A Stryker takes a beating AND survives

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-13 11:56pm

jegs2 wrote:
Much louder it is too, and without a cage like the Stryker sports, also vulnerable to modern RPGs.

The M113 can easily support the weight of the appliqué anti RPG armor the Stryker was suppose to have instead of those steel cages though, and there is no reason why couldn't have a cage welded on either. The M113 can also haul more men and support much heavier weapons loads, with such useful things as stabilization.

JointStrikeFighter · Post by **JointStrikeFighter** » 2004-10-14 01:00am

Also the M113 is auctually C-130 transportable which was the whole point of building the stryker and it dosnt even fit in the herc. As for noise in missions were stealth is needed rubber band tracks can be fitted which are equal on the noise level to wheels

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-10-14 02:43am

JointStrikeFighter wrote:Also the M113 is auctually C-130 transportable which was the whole point of building the stryker and it dosnt even fit in the herc. As for noise in missions were stealth is needed rubber band tracks can be fitted which are equal on the noise level to wheels

NZ LAV has been flown in a C-130..and without removing the turret, so the US stryker must have some issues.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-10-14 02:45am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
jegs2 wrote:
Much louder it is too, and without a cage like the Stryker sports, also vulnerable to modern RPGs.
The M113 can easily support the weight of the appliqué anti RPG armor the Stryker was suppose to have instead of those steel cages though, and there is no reason why couldn't have a cage welded on either. The M113 can also haul more men and support much heavier weapons loads, with such useful things as stabilization.

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.

SecondStorm · Post by **SecondStorm** » 2004-10-14 02:46am

JointStrikeFighter wrote:Also the M113 is auctually C-130 transportable which was the whole point of building the stryker and it dosnt even fit in the herc. As for noise in missions were stealth is needed rubber band tracks can be fitted which are equal on the noise level to wheels

IIRC the Stryker is transportable by a C-130 but the range is greatly reduced.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-10-14 02:55am

SecondStorm wrote:
JointStrikeFighter wrote:Also the M113 is auctually C-130 transportable which was the whole point of building the stryker and it dosnt even fit in the herc. As for noise in missions were stealth is needed rubber band tracks can be fitted which are equal on the noise level to wheels
IIRC the Stryker is transportable by a C-130 but the range is greatly reduced.

correct.as far as I know. Realistically you need the C-17 to move the LAV3 anywhere.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-10-14 03:04am

Regarding those cages, why not put them on MBTs like Abrams too ? It would reduce the chance of losing a multi million dollar tank to a cheap RPG.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-14 03:15am

The Shadow wrote:Regarding those cages, why not put them on MBTs like Abrams too ? It would reduce the chance of losing a multi million dollar tank to a cheap RPG.

Abrams are all but impervious to the early RPG's. In one Iraqi battle, one Abram survived literally dozens of RPG hits.

The main threat to MBT's, nowadays, is really other MBT's and aircraft munitions--neither one of which is going to be very well protected by a cage. Also, I'll bet that it's a bitch to try and get the cage on an MBT without fucking over the reactive armor.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-14 07:15am

jegs2 wrote: Much louder it is too, and without a cage like the Stryker sports, also vulnerable to modern RPGs.

With the addition of rubber band tracks, it will be a lot quieter. And with applique armor it can be made more resistant to RPG's.

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2004-10-14 08:05am

Only one M1 Abrams was taking out by an RPG. And they belive it was one of the new version the russian had produced to off set MBT. Also problem with Abrams is they are designed for tank fighting not infantry. There are literally gaps in the armors that small caliber rounds can slip through. And that RPG hit had produced a hole about an 2.5cm in diameter through the side of the tank.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-10-14 08:11am

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...

There's no MEXAS on any Stryker vehicles yet. It didn't live up to expectations (apparently due to some sort of manufacturing error), so they had to use those grills instead.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-14 08:29am

Cpl Kendall wrote:With the addition of rubber band tracks, it will be a lot quieter. And with applique armor it can be made more resistant to RPG's.

Yet they are still much louder than the Stryker. Really, the advantages I can see with the 113 is that they're more readily transportable, they can haul a couple more men, and they're plentiful. An RPG volley will tear it up, unless it sports an RPG cage like the Stryker. And no matter what you do or add to it, it's still going to be much louder than the Stryker.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-14 08:31am

Oh, forgot to add, if you take out a couple of wheels on the Stryker, it can still get out of Dodge. Take out a track on a 113, and it's dead in the water, until someone gets out to replace the broken track, which is not a quick job when one is under fire.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-14 11:43am

jegs2 wrote: Yet they are still much louder than the Stryker. Really, the advantages I can see with the 113 is that they're more readily transportable, they can haul a couple more men, and they're plentiful. An RPG volley will tear it up, unless it sports an RPG cage like the Stryker. And no matter what you do or add to it, it's still going to be much louder than the Stryker.

The proposed versions for the M113A4 have the quieter tracks and a hybrid-electric engine. Which is quieter than the standard and apperently very powerful. It also has applique armor which is supposed to make it survivable for the crew against RPG's. That HEAT cage is a poor mans version of armour, it does nothing against cannon or HMG fire. So it's weight added for a single threat. Whereas if the Stryker could support proper applique armour than it would be protected against all of it's potential threats.

The whole issue is dead anyways, Rumsfeld wanted the Stryker and that's what they got. Now they have to prove that it lives up to it's expectations.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-14 12:45pm

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? 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.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-14 12:56pm

SecondStorm wrote: IIRC the Stryker is transportable by a C-130 but the range is greatly reduced.

To only 100 miles, a fairly useless distance. And that is a Stryker without any form of additional armor. With MEXAS fitted (MEXAS can be removed, but the original requirement was for the Strykers to roll off combat ready) it's too heavy, and with the steel anti RPG cage its both too heavy and too wide to even fit inside.

But that all really doesn't matter, there simply isn't enough airlift to make transporting any large armored force anywhere possibul, and unless Congress starts funding alot more C-17's thats not going to change.

JointStrikeFighter · Post by **JointStrikeFighter** » 2004-10-14 08:55pm

The M113 would have been fully C-130 transportable. For that matter its still fully transportbale even with aplique armour enough to protect it against 30mm cannon fire an TOW type ATGM's.

As well as the C-130 transport, which was the WHOLE POINT OF STRYKER the M113 ACAV can be transported 8 at a time in a C-747 and deploy without any airport equipment as it can carry a self deploying vehicle ramp.

Part of the reason the the germans failed so badly in russia was there wheeled mobility, wheels dont fare well in bad terrain, when the goign gets tough, the tough get tracks.

Furthermore wheels dont have anywhere near the psycological effect of tracks. if the infantry commander has one reccurent nightmare it is the unexpected rumble of heavy armour, the Thump-Thump-Thumping of the tracks is what the friendly commander wants to hear above all things, not that air is on the away, not that there heli's brining enforcemnts, he wants to know that friendly armour is on the way. For the opposing infantry commander the Thump-Thump-Thup of armour signifies that he is about to be engaged by a force, that while his defensive weapons my blunt they will probably not defeat, in a ground only battle his options are retreat or immeditate destruction

JointStrikeFighter · Post by **JointStrikeFighter** » 2004-10-14 08:57pm

The M113 would have been fully C-130 transportable. For that matter its still fully transportbale even with aplique armour enough to protect it against 30mm cannon fire an TOW type ATGM's.

As well as the C-130 transport, which was the WHOLE POINT OF STRYKER the M113 ACAV can be transported 8 at a time in a C-747 and deploy without any airport equipment as it can carry a self deploying vehicle ramp.

Part of the reason the the germans failed so badly in russia was there wheeled mobility, wheels dont fare well in bad terrain, when the goign gets tough, the tough get tracks.

Furthermore wheels dont have anywhere near the psycological effect of tracks. if the infantry commander has one reccurent nightmare it is the unexpected rumble of heavy armour, the Thump-Thump-Thumping of the tracks is what the friendly commander wants to hear above all things, not that air is on the away, not that there heli's brining enforcemnts, he wants to know that friendly armour is on the way. For the opposing infantry commander the Thump-Thump-Thup of armour signifies that he is about to be engaged by a force, that while his defensive weapons my blunt they will probably not defeat, in a ground only battle his options are retreat or immeditate destruction

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-10-14 08:58pm

Abrams are all but impervious to the early RPG's. In one Iraqi battle, one Abram survived literally dozens of RPG hits.

Are there any pictures of that tank?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-15 09:14am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Abrams are all but impervious to the early RPG's. In one Iraqi battle, one Abram survived literally dozens of RPG hits.
Are there any pictures of that tank?

Not that I've been able to find, there also don't seem to be any pictures of the Challenger II which apparently at least sixty RPG-7 hits on the forward arc. Though unlike the M1 it had blow tracks and its gun disabled. Surviving RPG hits on the frontal arc of a MBT is pretty easy though since they simply can't penetrate, in 1968 during the fighting in Hue city one USMC M60, a tank lacking in any form of composite armor, survived at least two dozen hits over several days. And it wasn't an isolated example.

SecondStorm · Post by **SecondStorm** » 2004-10-15 01:17pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
SecondStorm wrote: IIRC the Stryker is transportable by a C-130 but the range is greatly reduced.
To only 100 miles, a fairly useless distance. And that is a Stryker without any form of additional armor. With MEXAS fitted (MEXAS can be removed, but the original requirement was for the Strykers to roll off combat ready) it's too heavy, and with the steel anti RPG cage its both too heavy and too wide to even fit inside.

But that all really doesn't matter, there simply isn't enough airlift to make transporting any large armored force anywhere possibul, and unless Congress starts funding alot more C-17's thats not going to change.

Actually its 500 miles not 100 but the original requirement was 1000.

JointStrikeFighter · Post by **JointStrikeFighter** » 2004-10-15 09:13pm

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

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-15 09:37pm

SecondStorm wrote: Actually its 500 miles not 100 but the original requirement was 1000.

No, the range is only 100 miles with a stripped down Stryker. This has been demonstrated by US Army tests, which where attempting to prove that the thing was air mobile.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-15 09:43pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: 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.

Wasn't Shinseki the idiot who suggested the army of the future should be an "all wheeled" (no tracked vehicles) force?

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

Ma Deuce wrote:
Wasn't Shinseki the idiot who suggested the army of the future should be an "all wheeled" (no tracked vehicles) force?

Yes, and he had many other similar suggestions to transform the military. He and Admiral Cebrowski have the source of a great deal if trouble for the US military. Cebrowski has worse ideas, but they tend not to get funded, though defeating his Streefighter plan (replace most of the USN with 200 tons missile boats) is what spawned LCS, which is still a big waste of money.