Stryker collection (merged thread)

[Cavguy]

I wish I could say the decision to arm the Stryker with a 105mm was the result of the sort of close and careful analysis many on this site like to do in their spare time, but the fact is that the Army had a bunch of old 105 parts and 105mm ammo in warehouses, depots and industry were still tooled up for that caliber, etc. It was pretty much a question of cost and convenience. Also, to remind everyone, the Stryker was supposed to be an interim vehicle, off-the-shelf, to get us through to the FCS.

As for using variants of M113, the Army leadership early on - we're talking 1999 here - decided any new vehicle would be wheeled, not tracked.

Okay, as someone who has had M113A3(+) in his MTOE (slat armor, cupolas, BFT, etc). They suck. They were okay in the 1960's. They're a pretty flexible vehicle. Spare parts are available.

But let's not overlook:

1) The ride absolutely sucks. The infantry hate it. The only thing I liked was the ability for the infantry to open the top hatches and scan.
2) The armor isn't that great, and the slat armor makes it just as unwieldly in urban terrain as the Stryker. Additionally, there's no top protection worth mentioning.
3) They're severely underpowered with all that armor added
4) They're slow, on a good day with all that armor you might reach a screaming 15-20 mph, if your engine doesn't overheat.
5) They break A LOT more than any other vehicle I had, including M1 tanks.
6) Funny thing happened on the way to the up-armoring plant. The ramp pump burned out on every one because it couldn't lift the troop door with that extra armor. so the soldiers had to often use the troop hatch to exit, not exactly rapid deployable infantry.

Now some of that could be resolved with R&D and upgrades, but the M113 is simply a product of the 1950's whose time is past.. Having had M113A3+'s in my MTOE and worked around Strykers, I'll take the stryker for the COIN/LIC mission. And a M2 Bradley was by far the most flexible and useful vehicle in my menu during OIF. Firepower, troop capacity (low, but enough), and armor.

I think there was a thread about the wingnut who was the M113 "Gavin" advocate and fanboy ....

[William F. Owen]

But let's not overlook:

1) The ride absolutely sucks. The infantry hate it. The only thing I liked was the ability for the infantry to open the top hatches and scan.
2) The armor isn't that great, and the slat armor makes it just as unwieldly in urban terrain as the Stryker. Additionally, there's no top protection worth mentioning.
3) They're severely underpowered with all that armor added
4) They're slow, on a good day with all that armor you might reach a screaming 15-20 mph, if your engine doesn't overheat.
5) They break A LOT more than any other vehicle I had, including M1 tanks.
6) Funny thing happened on the way to the up-armoring plant. The ramp pump burned out on every one because it couldn't lift the troop door with that extra armor. so the soldiers had to often use the troop hatch to exit, not exactly rapid deployable infantry.


I think there was a thread about the wingnut who was the M113 "Gavin" advocate and fanboy ....

...and everyone of those can be fixed. Not just a bit, but a lot. The Aussies, Canuks and Norgies have all done it to varying degrees and the Israelis and still tinkering with some stuff. By any analysis, M-113 can be upgraded into an extremely capable APC, with the same comms, optics and weapons as Stryker, or better.

Now I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by getting into the track v wheels argument. "We is all adults here". M113 capability could be significantly extended, for a fractional cost. Do you want to is another question.

The Fan boy you speak of is Mike Sparks.

[Granite_State]

...and everyone of those can be fixed. Not just a bit, but a lot. The Aussies, Canuks and Norgies have all done it to varying degrees and the Israelis and still tinkering with some stuff. By any analysis, M-113 can be upgraded into an extremely capable APC, with the same comms, optics and weapons as Stryker, or better.

Now I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by getting into the track v wheels argument. "We is all adults here". M113 capability could be significantly extended, for a fractional cost.

That's the argument made here:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf

The writer is some author I've never heard of, writing for a Congressman a few years ago. But I'd be curious what more informed members thought of his main points.

[Cavguy]

I have posted here before on this, other than the MGS variant, every soldier I have talked to who has been on Strykers raves about their performance in Iraq.

I've directly worked with several Stryker companies and come away impressed as well. Sure, it has its limitations, but so does any platform.

The d-n-i stuff is mostly politically motivated diatribe.

[Granite_State]

I have posted here before on this, other than the MGS variant, every soldier I have talked to who has been on Strykers raves about their performance in Iraq.

That was my understanding too. Col. Ralph Peters told me that in 2004, that the troops loved the Stryker, and the M113 was "a deathtrap."

The d-n-i stuff is mostly politically motivated diatribe.

It did strike me as a pretty questionable document. But you seem to agree with him on the political nature of the whole project from the outset. Is he way off base on the RPG issue?

[Cavguy]

That was my understanding too. Col. Ralph Peters told me that in 2004, that the troops loved the Stryker, and the M113 was "a deathtrap."



It did strike me as a pretty questionable document. But you seem to agree with him on the political nature of the whole project from the outset. Is he way off base on the RPG issue?

My understanding from the Company I worked with (part of 172d Stryker from Alaska), was that they had been attacked by RPG's in Mosul without major damage or casualties to the crew. I am sure there are some weak spots, but even the M1 tank has those.

What was convincing to me was the praise these infantrymen gave the Stryker in an IED-heavy area, with multiple threats. E-4's rarely fail to give you a blunt assessment (see the original thread article), and all the ones I talked to liked the vehicle and felt safe in it. If it was the deathtrap described, you wouldn't hear that from joe. Granted, they had bolt on armor and slat armor added from the original version as well.

One of the suppositions on why it does well is the "boat" hull - HMMWV's and M113's have right angles that absorb, rather than deflect blasts.

[William F. Owen]

That's the argument made here:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf

I know this item very well. There are so many things wrong with that document I don't know where to begin. It is not a work of serious military thought.

[Cavguy]

...and everyone of those can be fixed. Not just a bit, but a lot. The Aussies, Canuks and Norgies have all done it to varying degrees and the Israelis and still tinkering with some stuff. By any analysis, M-113 can be upgraded into an extremely capable APC, with the same comms, optics and weapons as Stryker, or better.

Now I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by getting into the track v wheels argument. "We is all adults here". M113 capability could be significantly extended, for a fractional cost. Do you want to is another question.

The Fan boy you speak of is Mike Sparks.

No real issue here. No one seriously doubts the wheeled Stryker was chosen over the M8 AGS/M113 upgrade option mostly because of one word - transformation, or the need to create a perception of change in the Army. The Task Force Hawk debacle (Albania) forced the Army to get deployable or become irrelevant. It faced the perception that it was stodgy (maybe true) and not adapted to the future. That was beginning to impact funding in favor of the USAF and Navy, even before Rumsfeld. A new look was needed to sell congress on the new approach, and rebuilding/upgrading forty year old vehicles (M113's)and adding another tank (remember, tanks were the weapon of the past), even a light one, wasn't going to break the mold.

Hence, a wheeled, air-transportable, air supportable, mobile system that could be rapidly deployed using theater (C-130) only lift, at least on paper. Welcome the LAV-3, or Stryker. Add a fancy new beret and wham ... transformation you have.

I realize that's a little cynical, but there was as much an IO message in the Stryker as anything, for the Army, DoD, and Congress.

That's not to say it's a bad vehicle per se. The wheels/tracks argument was an uproar in Armor branch. As a reformed skeptic, I have walked away impressed (except for the MGS, I suppose).

[Distiller]

So the SBCTs are concepted as little more than protected and reinforced constabulary troops, but since they are here, they are or will be used in roles that are basically beyond their concept and capabilites. I see them always in danger of being employed in the wrong spot of the sequence of Armor - Cavalry - MechInf - MotInf. Basically for tasks like Irak cavalry would be right for the "heavy" part. Problem is they are equipped with 35 metric tons M2/M3. Should have bought the CV90 - are the same weight as Strykers and look much more real to me (I have no experience in either of those vehicles). Of course, if "wheeled" is the buzzword ...


But something else: Given the fact that the whole IBCT thing is just a placeholder for FCS, and the idea is having a protected/armored air portable system, maybe the answer does not lie in keeping things within C-130J limits, but in a new transport plane, like e.g. licence produce the Airbus A400M.

Now that the FCS looks more like 30 tons (and I think it will go to 35) the Hercules is out of the picture anyway (for the lower part of the C-130 mission the C-27J is the right thing). Or if somebody doesn't like Eurostuff, proceede with that Northrop ESTOL Stelath-BWB (Future Tactical Airlifter or something) concept.

And to turn one of the arguments here on its head - when not willing to use an APC stemming from the 1950's, why base whole formations like IBCT or FCS-UAs on the transport capabilities of the 1950's (C-130)? I think what we see here is the lack of coordination from the leadership, to force the USAF to create/buy the right sized tactical airlifter for Army requirements.

[William F. Owen]

So the SBCTs are concepted as little more than protected and reinforced constabulary troops, but since they are here, they are or will be used in roles that are basically beyond their concept and capabilites. I see them always in danger of being employed in the wrong spot of the sequence of Armor - Cavalry - MechInf - MotInf. Basically for tasks like Irak cavalry would be right for the "heavy" part. Problem is they are equipped with 35 metric tons M2/M3. Should have bought the CV90 - are the same weight as Strykers and look much more real to me (I have no experience in either of those vehicles).

Whoah there! The infantry man that falls out of the back of Stryker is most likely as capable as the man falling out of the back of a CV90, Bradley or Namera. - or an MRAP of X or Y capability.

When you boil SBCT concept down to its bare bones its about increasing the capability of Light Infantry, using protected mobility, and the huge range of pluses that gives you.
That's all.
IMO, a good the idea started to go badly wrong once it went beyond that, and then defending the decision was left to people who didn't understand the idea. - That's what I take away from Rob Thornton's experience.

Stryker really could have been one of those ideas that "changed infantry." Unfortunately it transformed itself into something different.

[Kreker]

No real issue here. No one seriously doubts the wheeled Stryker was chosen over the M8 AGS/M113 upgrade option mostly because of one word - transformation, or the need to create a perception of change in the Army. The Task Force Hawk debacle (Albania) forced the Army to get deployable or become irrelevant. It faced the perception that it was stodgy (maybe true) and not adapted to the future. That was beginning to impact funding in favor of the USAF and Navy, even before Rumsfeld. A new look was needed to sell congress on the new approach, and rebuilding/upgrading forty year old vehicles (M113's)and adding another tank (remember, tanks were the weapon of the past), even a light one, wasn't going to break the mold.

Hence, a wheeled, air-transportable, air supportable, mobile system that could be rapidly deployed using theater (C-130) only lift, at least on paper. Welcome the LAV-3, or Stryker. Add a fancy new beret and wham ... transformation you have.

I realize that's a little cynical, but there was as much an IO message in the Stryker as anything, for the Army, DoD, and Congress.

That's not to say it's a bad vehicle per se. The wheels/tracks argument was an uproar in Armor branch. As a reformed skeptic, I have walked away impressed (except for the MGS, I suppose).

Hi Cavguy,
Very succinct.
Let's not forget that there was a platform demonstration conducted for all off-the-shelf vehicles, be they wheel or track, at Ft Knox, as part of the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) modernization effort. The LAv variant won out over the 113 variant.
As Eden pointed out the Stryker was to be an interim stop-gap until FCS was fielded, thus only seven SBCT (believe the original total was six.) Eden is also right, in that SBCT were to be used in SSCs and LICs, and could be used in MICs by being augmented/reinforced.
Also remember that FCS is a track vehicle and not wheel. Good discussions.
Best
Kreker

[Cavguy]

Hi Cavguy,
Very succinct.
Let's not forget that there was a platform demonstration conducted for all off-the-shelf vehicles, be they wheel or track, at Ft Knox, as part of the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) modernization effort. The LAv variant won out over the 113 variant.
As Eden pointed out the Stryker was to be an interim stop-gap until FCS was fielded, thus only seven SBCT (believe the original total was six.) Eden is also right, in that SBCT were to be used in SSCs and LICs, and could be used in MICs by being augmented/reinforced.
Also remember that FCS is a track vehicle and not wheel. Good discussions.
Best
Kreker

Sir,

Glad to see you back! No disagreements with anything above. As I stated earlier, I'd pick the LAV over a M113. I would have liked the M8 AGS, but you can't have it all. I remember there was a lot of recrimination over the shoot-off, about the decision criteria. Didn't bother me much then or now, I simply was noting the "IO" effects of choosing the Stryker.

Is the FCS going to use banded or linked track? I've heard about them wanting banded track if the technology matured. Would take care of the most unpleasant part of tanking (breaking track).

[Kreker]

Cavguy,
Please don't call me sir...that day is long past. Hace bee on vacation and travel, thus the hiatius. To answer you question the FCS MGVs will be using banded track.
Cheers

[Yrkoon9]

To give you some perspective on the MGS from an MGS platoon leader I can tell you a few things.

First and foremost the MGS' biggest asset, as with all Strykers is speed. These suckers can do 70mph. They fly. With that comes stealth. They roll up quick and quiet in comparison to say....the Bradley.

How does that factor in todays conflicts? Simply put we always get beat to the punch. The insurgents and terrorists can hit us quick and get away. To counter that kind of speed and agility the MGS/Stryker is the best thing we have right now. Some would argue that humvees do that. But humvees die quick. The MGS and Stryker survive.

Huh?

Yeah. What most people don't want to let out is that Strykers are resilient as all hell. They don't just blow up when an IED hits them the way a Bradley will. The MGS & Stryker is light. It just gets knocked over. No kidding. People inside might be hurt - but they aren't killed nearly as often.

Okay. Speed. Resilience. What else?

Well the MGS is the quick firepower. Mainly we use it to breach buildings, hit vehicles, and create intimidation. Usually we roll with ICV's (infantry carrier vehicles), which are just Strykers rolling with a .50 and a squad of infantry. So you have a couple of ICV's and a big 105mm as backup. When the trunk monkeys jump out the back of ICV's the MGS is a helluva overwatch. With enhanced thermals and overkill firepower nobody really wants to keep fighting.

Insurgents see the MGS and they disappear. At first they were a novelty and these guys shoot at anything that is new. Like the ATGM system Stryker. But when the turret starts to rotate all hostile fire stops. They think we can see through walls and stuff. LOL!

The bad side is that the MGS is mechanically complex. The autoloading system is cumbersome. We can't carry organic infantry support. We can't self-recover.

But none of that matters after you see a cannister round hit a car!

[120mm]

And how, precisely, would you fix the M113's weakness against under-road IEDs and anti-tank mines?

The belly plate, as flat as it is, combined with the tracks, make it a deathtrap. You'd need to find someway to vent the explosion out the sides, probably a "V-shaped" hull or somesuch. That would probably mean redesigning the hull completely, and then you'd have some other vehicle, by the time you're done.

It's interesting to note that the Joseph Stalin series of heavy tank had pronounced "V-hulls", precisely in order to make them more resistent to mines.

Sorry, I didn't see page 3, when I was responding to William Owen's post vis-a-vis fixing the weaknesses of the M113.

[J Wolfsberger]

"V hull" doesn't do anything to protect against mines.

There are three things that can be done: increase standoff, reduce presented area, and increase armor at the bottom hull (belly armor).

The basic, so-called, "v hull" shape of the MRAPs actually looks like:
Hull.jpg

They work because of increased standoff and reduced presented area. The "V" shape is just incidental - it doesn't lead to any "blast deflection."

BTW, these worked well when originally designed by the South Africans because they were fighting LIC in the veldt. Who cares what the silhouette is if you can still be seen coming from 20 klicks out no matter what you're driving? They work well for us today, because we're travelling relatively predictable routes, so who cares if we can be easily seen? In a different type of conflict/mission, different terrain, different threat weapon system mix, etc., they could turn out to be unfixable death traps.

The relevant dimensions for design trades are: presented area vs. vehicle height; standoff vs. vehicle height, ride stability, mobility/agilty; belly armor vs. just about everything.

[Cavguy]

The Blog "DefenseTech" has a followup on the MGS Debate.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003995.html

Quote:

Some of you might remember my entry from Iraq a couple weeks ago criticizing the new Stryker vehicle version called the “mobile gun system,” or MGS. I spoke with three MGS crew, including an MGS platoon sergeant, who said the system was crap.

Well, in the interest of giving each side their due, I’m going post some comments sent to me this weekend from another MGS platoon sergeant who was quoted in the Bloomberg story I cited in my story.

At this time in my opinion am one of the most combat experienced MGS vehicle commanders in the army today. I have fired 58 rounds in a combat situation...none of them were just for fun rounds. I have used the MGS in every manner possible and used it for things it was not tatically supposed to be used for. It pisses me of that only 1 or 2 guys were asked about this vehicle in 4-9 INF, 4/2bde.

And later he wrote me...

I just want the vehicle to get a fair chance and for people who think it a waste of tax dollars to realize that we now control the battlefield both cross country and urban.

[Tom Odom]

"V hull" doesn't do anything to protect against mines.

There are three things that can be done: increase standoff, reduce presented area, and increase armor at the bottom hull (belly armor).

The basic, so-called, "v hull" shape of the MRAPs actually looks like:
Hull.jpg

They work because of increased standoff and reduced presented area. The "V" shape is just incidental - it doesn't lead to any "blast deflection."

BTW, these worked well when originally designed by the South Africans because they were fighting LIC in the veldt. Who cares what the silhouette is if you can still be seen coming from 20 klicks out no matter what you're driving? They work well for us today, because we're travelling relatively predictable routes, so who cares if we can be easily seen? In a different type of conflict/mission, different terrain, different threat weapon system mix, etc., they could turn out to be unfixable death traps.

The relevant dimensions for design trades are: presented area vs. vehicle height; standoff vs. vehicle height, ride stability, mobility/agilty; belly armor vs. just about everything.

John,

From METAR 3D Mine Resistan Ambush Protected (MRAP Entities)

MRAP systems are designed with a V-shaped hull that assists deflection of a mine or IED blast away from the vehicle’s interior. With their appropriate markings, accurate geometry, and damage states, MetaVR's 3D MRAP models can be used in counter-IED training scenarios. These models, which are in MetaVR’s model format, are included in the 3D content libraries that are delivered with the purchase of MetaVR products. Updates are available to current customers on Virtual Reality Scene Generator (VRSG) maintenance.

See also The protection of vehicles and plant equipment against mines and UXO

For example:

Principles for the protection against blast effect
The following principles can be incorporated into the design of vehicles and equipment
to render protection against the blast effect of mines:
�� absorption of energy,
�� deflection of blast effect away from the hull, and
�� distance from detonation point.

The V shape does play a role and so does standoff as well as presented area. To get the V-shape in a vehicle that could move cross country, increased stand-off, using a v-shaped hull to present less area, equated to increased height.

The heigth of the vehicles actually proved advantage in the areas where they were used. Namibia and Angola are desert like in many areas but with a heavy brush cover. The SADF vehicles were high enough that they were able to see over much of that brush, where a vehicle 50 to 100 yards is often invisible at ground level.

As for open ground making the height of a vehicle irrelevant, armored combat in Sinai, Iraq, and North Africa says otherwise (along of course with hundreds of rotations at the NTC). No ground aside perhaps from certain places like Bonneville, is that flat and even there the curvature of the earth means that taller vehicles are seen before shorter vehicles. The reason the South Africans did not care was the threat against those vehicles was not from direct fire anti-armor systems. When they had to deal with the Cubans, it was a new ball game.

I agree fully that while MRAP is a good thing in a COIN fight, it would be meat on the table in more conventional setting.

Best

Tom

[J Wolfsberger]

I didn't express myself very well in my post.

The point I was trying to make is that it isn't the "V." There are some problems now with people demanding designers try using a "shallow V."

What does buy something is standoff (i.e. ground clearance), reduced presented area, and stiffening the hull to involve as much of the structure in vehicle response as possible (the only way to accomplish absorption of energy). All that has to be balanced against impulsive load imparted to the crew, and what kind of "stroke" can be built into the seats to reduce impulsive injuries (such as ruptured disks). And that doesn't get into reliability issues of a dynamic suspension (to give a variable standoff), or vehicle mobility/agility issues associated with a higher center of gravity.

As to the tactical considerations, I think we're in agreement. I was trying to point out that in some tactical circumstances, a large silhouette is irrelevant.

When the SADF went into Angola against the Cubans, the vehicles had vulnerabilities that didn't appear in SW Africa or the COIN ops in South Africa itself. Vehicle silhouette is one of the first things designers try to reduce - smaller means lower probability of hit, which equates to better survivability. It's a lot harder to see and hit a HMMV than an MRAP at any sort of distance.

[Ken White]

are important for under vehicle explosions, no question -- but the V shape is also important as it allows the explosive force easy exit as opposed to being trapped by a flat hull -- particularly a flat hull bottom with tracks or closely spaced wheels serving as side walls which traps the force and exacerbates the intensity by reverbration as opposed to simply deflecting (or absorbing) only the initial force.

If that under vehicle explosion rises against a flat bottom, is is simply reflected right back the way it came (even if it does rip through all or part of the bottom, there's still excess force to be reflected). Vehicles can be flipped by the force as well as having bottoms penetrated. that is common with flat bottom hulls and very rare with V-bottoms.

The best V-hull designs have a minimum number of wheels and those are at extreme ands and designed to be sacrificed to aid in hull and thus crew survival.

While the V-hull and high ground clearance are beneficial in lessening the effect of buried mines or IEDs, Neither offers any protection from side or angle mounted IEDs.

It's hard to dispute that anything that keeps the troops alive is not beneficial but my sensing is that once again we have tried for a technological solution to a training and operating problem. Some were necessary and beneficial but the sheer number we're buying is probably excessive and was driven by Congressional reaction to incompetent media noise. I suspect that most will be transferred to the Iraqis. Some day...