US ARMY making big mistake with STRYKER...

[Exposer]

The US army has ordered something like 2,000 of these British-made Stryker armored vehicles. They already have about 300 in Iraq, and are rushing to send more there now.

http://www.f5.dion.ne.jp/~mirage/hypams05/stryker1.jpg

The Stryker

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/


This is a huge mistake, in my opinion. If the US is learning a lesson in Iraq, it is that lightly armored vehicles are not suffient to protect troops on patrol or escorting convoys.

This Stryker looks like the biggest, juiciest target any RPG-wielding insurgent ever dreamed of. It's profile is much, much too high, it's too big, it lacks pivot-steer, and its armor is too flimsy.

Already, Iraqi insurgents have targeted these big turkeys and destroyed them with RPGs, which the Stryker's armor cannot repel. You can read about the incidents here...

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


The Army and congress would be much smarter to push into production something like the Future Combat System (below), a smaller, lower-profile, more heavily armored, faster, and more more lethal armored tank. Something like this could roll right down the street in Fallujah, practically untouchable.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fcs-line.gif
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fcs.htm

As was witnessed during the ground war in Iraq last year, super heavily armored M1 main battle tanks basically cruised into Baghdad with impunity. Nearly 100% of the time, RPGs will bounce right off the M1's armor.

It just seems absurd to me, when we know that these roadside IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and RPGs are the main problem, to order up 2,000 of these moving bullseyes.

I am predicting right now: if these Strykers are deployed into dangerous areas of operation in Iraq, the insurgents are going to thrash these minivans.

[Benguin]

Aren't you comparing an APC with a small tank there?

I'm no military expert, but I'd say they've distinctly different purposes in a modern army.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Shouldn't this be in the politics forum?

[Benguin]

I wondered that, but it's more a question of military hardware and suitability, so I think technology is an appropriate classification. Not that what I think makes any difference!

Probably depends where the jist of thread goes.

[Exposer]

As an APC, this thing is okay, but still, a little too big and too thin-skinned. But to use this a combat patrol vehicle, which is one of its designated roles, that would be suicide.

[Prester John]

The article suggests they are being used to replace humvees. Now i know what i'd rather be in between a Humvee and a Stryker.

[Exposer]

Niether Hummers nor these Strykers are good for conducting combat operations in dangerous, RPG-infested hotspots.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Prester John
The article suggests they are being used to replace humvees. Now i know what i'd rather be in between a Humvee and a Stryker.


unless you had to go out and change the flat tire...

[Prester John]

I think that defining its role(in Iraq)as a combat patrol vehicle is wrong. The patrols are not combat patrols, whilst the areas are dangerous it is different . The army is performing a policing and anti insurgent role. Policing requires human contact, it can't be done from inside a MBT. This is what makes it so dangerous.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Virgil



unless you had to go out and change the flat tire...

This is probably meant only as a joke, but just so you know, wheeled miltary vehicles which run in combat areas generally have aluminum bands in the tires that allow them to run flat.

It sounds like they are using the STRYKER to replace the Bradley which is an APC with a turreted 25mm cannon, TOW launcher, and a 7.62 machine gun. The Bradley is a nice APC but has a top speed of 41 mph, I suspect that the STYKER is faster.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Dragonrock


This is probably meant only as a joke, but just so you know, wheeled miltary vehicles which run in combat areas generally have aluminum bands in the tires that allow them to run flat.




Yes and no. I didn't know that. How does it compare to bradley in dealing with land mines

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Virgil



Yes and no. I didn't know that. How does it compare to bradley in dealing with land mines

Multi-wheeled vehicles like the STRYKER usually handle mines better than tracked vehicles because a mine will snap a track and stop you dead, while if you lose a wheel you still have 7 more to keep you going.

[Exposer]

Originally posted by Virgil



Yes and no. I didn't know that. How does it compare to bradley in dealing with land mines

The Bradley can actually travel over 50mph with the governor off (everyone takes them off in combat zones). It is also far more heavily armored, and packs a shockingly lethal punch with a 25mm chain gun, 7.62mm coax, and TOW missiles. The Stryker is no match for a Bradley.

Stryker is a vehicle without a purpose. It's bad technology.

[geni]

Originally posted by Exposer


The Bradley can actually travel over 50mph with the governor off (everyone takes them off in combat zones). [quote]

Evidence?


[quote]
It is also far more heavily armored, and packs a shockingly lethal punch with a 25mm chain gun, 7.62mm coax, and TOW missiles. The Stryker is no match for a Bradley.

So at least one of it's weapon systems is useless in urban conflict

[Dragonrock]

The Bradley was a serious upgrade for the mechanized infantry. It combined the mobility of MI with the firepower if light armor. The armor of the old 113 the the MI used to have could be pentrated with AP 7.62. They were slow, lightly armored and basically unarmed.

[Exposer]

Originally posted by geni


So at least one of it's weapon systems is useless in urban conflict

Which weapon system is useless in urban combat? Believe me, TOW missiles can be employed in urban combat situations. There is video of a TOW missile taking out part of the house Uday and Qusay were hiding in.

As for the governor, that is something I read in multiple books and articles. M1s with their goverors removed can go over 60mph, close to 70mph. I guess you will have to take my word for it. Anyway, mechanized movements rarely move faster than 35-40 mph, because that would be difficult to coordinate, and the support elements could not keep up. Speed has never been an issue with the Bradley or the M1.

[richardm]

[list=1]
They are not British made.
They have a maximum speed of 62 mph (without removing the governer so your engine overheats)
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)."
According to at least one commentator, the Bradley is known as The Exploding Coffin (http://www.g2mil.com/Bradley.htm), it is so lightly armoured.
At any rate, they're certainly
not immune (http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/000882.html) to the same roadside bombs that trash most vehicles in Iraq.
The Bradley is tracked, so if one bit of that comes off you're stuck, unlike the Stryker, which has eight wheels and can drive all of them if it wants.
The Stryker can carry nine troops in the back; the Bradley can only manage six.
The Stryker is small enough to be carried by a C130, unlike the Bradley.
The Stryker's weapons are remote-controlled, so you don't need to stick your head out to shoot back.
[/list=1]

That was fun! I like tanks and things :D

Edited to add: See? They're not all that bad!

[Agammamon]

Actually the Stykers have been working quite well once the new armor layer was added. It's the stuff that looks like metal fencing bolted the vehicle. That helps against RPG's. The Stryker's armor is heavy enough to stop rounds from most man-portable rifles.


Where the Stryker's problems lie is that it doesn't really meet the orignial specifications for deployability.

It's supposed to be able to fit into a C-130 without a waiver. It fits but the clearance around it is less than the AF standards and so it requires a waiver to be shipped. It is also supposed to be immediately deployable upon arrival. You have to remove some fairly hefty bits to get it into the plane (which it just barely fits into) and those take time to put back on when you get to your destination.

The 105 mm turret gun (when those are finally equipped) has a tendency to knock the thing over when fired off centerline.



the concept's great - a light, modular vehicle that's fast and has good range.

[Agammamon]

". . .As was witnessed during the ground war in Iraq last year, super heavily armored M1 main battle tanks basically cruised into Baghdad with impunity. Nearly 100% of the time, RPGs will bounce right off the M1's armor. . . "

The M-1A2 is quite susceptable to RPG's. Granted the armor on the glacis plate will stop pretty much any other tank round or missile but the side armor, especially between, the tracks is very thin.


What killed a U.S. tank? (http://www.navytimes.com/channel.php?GQID=292236#7)

This one had an RPG cut through the side armor, through the gunner's seat and his flack jacket to bury itself almost 2 in deep in the armor on the other side. So yeah, the M-1 is impervious to weaponry, if you ensure the enemy is in front of you. Easy to do in the open desert, not so easy in the tight confines of a city.

Then add in that the M-1 can only be flown in by the C-5 and only one at a time. It's one of the reasons we went in "armor light". To get significant numbers of tanks in theater you have to ship them in by ship. We were in a bit of a hurry (after all Saddam had those WMD's in a ready to go state) and couldn't afford to wait.
It carries only 4 crew (which aren't necessarily good at small unit tactics. These guys are tankers after all) rather than sheltering a squad. You can't take an M-1 into a building to flush out the enemy. Your only choices would be ignore it or demolish it.

The M-1 is definately the best tank in the world but a tanks job is to kill other tanks (and it's a tankless job).

And, in case anyone cares, the 105 mm guns some versions of the Stryker will have is that same gun the M-1 was originally fitted with.


edited to add a bad pun.

[Virgil]

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


Virgil

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Virgil
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]

Originally posted by 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
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]

Originally posted by Martin
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]

Originally posted by richardm

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 (http://www.g2mil.com/Bradley.htm), 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]

Originally posted by Exposer


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]

Originally posted by richardm


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


???? :confused:


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.

:confused: :confused:

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....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/m1a2_abrams-turret-s.jpg



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]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Exposer
[B]

???? :confused:



Same sort of confusion as Paris, Texas, I suppose (http://www.city.london.on.ca/)

[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]

Originally posted by Doubt
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. :o

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]

Originally posted by Exposer
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]

Originally posted by Dragonrock

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

I know which one I'd rather be in. ;)

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Dragonrock


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.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Virgil

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.

Not sure if this is strictly true Virgil. I know it can't be put out with water because the magnesium will evolve oxygen, but I believe a magnesium fire can be put out with a Class D extinguishing medium which coats the metal and excludes oxygen.

My only experience is with fires in magnesium chips produced by a lathe. Once the chips start burning, they are consumed before your brain can say "there's a fire.......get an extinguisher". Spectacular to watch though. :)

[Virgil]

we did this when I worked a the chem factory. took a pile of Mg lit it up. covered it with class D and let sit for 15 min. then dug it up. still burnning brightly. you have to exclude all O2 or any other oxidizers as well.


in your case you may have be able to coat a small fire completely with a thick enough layer to exclude all O2.

On our big pile we weren't. So what we did is coat it the best we could, to slow down the oxidation process, but more importantly, it cut the heat output by ca. 90%. Class D is a good thermal insulator, so nothing near by would lite up by over heating.


Also, it kept the fire (flames) from physically spreading.


yes it is very impressive and scary. We had 55 gal barrels of Mg turning or shaving...eeek.


On the stryker it is an Mg alloy so I don't know what effect the alloy will have.

Virgil

[Kodiak]

STRYKER with RPG resistant skirting

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/stryker-031215-A-8773T-007.jpg

[Mr. Skinny]

I think we agree Virgil, for all practical purposes anyway.

I usually laugh when I see a Class D fire extinguisher, for the reasons we've both stated. Essentially, they are worthless.

I'm glad I left my last job before the Magnesium melting furnaces in the R&D department started producing any real output. Scary stuff.