Stryker collection (merged thread)

[Fuchs]

Strange. Either I read too fast through this thread or we didn't mention the terrible reports about autoloader reliability yet.
Is the autoloader reliable now?

I personally don't understand why they used the Stryker vehicle for the MGS.
Its capability isn't much better than a modernized AMX-13 105mm/modernized Kürassier. They Russians have showed us that low velocity 100-120mm guns can be used for direct fire support. 105mm is not really a viable calibre against MBTs nowadays; you cannot knock out anything better than T-72 monkey models frontally using this calibre (although the best 105mm APFSDS is better than the very first 120mm APFSDS).
The Stryker MGS hasn't the same air deployability as the other Stryker variants.

It doesn't fit together imho. A BMD with 100/30mm guns turret is a better support vehicle in many terrains.
I would have chosen a path like the Japanese did with their newest MBT - a vehicle of about 40 tons, 120mm gun, tracks. That will easily cross most bridges and could be used for a bridgelayer, recovery and flail mineclearing versions as well.

[reed11b]

I have not heard a peep about the MGS lately. And I had been following it too, since it was were my belief in the sucess or failure of the stryker was hinged. Hell, if wheels were the key (lower maintance costs and quicker in theatre transport, etc.) why not look at the french? Bigger wheeled guns they did well(or at least alot). If 105 why not pre-existing 90mm or upgrade to 120mm? I believe the crux of the matter was the range of ammo for the 105mm and some arbitrary AT capacity. Put a decent turret on the IFV stryker (25mm and an AT missile) and put your 155s on wheels and you don't really need the MGS.
Reed

[Ken White]

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.

[reed11b]

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.

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

The Dingo, Bushmaster and Wildcat are different vehicles with different roles and do not have the x-country mobility of the Stryker.

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.

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'

Kool-Aid. The enemy gets a say on where and how and when you fight 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.

-- which too many Brads get used for according to some.

And doing a rather good job of it by most accounts. Even M1s have suffered some losses nothing is IED or RPG "proof", but the Brads combo of firepower and protection served them very well in some of the tougher fights (Najif, Falluja, Sadir City, etc.)

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

Yet it does not have any more armor then the IFV, and will most certainly be used like a tank. Not trying to flame you Ken, I have just heard that excuse for the .50cal to many times and it has never made much sense to me.

[Fuchs]

The whole IFV concept is in question; the Israelis for example never adopted the idea of an IFV and the IFV concept was never really tested in a fair HIC.

A 25mm weapon (even if completely externally mounted and not costing a single dismount seat) should not be necessary on a Stryker. Stryker is meant to be an PC (and specialty vehicles), not IFV.
The infantry shall fight dismounted and receive direct fire support from dedicated MGS.
The problem is that the MGS is a big, not really agile but thin-walled target that hasn't enough ammunition* for its job.

the French have no really modern 105mm 6x6 AFV, bad luck.
A tracked vehicle like M8 AGS could have had better agility and slightly better protection at least. A real medium tank or medium-weight MBT of about 40 tons would have had all the desired capabilities except the unimportant C-130 airlift (which the Stryker AGS hasn't anyway).
Such a medium tank could have become the base for FCS and an alternative to M1A2 for heavy forces operations in difficult terrain.



*: The Russians used T-72 and T-80 in Chechnya and had to rotate their tanks because they ran through several times their on-board ammunitions stock during small battles like the fight for a village.

[Ken White]

The whole IFV concept is in question; the Israelis for example never adopted the idea of an IFV and the IFV concept was never really tested in a fair HIC.

Neither is the Bradley, really, they're both APCs, two different types for two different roles.

A 25mm weapon (even if completely externally mounted and not costing a single dismount seat) should not be necessary on a Stryker. Stryker is meant to be an PC (and specialty vehicles), not IFV.

True.

The problem is that the MGS is a big, not really agile but thin-walled target that hasn't enough ammunition* for its job.

True but for less than HIC it is marginally adequate for PC/IFV kills and bunker busting and that was known when it was purchased. Again, it was cheap and required less development time.

Such a medium tank could have become the base for FCS and an alternative to M1A2 for heavy forces operations in difficult terrain.

The FCS is still in flux, we'll have to wait to see what spirals out (if we get the money to buy it-- which is not guaranteed).

[William F. Owen]

The whole IFV concept is in question; the Israelis for example never adopted the idea of an IFV and the IFV concept was never really tested in a fair HIC

.
I concur.
The Israelis have some odd views on IFVs, some of which I agree with. Annoyingly and in keeping with their culture, they don't write down the reasoning. It forms part of their "oral" tradition, or doctrine. When offered Bradley on FMS they said OK, but asked for the turrets to be removed. - and then went for Achzarit instead.

IMO, conceptually IFVs are a semi-successful chimera, that are being overtaken by events and technology. Size and cost, versus actual use, are their biggest problems.

*: The Russians used T-72 and T-80 in Chechnya and had to rotate their tanks because they ran through several times their on-board ammunitions stock during small battles like the fight for a village.

Thus BMP-T!

[Fuchs]

.Thus BMP-T!

The German army conducted some studies called NGP (Neue Gepanzerte Platformen = new armoured platforms) prior to the Igel/Puma project.

They did some simulations to test both a unitary IFV and a combination of medium weight APC and medium weight fire support vehicle. I distrust such simulations...anyway - the outcome was that the IFV solution should be preferred.
The theoretical fire support vehicle wasn't even close to a BMP-T. Instead, they assumed a 50mm autocannon - it was more an M3 Bradley ons steroids than a BMP-T.

I personally trust those who want the same level of protection for all vehicles that itnentionally expose themselves to AT weapons.
MBT-like protection for HAPC, bridgelayer, mineclearer and for another type of fighting vehicle that doesn't depend on a big gun.
The latter turns into a very complicated all-round monster in my brain whenever I think about it. I would use no AGLs like the Russians did, but a 35mm revolver cannon (35/1000) with anti-air capability (HE-airburst, APFSDS), Spike LRs, C-KEMs, Starstreaks and a coax. Plus two scout dismounts.

[Ken White]

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.

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.

Kool-Aid.

I don't do Kool aid, Dude.

...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.

...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?

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.

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

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.

Not trying to flame you Ken

Then don't, the kool aid bit was unnecessary.

...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.