A Stryker takes a beating AND survives

JointStrikeFighter · Post by **JointStrikeFighter** » 2004-10-15 10:51pm

what other ideas has shinseki spawned?, i once read an article on streetfighter it was an utter load of crap

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-10-16 01:07am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
And does this bear on the Strykers mission requiements? If the requiremnt were for a replacement 113 they would have asked for one, yes? I think what counts is overall support and force structure.
What are you going on about?

Mission requirements.

The M113 was capable of being upgraded to meet all the requirements for the program that gave us Stryker, unlike the Stryker its self, which effectively fails the C-130 requirement that is the entire point of the program, and it could do so for less money. The only reason that can be found for why it wasn't selected was because the previous Secretary of the Army, General Shinseki, was a moron who didn't think the M113 would be 'revolutionary' enough to crush the critics he had to deal with over the slow reaction of the US Army to Kosvo.

Of course, the entire program was and is quite pointless no matter what vehicle is used because the airlift simply does not exist to move armored brigades of anything by air and support them. And if you travel by sea, as the first Stryker brigade did to get to Iraq, you have nothing to lose by fielding a much larger and heavier vehicle. Even if we still went with wheels, a new medium armored vehicle could at least have been a 10x10, as the Swiss already has on the market, which would provide a vehicle much better able to cope with the weight and recoil of an 105mm cannon and the weight of all the extra armor the US Army has piled. Or better yet, we could have just spent the money on the several dozen upgrade programs of existing Army equipment which got canacled to pay for Stryker.

The fact that Stryker isn't the total deathtrap that many critics claim it is doesn't change these issues.

*snort* well then your army need's to take a serious look at its purchasing sytems, because you have a vehicle which is desgned to do A and your army expected it to do B C and D, which some basic research would have uncovered. The NZ army seems to like its version as its faster, quieter and, overall, more capable than the 113. It meets the capabilities that we required. So I wouldnt crtitizize the vhecle so much as the US army.

JointStrikeFighter · Post by **JointStrikeFighter** » 2004-10-16 05:07am

*snort* well then your army need's to take a serious look at its purchasing sytems, because you have a vehicle which is desgned to do A and your army expected it to do B C and D, which some basic research would have uncovered. The NZ army seems to like its version as its faster, quieter and, overall, more capable than the 113. It meets the capabilities that we required. So I wouldnt crtitizize the vhecle so much as the US army

Yes for new zealand it is a good vehicle, new zealand isnt going to be getting into any wars so they maintain a token defence force. The stryker, and any other wheeled vehicle is not for fighting wars, the M113 is.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-10-16 05:33am

JointStrikeFighter wrote:
*snort* well then your army need's to take a serious look at its purchasing sytems, because you have a vehicle which is desgned to do A and your army expected it to do B C and D, which some basic research would have uncovered. The NZ army seems to like its version as its faster, quieter and, overall, more capable than the 113. It meets the capabilities that we required. So I wouldnt crtitizize the vhecle so much as the US army
Yes for new zealand it is a good vehicle, new zealand isnt going to be getting into any wars so they maintain a token defence force.

Says who?

The stryker, and any other wheeled vehicle is not for fighting wars, the M113 is.

That is rediculous. You select platforms for the mission, the environment, expected opposition etc. The 113 was next to useless outside of certain areas in E Timor, does that mean that the 113 is useless as a weapon of war?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-16 12:19pm

I seem to remember reading that the Aussies had the exact opposite experiance in East Timor with their LAV's then the Kiwi's did. THe Aussies found that they were unable to leave the roads and were generally unsurvivavle in combat. So they have switched their forces in East Timor to 113's and apperently they have provided excellent service.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-16 01:13pm

JointStrikeFighter wrote:How far can a C-130 fly with the 13-15tons of an M113?
500km is pretty poor, no intra-theatre range at all

With a weight of up to 38,000 pounds a C-130 can fly about 2,300 miles, so hauling an M113, combat ready and with its crew and there equipment to the required 1000 miles, and returning all without refueling would be easy. The Stryker was supposed to meet that 38,000 pound weight limit combat ready. Instead so much has been piled into it that it weighs over 38,000 pounds empty, so the fuel load has to be drastically cut until the available range is only about 100 miles. You need a second aircraft to haul the crew, infantry, appliqué armor and some other stuff. Now that second C-130 could transport all the extra crap for a couple Strykers at once. However they all have to be mated up at the forward landing ground, which takes quite a bit of time, not to mention introduces a huge vulnerability into the entire airlift since if that one extra crap aircraft gets shot down or otherwise crashes an entire platoon of Strykers could be rendered useless.

But with 100 miles to work with and insufficient airlift in the first place, we at least don't have to worry about that actually happening because the highly obvious 'capability' will never be used.

To further slam the Strykers 'mobility', the thing can't swim a river. The M113 can do that easily, even when fitted with extra armor and autocannon equipped turrets, hell even early versions of the M2 Bradley could swim. Though I believe the current versions can't because so much extra armor got piled on.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-16 01:15pm

Everyone comparing the Stryker to the LAVIII, they share a chaises but they aren't the same vehicle by a long shot.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-16 01:51pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Everyone comparing the Stryker to the LAVIII, they share a chaises but they aren't the same vehicle by a long shot.

Are there any sites comparing the two? From what I've seen of our LAV III's they look just like the Stryker but have a 25mm cannon in a turret compared to the Stykers .50cal in a remote mounting.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-16 02:22pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Are there any sites comparing the two? From what I've seen of our LAV III's they look just like the Stryker but have a 25mm cannon in a turret compared to the Stykers .50cal in a remote mounting.

The internal equipment has basically been completely changed and the Stryker has significantly heavier hull armor. Though the US Army in its brilliance apparently did not upgrade the suspension or tires after doing that to keep costs down since Stryker was suppost to be an 'off the shelf' buy. They also only have four instead of all eight tires as run flats to keep down weight in the vain hope of retaining air mobility. Hopefully troops in the field have changed that.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-16 02:42pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: The internal equipment has basically been completely changed and the Stryker has significantly heavier hull armor.

I see. I'm not 100% on this but I beleive our LAV III's are only armoured against 50cal. That's a significant improvement over the Bison, Cougar and Grizzly that they replaced though. Those have been holed by 7.62 AP rounds in Bosnia.

Though the US Army in its brilliance apparently did not upgrade the suspension or tires after doing that to keep costs down since Stryker was suppost to be an 'off the shelf' buy. They also only have four instead of all eight tires as run flats to keep down weight in the vain hope of retaining air mobility. Hopefully troops in the field have changed that.

Well that's going to equal a rough ride for the troops. Might also cause them to "bottom out" in rought terrain. Only four "run flats"? That's just dumb. Hopefully there are enough of them to replace all the regular tires in theatre.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-17 09:11am

Cpl Kendall wrote:Well that's going to equal a rough ride for the troops. Might also cause them to "bottom out" in rought terrain. Only four "run flats"? That's just dumb. Hopefully there are enough of them to replace all the regular tires in theatre.

The troops with Strykers are sold on them. Have had an opportunity to find out from the ones in Iraq. Most soldiers in Stryker units would be nowhere else in Iraq (other than in a Stryker unit). The enemy fears them and generally avoids them. Even non-Stryker soldiers like seeing the Strykers around. Talked to one combat engineer who had recently returned from Iraq. Asked him if he'd seen any Strykers. He said, "No, didn't see many Strykers around, but when they were around, you could tell." I asked him how he could tell. "The attacks tapered off. Guess the enemy went to ground when those were around. Soon as the Strykers left, we'd get attacked again."

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-10-17 09:30am

The M13 is about half the weight of a Stryker and much smaller, yet has better armor and superior load bearing & cross-country mobility.

But here in Iraq, we are not concerned about that since we are doing mostly road patrols and convoy escort- so a wheeled vehicle is preferred.

The weary phrase "terrain dictates" is truth; I'd say for the highway work we do, a Stryker with a load of troops is a better choice. Going into a rubble-strewn city or acros rough terain, I'd want a M113. The Army always wants a 'one-size-fits-all' Swiss Army Knife vehicle and it just won't happen.

JointStrikeFighter · Post by **JointStrikeFighter** » 2004-10-17 08:16pm

so were spending milliosn of dollars to create a convoy escort vehicle when this task can be performed far chaeper and better by using guntrucks

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/guntruck.html

JointStrikeFighter wrote:
Quote:
*snort* well then your army need's to take a serious look at its purchasing sytems, because you have a vehicle which is desgned to do A and your army expected it to do B C and D, which some basic research would have uncovered. The NZ army seems to like its version as its faster, quieter and, overall, more capable than the 113. It meets the capabilities that we required. So I wouldnt crtitizize the vhecle so much as the US army

Yes for new zealand it is a good vehicle, new zealand isnt going to be getting into any wars so they maintain a token defence force.

Says who?

says the fact that theyve eliminated there airforce, navy and much of there army, instead relying on australia to protect them

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2004-10-17 08:35pm

jegs2 wrote:
Cpl Kendall wrote:Well that's going to equal a rough ride for the troops. Might also cause them to "bottom out" in rought terrain. Only four "run flats"? That's just dumb. Hopefully there are enough of them to replace all the regular tires in theatre.
The troops with Strykers are sold on them. Have had an opportunity to find out from the ones in Iraq. Most soldiers in Stryker units would be nowhere else in Iraq (other than in a Stryker unit). The enemy fears them and generally avoids them. Even non-Stryker soldiers like seeing the Strykers around. Talked to one combat engineer who had recently returned from Iraq. Asked him if he'd seen any Strykers. He said, "No, didn't see many Strykers around, but when they were around, you could tell." I asked him how he could tell. "The attacks tapered off. Guess the enemy went to ground when those were around. Soon as the Strykers left, we'd get attacked again."

Jegs much as I might like to agree with you most of the Stryker soldiers I ran into over there were arrogant and far from as effective as they seemed to think. I think it most telling that every Army transport convoy I ever ran into (as in speaking to a member of) got his by some form of fire. Our convoys (and those of several of our sister Marine units) didn't but once or twice throughout nearly 6 months. I'd think rather that the enemy seems to know when the Marines are around.

Moreover for being an over sized, over-weight, less-mobile, and roughly equal vehicle to the LAV series that the LAR units are using for the Marines it seems a foolish waste. On top of that their attitude (at least near as I could tell at Anaconda) pissed the hell out of everyone including most of the truck drivers I spoke to. They hated how arrogant the Stryker guys were and quite a few of the MP units hated how arrogant they were abotu how many raids they did and all the patrols they did because they "did more than an entire division" in their own words. Personally I think they're just creating a rift pissing everyone else off and creating a divide but that's me.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-10-18 12:24pm

I don't feel that gun trucks are the answer, though. We've been using modified 5-tons here and I think they are atrocious vehicles for combat purposes.

The forward arc of fire is blocked by the driver's section, which is too easy to hit regardless of whether it has armor or not-- the center of gravity is too high and the best armor we can get for the vehicles is of poor deflection or absorbtion power.

The tires are too big and easy to hit, as are the fuel tanks-- it is, essentially, what it is: a cargo truck first and formost, with some defensive stuff slapped on.

A purpose-built convoy protection vehicle would be best, of course, like the "Guardian" perhaps, but the Guardian only has 4 wheels so it cannot extricate itself if it gets a tire blown out.

Too bad the "Fuchs/Fox" armored car is relegated solely to the NBC recon role. It is a sturdy 6-wheeler with a low profile, a raise-up armored shieled protects a driver's windshieled for driving ops, it has a read door for dismount under fire and road controls such as rear-view mirrors and turn signals.

That might have been worth looking into...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-18 12:41pm

OK, I've heard a lot of the complaints about the Stryker vs the M113, but I've never really seen any of the source data: what makes the Stryker so heavy, if it has less armour, weaponry, and cargo capacity than the M113? Are there any unclassified diagrams and technical decriptions of what the design differences are between the two vehicles that would lead to these disparities you speak of?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-18 01:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:OK, I've heard a lot of the complaints about the Stryker vs the M113, but I've never really seen any of the source data: what makes the Stryker so heavy, if it has less armour, weaponry, and cargo capacity than the M113? Are there any unclassified diagrams and technical decriptions of what the design differences are between the two vehicles that would lead to these disparities you speak of?

The wheels and related suspension and transmission systems on the Stryker are enormously heavy and complex, the thing has 64 different drive shafts. All that crap weighs about 10,000 pounds more then the tracks of an M113. There also being required to take 50% more weight then their original design specs called for so by all rights everything should be even heavier.

Its pretty telling that when MOWAG (the company that makes the Piranha, which has mutated into Stryker by way of the General Motors of Canada's LAV-25) decided it wanted to begin offering such things as vehicles armed with a 105mm cannon and options for both anti RPG armor and upgraded ballistic armor, it decided to stretch the chassis to a 10x10 configuration, with the addition of upgraded suspension.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-18 01:34pm

Coyote wrote:
Too bad the "Fuchs/Fox" armored car is relegated solely to the NBC recon role. It is a sturdy 6-wheeler with a low profile, a raise-up armored shieled protects a driver's windshieled for driving ops, it has a read door for dismount under fire and road controls such as rear-view mirrors and turn signals.

That might have been worth looking into...

The Fox is pretty lightly armored though, and the only armament its ever been offered with is a single machine gun in an open mount. What would make far more sense (if we had to buy a wheeled vehicle) would be simply to buy the LAV-25 and weld an anti RPG cage on it. There is also a 90mm assault gun version of that vehicle already on the market and it could also have been bought without delay. The absurdity of the whole Medium Armored Vehicle program was that it was suppose to be an off the shelf buy, and instead the US Army is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to create what might as well be new vehicles, while in the process making each one cost a minimal of three times as much as the LAV III there based. The most basic Stryker infantry carrier costs nearly half as much as a new built M1A2 tank.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-18 01:41pm

Coyote wrote:I don't feel that gun trucks are the answer, though. We've been using modified 5-tons here and I think they are atrocious vehicles for combat purposes.

The forward arc of fire is blocked by the driver's section, which is too easy to hit regardless of whether it has armor or not-- the center of gravity is too high and the best armor we can get for the vehicles is of poor deflection or absorbtion power.

The tires are too big and easy to hit, as are the fuel tanks-- it is, essentially, what it is: a cargo truck first and formost, with some defensive stuff slapped on.

A purpose-built convoy protection vehicle would be best, of course, like the "Guardian" perhaps, but the Guardian only has 4 wheels so it cannot extricate itself if it gets a tire blown out.

Too bad the "Fuchs/Fox" armored car is relegated solely to the NBC recon role. It is a sturdy 6-wheeler with a low profile, a raise-up armored shieled protects a driver's windshieled for driving ops, it has a read door for dismount under fire and road controls such as rear-view mirrors and turn signals.

That might have been worth looking into...

Why not small Toyota trucks like they used in the Chad/ Libya war? They are lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, more reliable, and a smaller target. They are so popular in the Middle East (and all over the Third World) that they might not even be fired upon because they would blend right in. As the article above points out, the Hummer might as well be painted red, white and blue with stars and stripes.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-10-18 01:46pm

Elfdart wrote:Why not small Toyota trucks like they used in the Chad/ Libya war? They are lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, more reliable, and a smaller target. They are so popular in the Middle East (and all over the Third World) that they might not even be fired upon because they would blend right in. As the article above points out, the Hummer might as well be painted red, white and blue with stars and stripes.

and provide no protections whatsoever to those soldiers inside. He just said that gun trucks don't work too well, and here you are, proposing... a gun truck.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-10-18 01:48pm

Elfdart wrote:Why not small Toyota trucks like they used in the Chad/ Libya war? They are lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, more reliable, and a smaller target. They are so popular in the Middle East (and all over the Third World) that they might not even be fired upon because they would blend right in. As the article above points out, the Hummer might as well be painted red, white and blue with stars and stripes.

We don't use Toyotas because the US Army must use only American vehicles!

Seriously, the Toyotas are a little too light. Their bodies are just paper-thin -- you can't use them to push other vehicles without mounting extravagantly big bumpers on them, their 4WD systems are honestly lacking for heavy-duty work (most off-roaders almost completely rebuild the 4WD systems on them)...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-18 01:49pm

Elfdart wrote:
Why not small Toyota trucks like they used in the Chad/ Libya war? They are lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, more reliable, and a smaller target.

Because such a small pickup truck cannot support very much weight and has far inferior off road performance compared to a Hummve or a military grade 6x6 truck. Copying the tactics of the Chad Libyan war or guerrillas in Afghanistan is rarely a good idea, they use pickups because they can't obtain or afford military vehicles, not because they're superior.

They are so popular in the Middle East (and all over the Third World) that they might not even be fired upon because they would blend right in. As the article above points out, the Hummer might as well be painted red, white and blue with stars and stripes.

It's a rather absurd speculation to think that US troops wouldn't be noticed just because they're in a pickup truck. If anything that would attract more attention, since its something very unusual.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-18 01:51pm

Beowulf wrote:
Elfdart wrote:Why not small Toyota trucks like they used in the Chad/ Libya war? They are lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, more reliable, and a smaller target. They are so popular in the Middle East (and all over the Third World) that they might not even be fired upon because they would blend right in. As the article above points out, the Hummer might as well be painted red, white and blue with stars and stripes.
and provide no protections whatsoever to those soldiers inside. He just said that gun trucks don't work too well, and here you are, proposing... a gun truck.

I was comparing them to the article about the Hummers and the post about 5-ton gun trucks -neither of which (except for a few heavy trucks with scrap armor welded on) offers much protection to their crews, either. If you're not protected by armor, being fast and/ or inconspicuous would be better than being unprotected, slow and obvious.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-18 02:03pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Elfdart wrote:
Why not small Toyota trucks like they used in the Chad/ Libya war? They are lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, more reliable, and a smaller target.
Because such a small pickup truck cannot support very much weight and has far inferior off road performance compared to a Hummve or a military grade 6x6 truck. Copying the tactics of the Chad Libyan war or guerrillas in Afghanistan is rarely a good idea, they use pickups because they can't obtain or afford military vehicles, not because they're superior.

But aren't most of these patrols along known roads?

Sea Skimmer wrote:

They are so popular in the Middle East (and all over the Third World) that they might not even be fired upon because they would blend right in. As the article above points out, the Hummer might as well be painted red, white and blue with stars and stripes.

It's a rather absurd speculation to think that US troops wouldn't be noticed just because they're in a pickup truck. If anything that would attract more attention, since its something very unusual.

You're assuming that the soldiers and vehicles would be "flying their colors". Why not have the trucks painted in regular civilian colors? Better yet, made to look like the beat-up vehicles used by locals. If the weapons and uniforms of the soldiers are concealed (or just not brandished openly) they might not even be noticed. Even if it leaked out that some American units were doing all of the above, the insurgents would be in a bind. They could start harassing ALL traffic, thus alienating the locals. Or they might be deterred from harassing such traffic for fear of what pops out of the Jack-in-the-box.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-18 02:09pm

There's one little problem with bearing non-U.S. markings or not wearing their uniforms. You know what the Geneva Conventions say about soldiers out of uniform in a combat zone?