Recall that the Stryker was and is only an interim vehicle.
It was never intended to be more than a temporary substitute for the FCS -- which will it now appears be tracked for cross country mobility reasons. It was selected because while not the best available vehicle it needed the least development effort and was the cheapest of its type. It was also selected to force the US Army to break the Heavy Division mentality (which may or may not work...).
The MGS was purchased to give direct fire support to Stryker units and it was emphatically not designed or planned to fight Tanks; it's a PC killer and bunker buster, roles for which the 105 is adequate. Here's a whole thread devoted to it; LINK
The Dingo, Bushmaster and Wildcat are different vehicles with different roles and do not have the x-country mobility of the Stryker. Stryker IFVs are armed with only a .50 cal instead of the 25mm precisely to keep the vehicle from being used as a 'light tank' -- which too many Brads get used for according to some.
Problem with 155s on wheels is you have to halt, emplace the weapon, expose the crew and then displace the weapon -- too much time and exposure; even solutions like the French Caesar and the Singapore and Israeli (and others) versions expose the crew. Only the Swedes have a wheeled 155 that does not and its too big for air mobility.
We can disagree on most of that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reed11b
By the time they were through improving it, it was no longer very cheap at all. Also I question if the type chosen (8x8) was the best type for the stated mission.
Your prerogative to question; apparently it wasn't your decision what to buy.
Quote:
True, but the things that are logical about the Stryker and that it does well, (low unit cost, high road speed, much smaller logistical footprint, less damage to local structure, less intimidating or "military" looking, provide troops with fair amount of small arms and IED coverage, etc.) they also do as well or better. Dingo's and Bushmasters are both operating far further from the roads in 'Stan then Strykers are in the 'Raq. If you want cheap armored x-country abilty give units somthing like the BVS-10 as well as there wheeled mounts.
All those vehicles including the Stryker have strengths and weaknesses -- that is also irrelevant, the Stryker's here and it isn't going away.I don't do Kool aid, Dude.
Quote:
...The enemy gets a say on where and how and when you fight
Yeah, I sort of noticed that in my first war. They kept it up in the others, too. Inconsiderate, I thought.
Quote:
...and I have seen many stryker soldiers come through my office and they state they are rarely dismounting and often fight from the Stryker. They also state that it still draws RPG fire like moths to flame.
Duh. Gee, imagine that, mounted troops not dismounting if they can avoid it. Boy that's new. Best I can recall the Germans and we had that problem with WW II half tracks which were emphatically not designed to be fighting platforms. The US Army had it with the M59, the M75, the M113 and with the Bradley. Now they have it with the Stryker. Color me unsurprised. Not defending it because it's wrong but I know it happens. It's a truck, that's all it is. They need to remember that an they need to unass it, just that simple. The biggest bone I have always had with mech units is their unwillingness to dismount. What units are supposed to do and what they do are unfortunately different things. All of which should not surprise anyone...
I blame poor training, personally.
Nor should the fact that there are a lot of RPGs running loose in the ME and they are used frequently be a surprise. I grant that using the RPG to shoot at a Stryker as opposed to a HMMWV isn't fair but, as you said, the enemy gets a vote. Maybe they're doing it because it's a bigger target?
Quote:
And doing a rather good job of it by most accounts. Even M1s have suffered some losses nothing is IED or RPG "proof",
True, that's why Armor is dangerous; any vehicle can be defeated and if you don't train your people right, they get to feeling bullet proof when they aren't.
Quote:
but the Brads combo of firepower and protection served them very well in some of the tougher fights (Najif, Falluja, Sadir City, etc.)
Different vehicle designed for different roles
Quote:
Yet it does not have any more armor then the IFV, and will most certainly be used like a tank.
Possibly -- until a few get really creamed somewhere, then the troops will get smarter and use it as it was meant to be used -- same thing is true for the Bradley; it's done well in Kuwait and Iraq -- how well it would've done in Europe is a whole different thing.
Quote:
Not trying to flame you Ken
Then don't, the kool aid bit was unnecessary.
Quote:
...I have just heard that excuse for the .50cal to many times and it has never made much sense to me.
We can disagree on that. Strongly in my case. Having spent a lot of time in PCs with a .50 to include getting shot at and a little time in one with a 25mm and two TOWs (but not getting shot at), I'm firmly convinced that the 'protection' of Armor needs healthy skepticism and that excessive firepower leads to misuse. We spend too much time on gunnery and maintenance because both can be graded and too little time on tactical employment because it can't be and it shows.
In any event, the rationale for the .50 cal is not an excuse, it's a perfectly valid tactical and technical decision with which you happen to disagree. You can certainly do that -- but you shouldn't call it an excuse because it is not.