US ARMY making big mistake with STRYKER...

[Dragonrock]

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


Virgil

More like a $10 RPG. The author of Black Hawk Down said that the choppers were not shot down due to skill, but due to the fact that thousands of RPGs were launched and it was only a matter of time until someone just got lucky.

 

[Virgil]

what is a rpg? I was under the impression that is was just a grenade on a rocket and that when it hits a solid object it explodes... but some of the link on this thread suggest it can penatrate armor before it blows... is this true


also they links said that some small arms rounds can penatrate the bradleys armor... is that true? would my .30-06 or an ak-47 shoot into that vehicle? if so what good is the armor if it is too thin?

thanks
Virgil

 

[Dragon]

what is a rpg? I was under the impression that is was just a grenade on a rocket and that when it hits a solid object it explodes... but some of the link on this thread suggest it can penatrate armor before it blows... is this true


also they links said that some small arms rounds can penatrate the bradleys armor... is that true? would my .30-06 or an ak-47 shoot into that vehicle? if so what good is the armor if it is too thin?

thanks
Virgil

Shaped charges - been around since WW2, look up "panzerfaust".
I don't think an AK47 can touch a Stryker, Bradley or Abrams (or a Warrior or Challenger come to that).

 

[Rob Lister]

Just butting in to say, "Dang! What a great thread!"

Oh yea, congratulate me. I'm 50.

 

[Virgil]

happy b-day!!!


Virgil

 

[Martin]

I think he meant his post count, actually.

 

[Virgil]

I think he meant his post count, actually.

my bad. I'm 53


Virgil

 

[Martin]

Meh. I'm pushing 3000, you young whipper-snapper.

 

[Exposer]

[*]They are not British made.

This article says they are:

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

[*]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)."

Then why aren't these bolt-on contraptions stopping the RPGs that are destroying Strykers in Iraq right now?

[*]According to at least one commentator, the Bradley is known as The Exploding Coffin, it is so lightly armoured.

Very few Bradleys have been lost. On the other hand, Bradleys were used to mop the floor with Saddam's most elite RG TANK units. They can hold their own. I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that a Bradley has stronger armor than one of these Strykers, with the tradeoff being that the Bradleys are heavier.

[*]The Stryker is small enough to be carried by a C130, unlike the Bradley.

So if the US is in a huge hurry to get somewhere, we can send some of these Strykers. That was not the case in this most recent Iraq war. We had plenty of time. Better to send the big guns. Trust me, if it was your your life on the line, you would choose the thicker armor.

[*]The Stryker's weapons are remote-controlled, so you don't need to stick your head out to shoot back.

In a tank or Bradley, you have your choice to close the hatch or stick your head out of it to get a beter picture of what is really going on. So, in fact, the Stryker really gives you less options in battle, hardly a plus.

Anyway, this thread was not Bradley vs Stryker. Nor was the objective to say that Strykers will be terrible APCs. They will be fine. But what the army really needs is a smaller, lower-profile, more easily transported and more lethal alternatives to the M1. This Stryker is just a glorified minivan.

 

[richardm]

This article says they are:

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

No it doesn't. That article says they're made in London, not that they're made in Britain.

Then why aren't these bolt-on contraptions stopping the RPGs that are destroying Strykers in Iraq right now?

The article says:

The brigade in Mosul lost its first Stryker armoured vehicle to an rocket-propelled grenade attack on March 28.

Two grenades were fired at the vehicle and one got past its armour.

The vehicle caught fire and was destroyed but the crew was not hurt.

According to one Stryker brigade website, soldiers praised the vehicle, saying "about a dozen Strykers have suffered serious damage so far, including several that were totalled. But casualties have not been high."

Not exactly the turkey shoot you're implying.

In a tank or Bradley, you have your choice to close the hatch or stick your head out of it to get a beter picture of what is really going on. So, in fact, the Stryker really gives you less options in battle, hardly a plus.

Nonsense! You can still get out of the Stryker if you want to. But because the weapons are remote controlled, you don't need to expose yourself to defend the vehicle. As for getting a better picture of what is going on:

The Stryker driver has three M-17 periscopes and a Raytheon AN/VAS-5 Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE). The vehicle commander has seven M45 periscopes and a thermal imager display with video camera.

- so you're not exactly blind, even when buttoned down.

But what the army really needs is a smaller, lower-profile, more easily transported and more lethal alternatives to the M1. This Stryker is just a glorified minivan.

Ok. It's fun to speculate on what future military developments might be. But because something better might be available in the future is no reason to develop a terminal prejudice against what is actually a pretty good vehicle. I do hope it's not because you thought it wasn't All-American that gave you pause?

 

[Exposer]

That article says they're made in London, not that they're made in Britain.

????

Nonsense! You can still get out of the Stryker if you want to. But because the weapons are remote controlled, you don't need to expose yourself to defend the vehicle.

You don't need to "expose yourself " or "get out" of a tank or Bradley to "defend" it with the main gun or 7.62mm coax (which is controlled by the gunner or commanders' fire control system INSIDE the vehicles). The only time M1 and Bradley commanders or gunners "pop up" is too get a better view of what is actually going on, or to get some fresh air, or to talk to the locals. According to what I have read and heard, the periscopes on a tank can be a little disorienting, too narrow to let the crew inside feel like they really know what's going on around them. That's why I say having the opportunity to pop up is better than "remote control", which I guess means you are locked inside the vehicle and do not move as the turret does.

Here is the inside of an M1....

I do hope it's not because you thought it wasn't All-American that gave you pause?

It's not a matter of that, although no one really doubts than American military techonology is the best in the world. It's just the impression I get looking at the Stryker and reading about it. As an APC it's fine, as a fighting vehicle, that turkey will get cooked by even the lowliest bands of RPG-toting opponents.

 

[richardm]

????



Same sort of confusion as Paris, Texas, I suppose

 

[Doubt]

This is still going on?

The Stryker is built in London Ontario. That is Canada, not the UK. It was a joint project between GM and General Dynamics. GM sold off its part of the operation.

The basic design of the Stryker has been around for a while. The Marines use an older version called the LAV, which has a 25mm cannon on it.

Comparing a future tank to an existing armored personal carrier is an apples and oranges situation. They are built for different jobs.

Tanks have great firepower and armor. Tanks cannot engage many targets at once and have severe visibility limits. When not buttoned up, only the commander has a good field of view. The rest of the crew can see very little. Once the tank closes the hatches, everybody had vision problems. Most notably, they cannot see much above or below the level of the periscopes at close range. (Those scopes are not like the ones in subs. They are fixed blocks.) Tanks can be overwhelmed by infantry at close range. If they have concealment, such as found in cities, the infantry can engage the tanks from all directions, including above. Even if they don’t kill the tank, they can cripple it and do other things to stop it. Many things on the tank are not all that well protected. Antennas, periscopes and sights are all easy to damage at close range. Drive trains are easily damaged by RPG rounds.

Armored personal carriers don’t have such great firepower or armor. What they do have is infantry. With infantry you get troops on the ground with many sets of eyes to see what is happening. Infantry can engage multiple targets to suppress the enemy.

The concept of combined arms exists to offset the weaknesses of armor and infantry. To say that a tank is better in a city ignores how easy it is to cripple a tank. It is rare to see a tank without infantry in a city. The tanks cannot afford to stop without infantry, or the enemy will out maneuver them. Infantry without tanks need some sort of heavy fire support. Tanks are one option for that. Helicopters and AC-130 gun ships are other options.

Comparing armor thickness of the Stryker to the Bradley is also an apples to oranges comparison. The Bradley is aluminum with steel bolt on armor added to the sides. The Stryker has a steel hull. They were supposed to have ceramic bolt on armor for the Stryker, but the early versions had cracks in them and that is being redesigned.

The Stryker has a great many opponents. There are many trade offs in using this kind of machine. I won’t get into the tracks vs. wheels issue right now. The Stryker is still a work in progress. The reason it is being built is that the army did not have a “middle weight” ability. The army had heavy divisions and light infantry units. It did not have a quickly deployable force with light armor. That is why the Strykers are built for that task. 2 brigades are ready now. 4 more are to be built.

 

[Exposer]

This is still going on?

The Stryker is built in London Ontario.

...

Comparing a future tank to an existing armored personal carrier is an apples and oranges situation. They are built for different jobs.

Doh! about London.

As for these Strykers, they seem fine as replacements for the 113 personel carriers, and I guess they are okay for ferrying infantry to the scence, but why are they so huge, high-profile, and thin-skinned? It's just seems like a flawed concept and design to me. And they're going to spend 6 billion dollars on these? In addition to C-130 transportability, RPG-proof armor should have been the second requirement.

 

[Dragonrock]

As for these Strykers, they seem fine as replacements for the 113 personel carriers,

From what I was told, a '63 packard with bulletproof glass would be a fine replacement for the 113. The "armor" could be penetrated with small arms AP rounds and the magnesium alloy actually made them flammable even if you just splashed burning diesel on them. This could all be BS as I heard it from a 113 crew while I was in Korea in '91 when the Bradley's were being deployed there.

Personally, I think the Bradley looks meaner than the Stryker.

 

[Exposer]

Personally, I think the Bradley looks meaner than the Stryker.

I know which one I'd rather be in.

 

[Virgil]

From what I was told, a '63 packard with bulletproof glass would be a fine replacement for the 113. The "armor" could be penetrated with small arms AP rounds and the magnesium alloy actually made them flammable even if you just splashed burning diesel on them. This could all be BS as I heard it from a 113 crew while I was in Korea in '91 when the Bradley's were being deployed there.

Personally, I think the Bradley looks meaner than the Stryker.

I'm not sure about the alloy you are talking about but yes magnesium will ignite and burn if it gets hot enough.


the Navy was going to build battleships out of magnesium during WWII because it is strong and very light (compared to steel) but then they were given a demo on what happens when it ignites by a Chem prof. I have a link to. Also, I believe it will burn under water once it is ignighted.

like I said I'm not sure about the alloy...


virgil

 

[Agammamon]

Well, I guess it's a good thing they didn't get a demo of what happens when aluminum is ignited. Could you post the magnesium BB link, please?

 

[Virgil]

when I said link I meant that I knew one his students (dead now) from when they gave the demo to the Navy.


Anyhow Mg will burn once ignited until it is all consumed. it cannot be put out, it will burn underwater etc. refered to as a metal fire.

I will find some pics for you though.


sorry for the confusion


Virgil

 

[Agammamon]

About the Stryker's height -

The M113 APC is 86.5 in high
The Stryker (Infantry Carrier version) is 104 in
The M2/3 Bradley is 118.8 in

If anyone wants more info, Global Security.org is a good site form info on military hardware and more.