A Stryker takes a beating AND survives

SecondStorm · Post by **SecondStorm** » 2004-10-13 03:39pm

I dont know if this have been posted before:
Link

Thats impressive. I thought Strykers were supposed to be piles of thin crap on wheels.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-13 05:37pm

Looks to me like the vehicle will require some major repairs. Not unexpected given the size of the bomb. But if you look closely at the Stryker it looks twisted, so it might be a write off. At least the troops survived.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-13 07:16pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:Looks to me like the vehicle will require some major repairs. Not unexpected given the size of the bomb. But if you look closely at the Stryker it looks twisted, so it might be a write off. At least the troops survived.

Hmm... I doubt the hull itself was twisted, just some of the MEXAS applique armor plates got dislodged by the blast and/or the rollover. If the hull itself was twisted, I doubt it would have been be able to drive off under it's own power...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-13 07:27pm

SecondStorm wrote:
Thats impressive. I thought Strykers were supposed to be piles of thin crap on wheels.

Blast has never been very effective means of piercing armor, at least not in the open air, underwater is another story. Fragments also don't work very well against armor, espically when you're working with an improvised bomb. Anyway, in this case the thing probably survived because it was so easily flipped, Strykers laden with extra armor aren't the most stable of things in the first place.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-13 07:34pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
Hmm... I doubt the hull itself was twisted, just some of the MEXAS applique armor plates got dislodged by the blast and/or the rollover. If the hull itself was twisted, I doubt it would have been be able to drive off under it's own power...

I'm not convinced, it looks like it's bent from the front to the back. And these things can continue to drive when completely fucked up. I've witnessed a Bison drive off with all four front tires flat and the front suspension destroyed.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-13 08:14pm

Was in a Stryker BDE, so I can definitely vouch for their toughness and effectiveness, and so now can the enemy. Unfortunately, I think two soldiers lost their lives in that incident, but they were most likely exposed to the outside.

JointStrikeFighter · Post by **JointStrikeFighter** » 2004-10-13 08:39pm

yes but if this was an M113 ACAV the only damage would have been the need to replace the track and some road wheels. furthermore the M113 even without aplique is very hard to pierce with an RPG were the stryker with aqqliwue can be penetrated rather easily. The M113 ACAV would alos have far greater lethality and versatility nad a far lower logisitcs footprint

http://www.geocities.com/futuretanks/lightfantastic.htm

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-13 08:48pm

JointStrikeFighter wrote:yes but if this was an M113 ACAV the only damage would have been the need to replace the track and some road wheels. furthermore the M113 even without aplique is very hard to pierce with an RPG were the stryker with aqqliwue can be penetrated rather easily. The M113 ACAV would alos have far greater lethality and versatility nad a far lower logisitcs footprint

http://www.geocities.com/futuretanks/lightfantastic.htm

Yeah but you can't tell the US government that. They won't listen. Us Canucks just finished upgrading the 113's and their better than ever. But a soldier that is out of the hatch when a 500lb fucking bomb goes off next to him, will still be killed. Regardless of the vehicle.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-10-13 09:28pm

I would still rather be in a tank in an urban warfare situation.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-13 09:30pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I would still rather be in a tank in an urban warfare situation.

Well there really is no subsitute for heavy armor. The Israeli's have had quite the succes using Merkava's, M113's and their heavy APC's in urban settings.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-10-13 09:37pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I would still rather be in a tank in an urban warfare situation.
Well there really is no subsitute for heavy armor. The Israeli's have had quite the succes using Merkava's, M113's and their heavy APC's in urban settings.

From what I've read, the Army is planning to use them as a substitute for using Abrams or Bradleys in urban warfare situations.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-10-13 09:42pm

"What a piece of junk!"

That's impressive that even after all that beating, it STILL works.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-13 09:49pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote: From what I've read, the Army is planning to use them as a substitute for using Abrams or Bradleys in urban warfare situations.

That may turn out to be a fatal mistake. It's not really designed to take a hit from a RPG and survive. Thats why they put those cages around it, to stop heat rounds from reaching the armor. Our (CF) LAV's have fared poorly in Bosnia when hit by mines, RPG's etc. I really don't have much hope for the Stryker.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-13 09:52pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:That may turn out to be a fatal mistake. It's not really designed to take a hit from a RPG and survive. Thats why they put those cages around it, to stop heat rounds from reaching the armor. Our (CF) LAV's have fared poorly in Bosnia when hit by mines, RPG's etc. I really don't have much hope for the Stryker.

RPGs have been shot at Strykers repeatedly, but the cages have always prevented them from penetrating the armor, except in one case, when the RPG was fired from overhead and hit the Stryker on the top, where no cage protection exists. Even then, all soldiers inside escaped serious harm.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-13 09:55pm

jegs2 wrote: RPGs have been shot at Strykers repeatedly, but the cages have always prevented them from penetrating the armor, except in one case, when the RPG was fired from overhead and hit the Stryker on the top, where no cage protection exists. Even then, all soldiers inside escaped serious harm.

Well that's good. I am basing my opinion on the Strykers surviabilty on the early Canadian versions, which I drove. As long as the soldiers surive than the HEAT cages are doing their job, and who cares if the vehicle survives.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-13 10:07pm

I WISH one of the two would talk about pulling all forces out of Europe and other OCONUS locations, where IMO we don't belong anymore.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-13 10:08pm

jegs2 wrote:I WISH one of the two would talk about pulling all forces out of Europe and other OCONUS locations, where IMO we don't belong anymore.

Agh, wrong thread -- disregard...

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-10-13 10:21pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
jegs2 wrote: RPGs have been shot at Strykers repeatedly, but the cages have always prevented them from penetrating the armor, except in one case, when the RPG was fired from overhead and hit the Stryker on the top, where no cage protection exists. Even then, all soldiers inside escaped serious harm.
Well that's good. I am basing my opinion on the Strykers surviabilty on the early Canadian versions, which I drove. As long as the soldiers surive than the HEAT cages are doing their job, and who cares if the vehicle survives.

Well, I do, as a tax-payer.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2004-10-13 10:38pm

If it achieves its objective of protecting the crew, I'd say your tax dollars are well-spent.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-13 10:41pm

The Stryker is classified as an Infantry Assault Vehicle (IAV). It's primary purpose is to get Infantrymen to the fight quickly, but it is also a capable weapons platform for close support-by-fire roles. That is in contrast to the Bradley, which is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), which has a main role as a weapons platform, and depositing Infantrymen is only a secondary function.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2004-10-13 10:45pm

Therefore the primary goal of the Stryker, deploying troops quickly and safely, is achieved. I say they are worth the tax dollars spent on them.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-10-13 11:17pm

How close was the Stryker to the bomb? I think that should factor into considering how tough the vehicle is, right? Although I'm glad to hear they are fairing well.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-13 11:19pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:How close was the Stryker to the bomb? I think that should factor into considering how tough the vehicle is, right? Although I'm glad to hear they are fairing well.

From the footage, it looks like it was within 100 feet.

JointStrikeFighter · Post by **JointStrikeFighter** » 2004-10-13 11:20pm

Yes but we already have avehicle which can fulfill both of these roles and at a far lower cost with far greater lethality to the enemy and far more survibility for the crew, its called the M113

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-13 11:22pm

JointStrikeFighter wrote:Yes but we already have avehicle which can fulfill both of these roles and at a far lower cost with far greater lethality to the enemy and far more survibility for the crew, its called the M113

Much louder it is too, and without a cage like the Stryker sports, also vulnerable to modern RPGs.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A Stryker takes a beating AND survives

A Stryker takes a beating AND survives

Re: A Stryker takes a beating AND survives