was on them, I was on an original M2 which had a serial number of 00013, is that is had the 6 firing port in the rear. When the vehicle was buttoned up you could put the chain gun over the front deck and maintain at least some form of 360 security/cover. The downside to the firing ports was the M-231 firing port weapon.

For those who are not familiar with the M-231, it is an M-16 variant that is only automatic and fires from the open bolt. The problem is that it eats through a magazine VERY quickly. They should have designed a weapon with single-burst-auto and then they should have developed a bigger magazine for it.

Another problem was the evacuation system for the weapon was not the greatest and after about 100 rounds everyone was choking on the gas and their eyes were burning from it.

While I never wanted to be a mech warrior, especially on something with a high profile like the Bradley, after being onne for 3 years I could not see getting to the fight any other way (at least for me). Each method of infiltration has it's merits but the one that lets me carry extra gear/ammo and have the firepower of the 25 has sold me.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by brewmonkey

Production of military equipment played a huge roll in dragging the US out of the Great Depression.

One thing I liked about the Bradley when I was on them, I was on an original M2 which had a serial number of 00013, is that is had the 6 firing port in the rear. When the vehicle was buttoned up you could put the chain gun over the front deck and maintain at least some form of 360 security/cover. The downside to the firing ports was the M-231 firing port weapon.

For those who are not familiar with the M-231, it is an M-16 variant that is only automatic and fires from the open bolt. The problem is that it eats through a magazine VERY quickly. They should have designed a weapon with single-burst-auto and then they should have developed a bigger magazine for it.

Another problem was the evacuation system for the weapon was not the greatest and after about 100 rounds everyone was choking on the gas and their eyes were burning from it.

While I never wanted to be a mech warrior, especially on something with a high profile like the Bradley, after being onne for 3 years I could not see getting to the fight any other way (at least for me). Each method of infiltration has it's merits but the one that lets me carry extra gear/ammo and have the firepower of the 25 has sold me.

Lightly armored, lots of firing ports, everyone choking on fumes ...

[n4aof]

Originally Posted by QRQ 30

A basic premise in the military is: "If its new it won't work."

I can remember, at Hohenfels, the TCs wouldn't use the new fangled radar on their M-60 tanks..

Very interesting memory you have QRQ. Especially considering that no model of the M60 tank ever mounted any sort of radar, and no tanker in your lifetime ever used "flash to bang" as a serious method of ranging.

You'd have to be a heck of a lot older than I am to even have seen a tank with the old Flying Geese rangefinder system. The M60 series originally came with the coincidence rangefinder (inherited from the earlier M48 series). The M60A3 introduced the laser rangefinder. Tank Commander's loved the laser rangefinder because it was faster and easier than the old coincidence rangefinder. It was also more accurate if you were at least basically competent.

Yes, there were specific occasions when the LRF didn't work worth a damn, and it was just possible to encounter a situation where the old coincidence rangefinder would have done a better job. But there was never any situation in which any tank commander would have even considered flash-to-bang as a serious ranging method.

The only issue that ever existed with TCs using the LRF was that they tended to play around using it in situations where it was supposed to be prohibited (such as ranging on friendly troops). But TCs "not using the LRF" was never a problem.

[QRQ 30]

Thanks for the compliment. I admit to never being in a tank although I have done considerable time providing SCUBA safety support for amphib opns with APC's.

I based my comments on those of old SF soldiers who had been in armored units and they mentioned the incident at Hohenfels during an ATT when visibility was reduced to zero. As I recall the electronic equipment was only installed in one tank per platoon. It was that new. Admitted it was hearsay but I trust these old NCOs of the fifties and early sixties, more than an unknown source.. I went to your profile to see what your credentials may be but found zilch!!

BTW

Laser radar systems, however, have been used for precision range-finding in weapon control

The term"radar" is legitimate.

[Sacamuelas]

n4aof-

Terry is to friggin' nice to do it, so I will. What a sorry ass introduction post that was. You confront someone you don't know and call out a respected member of this site on your very first post on the board???

Here is a tip- READ the stickied threads at the top of all the forums, FILL OUT YOUR PROFILE, and then post an introduction in the base camp introductions thread. AFter letting everyone know who you are and what your background is then you can further display your winning personality. We tolerate and usually appreciate frank and honest debate, but not when it's coming from someone who is an unknown. Until you have done the above, it would be nice if you would go away.

[QRQ 30]

One final comment. In limited to no visibility optical sights are useless and flash to bang range determination was all that was available prior to radar. It can be pretty close with a good watch but never pin-point. I have seen it used against mortar batteries with good results.

[n4aof]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I have spent brief periods in the M-113, and would not want to do so again.

The thing is big, barely C-130 transportable

The Stryker is bigger. And NOT C-130 transportable unless stripped to the point where it requires major work to get it "combat ready" (and "combat ready" is a term that must be in quotes when used to describe any Stryker).

undergunned,

The most lightly armed M113 matches the Stryker. An M113 ACAV outguns the Stryker.

very lightly armored with aluminum. 7.62mm AP will penetrate into the crew and engine compartments.

Ditto the Stryker. Although, 7.62mm AP actually won't penetrate the M113 except at close range and near zero obliquity.

Yes, you CAN bolt more armor on the outside of the Stryker to protect it against 7.62AP and .50 BALL, but you can slap extra armor on the outside of ANY vehcile.

one good RPG hit and you can kiss your ass goodbye.

Again, ditto the Stryker.

The Stryker is protected up to 14.5mm,

Not 14.5mm AP, at least not at close range and near zero obliquity

but the tires are admittedly more vulnerable and less mobile that tracks.

Which is why the Stryker is effectively limited to operating on roads and decent trails.

Lower maintenance, though.

Only so long as you are comparing textbook maintenance AND comparing M113s operating cross-country versus Stykers sticking to paved roads.

The LAV-25 is a family member of the Stryker.

Actually it would be more accurate to say the Styker is a member of the LAV family. The Canadians developed the LAV to defend Canada against all its known likely invaders. The USMC decided to buy the LAV as support vehicle to carry the 25mm Bushmaster. The Army decided to buy a light wheeled vehicle, wrote the test results, then conducted the tests to prove that wheels were the right answer.

I like it, but it is limited to a recon role, not combat.

Anything that big had better be able to fight if you expect it to perform recon.

LAV-25's and Strykers both perform reconnaissance missions exactly the same way as the M3 Bradleys. You haul ass down the road and hope your wingman manages to identify and call in the location of whatever blew your vehicle to hell.

Not sure that transforming the entire Army is a good idea either. We need armor, mech, motorized, light, air assault, and airborne, in some mix.

AMEN on that. There is no single set of equipment, no single TO&E structure, and no single doctrine that is effective in all environments, all climates, against all enemies, for all objectives, under all rules of engagement.

That said, the old H-series ACR TO&E probably was probably as close as we have ever been.

- - + - -

Don't think that I am totally against the Stryker.

The Stryker is undoubtedly the best on-road battle-taxi the US Army has ever fielded. The vehicle as used in Iraq, has a great reputation for crew survivability. If you are inside a buttoned-up Stryker when a 500 lb bomb goes off alongside it, you get a headache and get tossed around as the Stryker rolls -- but you will probably be back out in a coupld of days after the contractors slap yours back together, or you might be back out the next day in one of the Operational Readiness Float replacement vehicles.

It is absolutely criminal that we have Soldiers being wounded and killed in so-called "armored" HMMWVs when the Stryker is available. Any mission where a HMMWV is even close to a reasonable choice should be performed by a Stryker.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to take a Stryker on any mission that we clearly too risky for a HMMWV -- the Stryker is much more survivable than any HMMWV but it has somewhat less visibility and no better armament.

One of the assumptions underlying the Stryker design is that the Army will never send a Stryker brigade up against a real military force. (I certainly pray we stand behind that assumption.) An outgrowth of that basic assumption is the further assumption that the 'bad guys' whoever they may be, will never have air or artillery support. I'm pretty much willing to accept that no enemy where we are likely to send Strykers is going to have a serioius air capability. The USAF can certainly achieve air supremacy almost anywhere if needed. But I am less convinced about the 'bad guys' never being able to round up enough field arty to be a threat. Just about anywhere we are likely to send Strykers would be a place that has previously been equipped with former-Soviet or Chinese equipment and probably had its military organized on a generally Soviet-style TO&E. The bad guys might not be able to field an artillery battalion or even a battery, but it would only take one BM-21, Chinese Type-90 or any similar MRL to totally ruin your day in a Stryker unit.

One of the "features" of the Stryker is that most of the stowage is separated from the troop compartment -- which means outside the armor. Most of your ammo and equipment is strapped all over the top and sides of the hull, totally exposed to small arms and shrapnel, etc. Similarly, important systems such as the Rube Goldberg RWS (Remote Weapon System), the M6 Smoke Grenade Launchers, radio antennas, and GPS antenna are all exposed without any sort of armor protection against even the lightest small arms fire or fragments. Hit a Stryker unit with some airbursts or near misses and the crews will all be fine inside their battle taxis, but those crews have all just become dismounted light infantry with only the combat load they had inside with them (and whatever they can salvage from what is left of their rucksacks that were hung on the outside of the hull).

As the Director of Training at the US Army Infantry School said when explaining why the Infantry School sees no reason to train Infantrymen about the Stryker "IT'S A TRUCK! We don't train Infantry on trucks."

[The Reaper]

n4aof:

Do you usually just jump into a new situation with both feet?

The Stryker is resistant to everything under 14.5mm, so 7.62 AP and .50/12.7 AP should be defeated.

There are Stryker versions in the works with the 25mm cannon, and the AGS 105mm variant, whatever that may be. Is there an M-113 that mounts those weapons?

The Stryker appears to me to have less oblique angles than the M-113, but I suppose that is my subjective opinion. The M-113 is certainly slab-sided, by any definition.

I believe that the Stryker is lower maintenance then the M-113 if they are both operated on pavement as well.

As a former Recon Platoon member, I would not perform recon the way you describe regardless of the platform, but to each his own.

It would appear to me that we have re-invented both the BMP and the BTR, at much greater expense.

TR

[QRQ 30]

I am in contact via the SF List with a retired SF Officer who is conducting pre-mission weapons training to soldiers from Ft. Lewis. He has had contact with returning troops who used the Stryker and the comments are overwhelmingly positive. I choose to accept the word of those who have had hands on experience in combat rather than a net surfer who basis his opinions on what he reads.