Does anyone know if there is anyone who wants the Stryker Fighting Vehicle manufactured? Are either the US Army or US Marines at all interested?Are there any foreign sales in the air ? Is this APC a complete mistake? Do any of the variants working correctly? On the other habd, is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle the answer or just a temporary fix?Is the Israeli built Wolf an answer?Is making an APC out of old main battle tanks an answer ? Are tracked vehicles in again?
Stryker Fighting Vehicle
- Thread starter shimmy
- Start date
There already have been US Army Stryker brigades sent to Iraq, "we have I think 7". From what Ive heard they like the vehicle. The USMC is going another route for their LAV but I remember there was some interest in the Stryker. I dont know where its at right now and am not sure about exports tho I think Canada has some Stryker LAVs.
The Stryker is alive and well with the U.S Army, we are even placing tank guns on them now:shudder Israel is also using them. Russia and Israel are using or close to using tank hulls as APCs. Heres some pics, enjoy.
Why the shudder about the anti tank version eckherl?
The MGS version with the 105mm gun is a mean looking machine.It certainly seems like a versatile vehicle, but I have noticed a lot of criticism in other threads from some of the armoured vehicle enthusiasts/experts. I guess some of this concerns the merits of wheeled versus tracked vehicles. As they are using it so extensively I presume the US army is reasonably happy with the design.
Cheers
IMHO, the 105mm MGS is designed to provide direct fire support against dug in targets and light armour vehicles, not used for anti-tank role. It lacks the sophisticated fire-control systems and survivability of MBTs. Granted it can fill in some of tank's role, but it was never meant to be a replacement for tanks.
Of course, I'm no expert in the subject.
I am not shuddering as of the vehicle itself, I am shuddering because if the crews are not trained properly on the limitations of the vehicle then they are going to try and go toe to toe with the more modern heavy tanks that are out there and could spell disaster. I do overall like the vehicle, it gives the light Brigades some of the punch that they need.
It seems like defence planners are forever trying to construct weapons systems that are economical (usually meaning light and mobile - and cheap) rather than systems that are rugged and can survive battlefield threats (usually meaning heavy and slow - and expensive).
You'll notice that the soldiers manning the systems will hang all manner of personal gear like duffel bags or add sandbags or anything else that might improve a vehicles chances of taking a hit. They don't seem bothered by the fact that it slows them down or uses more fuel.
I think the Stryker is an example of a system that budget minded planners love but soldiers given a choice would opt out of. They'd rather use something like the Israeli Azcharit or Namera, the Jordanian Temsah, or some other very very heavy APC that puts more armour between their person and all the bad stuff going on outside the vehicle.
The US isn't alone in the move to wheeled vehicles - the Europeans are doing the same thing. But the Russians, Israelis, and others seem headed in the other direction (the Russians have the BTR-T which is a converted T-55 hull and some other unit which is a converted T-72 whose name I don't recall). The Ukrainians have a couple of "stretch" tanks that carry infantry.
Is the Stryker just like the Sherman tank of WW2? Kinda fun to drive. Mechanically sound. But in battle, when the fit hits the shan, you'd rather be using something substantially more durable?
You'll notice that the soldiers manning the systems will hang all manner of personal gear like duffel bags or add sandbags or anything else that might improve a vehicles chances of taking a hit. They don't seem bothered by the fact that it slows them down or uses more fuel.
I think the Stryker is an example of a system that budget minded planners love but soldiers given a choice would opt out of. They'd rather use something like the Israeli Azcharit or Namera, the Jordanian Temsah, or some other very very heavy APC that puts more armour between their person and all the bad stuff going on outside the vehicle.
The US isn't alone in the move to wheeled vehicles - the Europeans are doing the same thing. But the Russians, Israelis, and others seem headed in the other direction (the Russians have the BTR-T which is a converted T-55 hull and some other unit which is a converted T-72 whose name I don't recall). The Ukrainians have a couple of "stretch" tanks that carry infantry.
Is the Stryker just like the Sherman tank of WW2? Kinda fun to drive. Mechanically sound. But in battle, when the fit hits the shan, you'd rather be using something substantially more durable?
Not a pioneer. It's following a trend established long ago in other countries, which the USA has only recently adopted. Look at France, Italy (Centauro) & South Africa, for example.
European countries mostly never completely gave up wheeled AFVs, & those that are re-adopting them, or increasing the proportion, are generally continuing to buy new tracked AFVs. Look at all the new IFVs being bought in Europe - CV90 for Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, etc - Pizarro/Uhlan, Dardo, Puma. Horses for courses.
The French have successfully used wheeled AFVs in their intervention forces, & that's where other countries are putting their new Centauros, AMVs, etc.
Have you talked to any Stryker crews about this? The ones I've talked to have praised it.
Remember, most of the units converted to Strykers were riding around in HMMWVs & trucks beforehand. The Stryker is a MAJOR upgrade for them.
Yes - the troops really do like them, matter of fact with the current mission in Iraq they would rather be in a Stryker instead of a Bradley, big thing to them is the amount of room and less restrictions in visibility.
It's a step up from a truck or humvee but you can still pop it with an RPG. I question whether or not we should be fielding systems that can be fairly easily destroyed with a $100 weapon that basically uses WW2 technology.
This seems to me to be a critical point in determining how successful a design is. Troops would be unlikely to like a vehicle that they didn't think could do the job well and keep them reasonably safe in the process. Good visibility and the ability to work in relative comfort and therefore higher efficiency would both, IMO, assist with survivability. Liking their vehicles must also assist with crew confidence and morale, both of which should improve fighting efficiency.
Cheers
Waylander hit it right in re-gards to the new caging, majority of Stryker damage is coming from IEDs. Please note that no one was killed or sustained any major injuries in this picture referenced, just pretty shook up.
It strikes me strange how many people appear to believe there is only one way to skin a cat and that an army only needs one kind of vehicle. The Stryker was always intended to be part of an Army, not an end in itself. Sometimes armies need light vehicles, sometimes heavy ones. Sometimes, its not the army which arrives with the most but rather the army which arrives first, which wins the battle and if having a lighter (a relatively term BTW when talking about the Stryker IMO ), wheeled APC allows that then it might be a good idea to have some. Which is also why its a good idea sometimes to have a heavy APC/MICV like the Israel and Russian vehicles already mentioned. They all supplement one another.
), wheeled APC allows that then it might be a good idea to have some. Which is also why its a good idea sometimes to have a heavy APC/MICV like the Israel and Russian vehicles already mentioned. They all supplement one another.- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #19
I have heard that the Strykers were supposed to have the capability to fire accuratly while still moving. Is that true? Are they really armored well enough to see front line combat or are they just "bauses" to get soldiers near the front?In reality how fast can they move when fully loaded and full of soldiers?
Exellent video about Striker! Must see: http://www.combatreform2.com/whatsitreallyliketobeinastryker.wmv