StarDestroyer.Net BBS

STRYKER MGS

CARRIER, WHEELED, 8X8, FIRE SUPPORT, 105MM

Didn't we go through this whole phase during WW2 about
Tank Destroyers and find out that it didn't work?

The STRYKER bogs down worse than a HUMVEE
and it's armor can be penetrated by 14.5mm HMG
fire...

And it only carries 18 rounds....

http://www.gm-defense.com/pdf/strykermgs_spec.pdf

Some depressing stuff:

http://www.defensedaily.com/reports/goodbyearmor03.htm

They might just as well replace that 105mm cannon with a pea-shooter. Against tanks it's just as effective. For soft targets, a smaller caliber would be just as fine. That cannon creates a huge profile, making that fragile Stuart -- sorry I mean Stryker -- an easy target even for a T-55.

Can you tell more about Stryker? For example, is that chassis entirely new?

MKSheppard wrote:The STRYKER bogs down worse than a HUMVEE
and it's armor can be penetrated by 14.5mm HMG fire...

No shit? That's quite possibly the worst thing I've ever heard. Is this the modern equivalent of the M10 Wolverine, or what? Because I can see it working as a cheap vehicle for infantry support.

Barely.

M8 Armored Gun System. Cool-looking airmobile light tank with modular armour and a 105mm gun, cancelled in 1997. I cannot honestly believe that this vehicle was a worse bet than what the US Army is going to field in its place. Am I wrong? Like, badly wrong?

The Army needs something lighter than the Abrams because it is so difficult to deploy. However, I agree with you the wheeled vehicles the Army is looking at using are not up to the job. Too light, and wheels have big disadvantages in bad terrain.

Check out http://www.g2mil.com the guy that runs that site has numerous articles on a this issue. Its a paysite, but some of the articles might be available.

What ever happened to the M8. Wasnt that being developed by Cadillac ????

You have Bradley...

Once I saw that pic (Stryker), I immediately thought about the new Patria AMV 8x8 which is currently undergoing prototype testing in Finnish Defence Forces. Here is it:



For more info: http://www.sovereign-publications.com/patria.htm


Finnish company Patria is behind the highly-popular XA-series armoured wheeled vehicle.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... index.html
http://members.surfeu.fi/stefan.allen/XAseries.html

It's not bad at all, much better than the M1 for providing close support to light formations. It's better to have a Platoon of Strikers available in the battlefield, than a Platoon of M1s waiting back at base. It's not really a replacement for the M1, as I understand it, it only forfills some of it's functions in the new light formations the US Army is creating. The M1 will still be used by the heavy divisions.

A couple more points;
1/ the 105mm gun is usually accepted as better than the 120mm in the infantry-support role. Something to do with the limited ammount of 120mm ammo that can be carried, and that the 120mm doesn't have good smoke or HE rounds available (and HEAT-MP isn't much good for the infantry support role).
2/ it's 18 READY rounds in the autoloader, more rounds are probably carried in the hull. 18 rounds is pretty standard for an autoloader.
3/ the basic hull is capable of withstanding 14.5mm HMG gun-fire - but extra armour packs are added when in a warzone which provide protection from infantry LAWs (just like with the M2 Bradley and the Warrior IFV).
4/ it's much faster than the M1, at least over hard ground.

When I look at the picture I have to admit, its pretty cool looking, but do you think its gonna be kinda top heavy with the 105 on top. It looks like its just a LAV chasis.

Akm72 wrote:3/ the basic hull is capable of withstanding 14.5mm HMG gun-fire - but extra armour packs are added when in a warzone which provide protection from infantry LAWs (just like with the M2 Bradley and the Warrior IFV).

At what cost in mobility?

4/ it's much faster than the M1, at least over hard ground.

I doubt that the ground will always be so accomodating. Maybe it's just me, but I have an aversion to lightly armored vehicles that lose most of their mobility during a rainstorm.

I you want a light, fast, armored vehicle, I think you should do it on the same pattern as the BT-7. Keep the 105, but concentrate on speed. Give it enough armor to withstand light fire, but always remember--SPEED. If you can pull it off, you'll end up with a vehicle like the BT-7M:

Anything fast enough to catch it is too weak to kill it. Anything strong enough to kill it is too slow to catch it.

Just don't try and use it as an MBT like the Soviets did

I hope i'm not mistaken but I thought this designe was ment for urban combat. I know the army is moving a lot of their development in that direction. If it is for urnab combat then it seems to fit as wheels work a hell of a lot better on concret then treads.

MKSheppard wrote: Some depressing stuff:

http://www.defensedaily.com/reports/goodbyearmor03.htm

Why the fuck do you care? It's not like you could ever serve in a group of real men. Hell, you idolize the biggest enemy this country's ever had, you simpering jerkoff. Any liberal pansy Seattle faggot friend of mine could wipe your pissant little nose with the floor with one hand tied behind his back and a Pacifico with a lime twist in the other. Shut up abt the army, jerky, you're not worthy.

oberon wrote: snip whining little drivel from a seattle area homosexual.

Yawn. Try again.

[EDIT]

Perhaps Willie Forsyth has invaded SD.NET?

Try what again? Try to remember how you missed a target at point-blank range with a rifle? Or should I try to remember that you hit a girl because she got in the way of your watching Star Trek and got booted out of college your first freshman term? Maybe I could try to remember how this country, for whom I served and you did not, kicked your heroes' asses, but those were ancient defeats--the Civil War and World War 2 were both before my time.

oberon wrote:Snip Whiny Drivel from a fucktard

Yawn.

Nice comebacks. I'd be embarrased for you if I thought you were human.

oberon wrote:Try what again? Try to remember how you missed a target at point-blank range with a rifle? Or should I try to remember that you hit a girl because she got in the way of your watching Star Trek and got booted out of college your first freshman term? Maybe I could try to remember how this country, for whom I served and you did not, kicked your heroes' asses, but those were ancient defeats--the Civil War and World War 2 were both before my time.

Oberon, explain yourself. I'm not going to stop anyone from holding a benign grudge, but you seem to be a little more aggressive and angry than is necessary.

Why should I waste a second of my life dealing with a paragon of intellect
such as you, Oberon? Better people than you have tried this crap against
me before, you're just a whiny little shit who has a severe case of verbal
diarrhhea like Willie Forsyth.

Quiet, Sanchez, it's the only exercise they let me have I wish I could sound angrier. It would be a good skill. I don't know why it's so much fun to pick on him, but it is. It's no good denying anger over the net, I know my posts seem that way, but it's just diction. Actually I'm very benign and happy right now. I have no issues with my father, I succeeded in college, I can shoot straight, I'm on the Left Coast, I have a wonderful relationship with a woman who's well-off, loved and respected... and I can drink whenever I want--it's just fun to think that I get to watch Cops, instead of be featured on it. I can't explain it, I guess underweight wannabes expressing their gospel opinions on shit they'll never be a part of makes me react this way. Hmmm, on 2nd thought, that's clearly the case.

Yes yes, your time is precious and all that. Sorry for distracting you Shep.

Oh yeah, and btw, it looks like a fine machine and if I were infantry, I might even be glad to have one on my side. Who knows... It's better than a camel

oberon wrote:You might remember me now...

If you've encountered me on the Net before, you probably know that I'm about as good at deduction as a nice, fluffy rabbit. I've never made pretensions to anything more than that. You'll have to be more specific, especially considering that I'm running on five hours of sleep today. Maybe I'll piece it together tomorrow.

...hell, I'll be going to bed at 8:30 tonight, I think.

Now, it's my Wong-given duty as a mod to keep this forum running smoothly, so I'll have to ask you to limit your flames to a more reasonable level. You apparently dislike Sheppard, which I can understand (but not agree with), and it's your right to do so. But we try to run a (reasonably) clean board.

Yeha sorry--I'm just full of myself. Just say DOH.

oberon wrote:Oh yeah, and btw, it looks like a fine machine and if I were infantry, I might even be glad to have one on my side. Who knows... It's better than a camel

Well, it really depends on the situation. If you run into an enemy who has heavy machineguns and even the lightest AT weapons, it'll become more of a liability than anything else. You'll have to waste time protecting it, where an Abrams could have taken care of itself.

Against Samed Q. Taliban, who typically has nothing more substantial than a few AK-47s, PKMs, and some RPGs, it's a reasonably effective weapons platform. Against a better equipped enemy, it's a deathtrap. I'm getting a faint pork-barrel smell from this project, where is it going to be produced?

At least it's not a Sgt. York. And if the pols want pork barrel, then why for the love of Dog don't we have a maglev from coast-to-coast??