US ARMY making big mistake with STRYKER...

[Exposer]

The US army has ordered something like 2,000 of these British-made Stryker armored vehicles. They already have about 300 in Iraq, and are rushing to send more there now.

The Stryker

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/


This is a huge mistake, in my opinion. If the US is learning a lesson in Iraq, it is that lightly armored vehicles are not suffient to protect troops on patrol or escorting convoys.

This Stryker looks like the biggest, juiciest target any RPG-wielding insurgent ever dreamed of. It's profile is much, much too high, it's too big, it lacks pivot-steer, and its armor is too flimsy.

Already, Iraqi insurgents have targeted these big turkeys and destroyed them with RPGs, which the Stryker's armor cannot repel. You can read about the incidents here...

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/Business/2004/04/29/440272.html


The Army and congress would be much smarter to push into production something like the Future Combat System (below), a smaller, lower-profile, more heavily armored, faster, and more more lethal armored tank. Something like this could roll right down the street in Fallujah, practically untouchable.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fcs.htm

As was witnessed during the ground war in Iraq last year, super heavily armored M1 main battle tanks basically cruised into Baghdad with impunity. Nearly 100% of the time, RPGs will bounce right off the M1's armor.

It just seems absurd to me, when we know that these roadside IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and RPGs are the main problem, to order up 2,000 of these moving bullseyes.

I am predicting right now: if these Strykers are deployed into dangerous areas of operation in Iraq, the insurgents are going to thrash these minivans.

 

[Benguin]

Aren't you comparing an APC with a small tank there?

I'm no military expert, but I'd say they've distinctly different purposes in a modern army.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Shouldn't this be in the politics forum?

 

[Benguin]

I wondered that, but it's more a question of military hardware and suitability, so I think technology is an appropriate classification. Not that what I think makes any difference!

Probably depends where the jist of thread goes.

 

[Exposer]

As an APC, this thing is okay, but still, a little too big and too thin-skinned. But to use this a combat patrol vehicle, which is one of its designated roles, that would be suicide.

 

[Prester John]

The article suggests they are being used to replace humvees. Now i know what i'd rather be in between a Humvee and a Stryker.

 

[Exposer]

Niether Hummers nor these Strykers are good for conducting combat operations in dangerous, RPG-infested hotspots.

 

[Virgil]

The article suggests they are being used to replace humvees. Now i know what i'd rather be in between a Humvee and a Stryker.

unless you had to go out and change the flat tire...

 

[Prester John]

I think that defining its role(in Iraq)as a combat patrol vehicle is wrong. The patrols are not combat patrols, whilst the areas are dangerous it is different . The army is performing a policing and anti insurgent role. Policing requires human contact, it can't be done from inside a MBT. This is what makes it so dangerous.

 

[Dragonrock]

unless you had to go out and change the flat tire...

This is probably meant only as a joke, but just so you know, wheeled miltary vehicles which run in combat areas generally have aluminum bands in the tires that allow them to run flat.

It sounds like they are using the STRYKER to replace the Bradley which is an APC with a turreted 25mm cannon, TOW launcher, and a 7.62 machine gun. The Bradley is a nice APC but has a top speed of 41 mph, I suspect that the STYKER is faster.

 

[Virgil]

This is probably meant only as a joke, but just so you know, wheeled miltary vehicles which run in combat areas generally have aluminum bands in the tires that allow them to run flat.

Yes and no. I didn't know that. How does it compare to bradley in dealing with land mines

 

[Dragonrock]

Yes and no. I didn't know that. How does it compare to bradley in dealing with land mines

Multi-wheeled vehicles like the STRYKER usually handle mines better than tracked vehicles because a mine will snap a track and stop you dead, while if you lose a wheel you still have 7 more to keep you going.

 

[Exposer]

Yes and no. I didn't know that. How does it compare to bradley in dealing with land mines

The Bradley can actually travel over 50mph with the governor off (everyone takes them off in combat zones). It is also far more heavily armored, and packs a shockingly lethal punch with a 25mm chain gun, 7.62mm coax, and TOW missiles. The Stryker is no match for a Bradley.

Stryker is a vehicle without a purpose. It's bad technology.

 

[geni]

The Bradley can actually travel over 50mph with the governor off (everyone takes them off in combat zones).

Evidence?

It is also far more heavily armored, and packs a shockingly lethal punch with a 25mm chain gun, 7.62mm coax, and TOW missiles. The Stryker is no match for a Bradley.

So at least one of it's weapon systems is useless in urban conflict

 

[Dragonrock]

The Bradley was a serious upgrade for the mechanized infantry. It combined the mobility of MI with the firepower if light armor. The armor of the old 113 the the MI used to have could be pentrated with AP 7.62. They were slow, lightly armored and basically unarmed.

 

[Exposer]

So at least one of it's weapon systems is useless in urban conflict

Which weapon system is useless in urban combat? Believe me, TOW missiles can be employed in urban combat situations. There is video of a TOW missile taking out part of the house Uday and Qusay were hiding in.

As for the governor, that is something I read in multiple books and articles. M1s with their goverors removed can go over 60mph, close to 70mph. I guess you will have to take my word for it. Anyway, mechanized movements rarely move faster than 35-40 mph, because that would be difficult to coordinate, and the support elements could not keep up. Speed has never been an issue with the Bradley or the M1.

 

[richardm]

1. They are not British made.
2. They have a maximum speed of 62 mph (without removing the governer so your engine overheats)
3. The new ones being shipped out have been "outfitted with a "cage" of slat armour, which encircles the vehicle about 18in from the main body, as protection against rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs)."
4. According to at least one commentator, the Bradley is known as The Exploding Coffin, it is so lightly armoured.
5. At any rate, they're certainly
   not immune to the same roadside bombs that trash most vehicles in Iraq.
6. The Bradley is tracked, so if one bit of that comes off you're stuck, unlike the Stryker, which has eight wheels and can drive all of them if it wants.
7. The Stryker can carry nine troops in the back; the Bradley can only manage six.
8. The Stryker is small enough to be carried by a C130, unlike the Bradley.
9. The Stryker's weapons are remote-controlled, so you don't need to stick your head out to shoot back.
   [/list=1]
   
   That was fun! I like tanks and things
   
   Edited to add: See? They're not all that bad!

 

[Agammamon]

Actually the Stykers have been working quite well once the new armor layer was added. It's the stuff that looks like metal fencing bolted the vehicle. That helps against RPG's. The Stryker's armor is heavy enough to stop rounds from most man-portable rifles.


Where the Stryker's problems lie is that it doesn't really meet the orignial specifications for deployability.

It's supposed to be able to fit into a C-130 without a waiver. It fits but the clearance around it is less than the AF standards and so it requires a waiver to be shipped. It is also supposed to be immediately deployable upon arrival. You have to remove some fairly hefty bits to get it into the plane (which it just barely fits into) and those take time to put back on when you get to your destination.

The 105 mm turret gun (when those are finally equipped) has a tendency to knock the thing over when fired off centerline.



the concept's great - a light, modular vehicle that's fast and has good range.

 

[Agammamon]

". . .As was witnessed during the ground war in Iraq last year, super heavily armored M1 main battle tanks basically cruised into Baghdad with impunity. Nearly 100% of the time, RPGs will bounce right off the M1's armor. . . "

The M-1A2 is quite susceptable to RPG's. Granted the armor on the glacis plate will stop pretty much any other tank round or missile but the side armor, especially between, the tracks is very thin.


What killed a U.S. tank?

This one had an RPG cut through the side armor, through the gunner's seat and his flack jacket to bury itself almost 2 in deep in the armor on the other side. So yeah, the M-1 is impervious to weaponry, if you ensure the enemy is in front of you. Easy to do in the open desert, not so easy in the tight confines of a city.

Then add in that the M-1 can only be flown in by the C-5 and only one at a time. It's one of the reasons we went in "armor light". To get significant numbers of tanks in theater you have to ship them in by ship. We were in a bit of a hurry (after all Saddam had those WMD's in a ready to go state) and couldn't afford to wait.
It carries only 4 crew (which aren't necessarily good at small unit tactics. These guys are tankers after all) rather than sheltering a squad. You can't take an M-1 into a building to flush out the enemy. Your only choices would be ignore it or demolish it.

The M-1 is definately the best tank in the world but a tanks job is to kill other tanks (and it's a tankless job).

And, in case anyone cares, the 105 mm guns some versions of the Stryker will have is that same gun the M-1 was originally fitted with.


edited to add a bad pun.

 

[Virgil]

a $10,000 RPG can take out a $100 million tank, who'da thunk it.


Virgil