Stryker collection (merged thread)

[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]

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.

[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.

[J Wolfsberger]

The MGS is transportable by C-130. The loading and unloading have to be performed carefully, but it can be done. (I know the guys who did the test, and I've seen the photographic record.)

With regard to tires vs. tracks, that debate has been going on for decades. It will continue to rage for decades precisely because there are pros and cons to each solution. The only change I expect we'll ever see is maybe a hundred years from now we'll add counter gravity into the mix.

Finally, a note on tactics. The Stryker Family Of Vehicles (FOV) is not designed or intended to fight as heavy combatants. That's the job of Abrams and Bradley. If you put a heavy weapon (25 mm or .50 cal) on top of it, it can provide a base of fire to support the dismounts as they maneuver against the target. The MGS can provide support by breaching obstacles, as well as performing in the role of a tank destroyer to keep the bad guys armor at bay - which would probably be done as part of mobile defense. Having said the last, it might be useful to look at Rommel's Chergbourg and North African campaigns to see how he used towed anti-tank guns offensively.

I assume "Dingo" refers the vehicle from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. If so, it isn't the same class of vehicle as the Stryker - it's in the JLTV class. As for Bushmaster, it wasn't considered vs. Stryker because it didn't exist at the time.

[selil]

I keep seeing the term kool-aid. Unless you know the place and time and why that entered the world as a meme. And, if while knowing that you still wish to off handedly throw the term out in discussions as a conversation killer or ad hominem attack. I strongly suggest you don't have a clue.

I'll make it easy for you.

[MattC86]

Moving away from the Stryker/MGS controversy, can I ask what Ken's - or WilF's - criticism of the Bradley is? (the "how it would have done in Europe," statement) I've heard very little criticism of the vehicle from those who have used it in combat; the critiques resemble the HBO movie "The Pentagon Wars" about its brutal procurement and teething process. . .

Regards,

Matt

[MattC86]

I'll make it easy for you.

Ah, generational differences. I saw the "Jim Jones" part of the link and assumed it was referencing Dipset. . .perhaps the "ballin!" move.

If you have no clue what I'm taking about, we are most definitely on the proper wavelengths.

Regards,

Matt

[reed11b]

I keep seeing the term kool-aid. Unless you know the place and time and why that entered the world as a meme. And, if while knowing that you still wish to off handedly throw the term out in discussions as a conversation killer or ad hominem attack. I strongly suggest you don't have a clue.

I'll make it easy for you.

For someone who states they want to keep the board civil, why are you doing an entire post that boils down to little other then a personal attack? My referance to kool-aid with Ken was as part of a discusion on the merits or lack of merit for APC weapon systems bigger then a HMG. It was not an attack on Ken. So what does your post bring to the table about Strykers and IFV's that can be discussed?
Reed

[reed11b]

Moving away from the Stryker/MGS controversy, can I ask what Ken's - or WilF's - criticism of the Bradley is? (the "how it would have done in Europe," statement) I've heard very little criticism of the vehicle from those who have used it in combat; the critiques resemble the HBO movie "The Pentagon Wars" about its brutal procurement and teething process. . .

Regards,

Matt

I believe the critism is that a system that is meant to move with and fight with tanks, and looks alot like a tank, but has APC armor, even if it his heavy by APC standards, is going to suffer horrible loss rates against a capable Military with strong AT capability. Case in pont may be that while reviews of the Bradley HAVE in fact been positive, it has not had much HIC experiance and the loss rates of BMD type vehicles has been high in the conflicts they have participated in. If Isreal had ever used Bradleys, we might have a better idea if the big war concept of the IFV was sound. I personally believe that Armor division APC's should be based of the tank chassis with tank level armor, but there is very little real data about this either, so my preferance, or belief, is only that.
Reed

[Ken White]

For someone who states they want to keep the board civil, why are you doing an entire post that boils down to little other then a personal attack? My referance to kool-aid with Ken was as part of a discusion on the merits or lack of merit for APC weapon systems bigger then a HMG. It was not an attack on Ken. So what does your post bring to the table about Strykers and IFV's that can be discussed?
Reed

kool aid bit was wrong and said so, selil is merely saying the same thing. Monitors step in on occasion to remind us all to be civil, maybe excessively so in the eyes of some but it stops flame wars in their tracks. It really works well.

Your use may not have been intended as an attack but it comes across as saying the respondent is lying or spreading misinformation. You may not have meant it that way but that doesn't affect the perception of others.

The rule here is one can attack the argument or comment of another but do not attack the poster personally. That means taking a little more care what we say and how we say it here in comparison to other boards and while we can all goof it on occasion, the extra effort is usually worth it...

I think we ought to put it down to, it happened, it's over and let's move on. It'll be my turn to step on my string here pretty quickly by making one of my doofless remarks trying to be funny and putting both feet in my mouth. I don't want to miss that...

[Ken White]

... can I ask what Ken's ... criticism of the Bradley is? (the "how it would have done in Europe," statement) I've heard very little criticism of the vehicle from those who have used it in combat; the critiques resemble the HBO movie "The Pentagon Wars" about its brutal procurement and teething process

To amplify a bit, the vehicle was the result of a bitter parochial battle between the Armor and Infantry branches and their respective schools. Armor wanted a tank based PC with a low silhouette; Infantry, ever afraid of Armor gaining control of 11B (or 11M) spaces, objected -- the result of all that was the M2 / M3 which didn't really make anyone all that happy. Compromises seldom do...

In fairness to the vehicle, it had to satisfy a lot of conflicting requirements and the current edition is vastly improved over the initial issue -- the comment at the Armor School at the time was that, in Europe, BFV would stand for "Burning fighting Vehicle." That due to a huge number of 125mm guns that would be aimed at it. While it has done well in the LIC environment it is not ATGM proof (very few things are) and only the latest iterations offer much RPG protection. Each successive improvement, A1, A2, A3 has been beneficial, no question -- but it is effectively unproven in HIC.

[William F. Owen]

Moving away from the Stryker/MGS controversy, can I ask what Ken's - or WilF's - criticism of the Bradley is? (the "how it would have done in Europe," statement) I've heard very little criticism of the vehicle from those who have used it in combat; the critiques resemble the HBO movie "The Pentagon Wars" about its brutal procurement and teething process. . .

IMO there is nothing inherently wrong with Bradley M2. It is extremely capable. It is also very expensive and has a large logistic foot print.

Richard Simpkin had some simplistic ideas about the tonnes per dismount man in Mechanised or Armoured Companies. It's not good Operational Analysis but it does brilliantly illustrate a very great problem. Bradley may be effective, but it is also inefficient to the degree that a better balance could have been found. At least Bradley had a properly stabilised cannon, unlike the UK's Warrior, which was bad iteration of the same idea.

With regard to tires vs. tracks, that debate has been going on for decades. It will continue to rage for decades precisely because there are pros and cons to each solution.

I agree. What is more, I've just never seen this as a debate, and I personally feel that when people argue about it, they are really arguing about something else that is far more emotional, and nothing to with tyres versus tracks.

It's like the 9mm v .45 argument. It's utterly meaningless and never about what it's about.

[120mm]

Having crewed Bradleys, my criticism of it, as a platform, is that it is very large, and it is very loud.

My platoon were the first six CFVs fielded, and they were maintenance nightmares as well. Very rarely were all six "up". You might've called us the "Circle X gang."

I would think that for Small Wars, a larger caliber, lower pressure gun would be nice, in order to throw more explosive with the main gun without wasting a TOW.

[KenWats]

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:
5) They break A LOT more than any other vehicle I had, including M1 tanks.

I followed Cavguy's link from another thread and am responding here because it seemed more appropriate.

I agree with all of your points except 5. My M113A3s were never uparmored, but they broke down significantly less than our M60 class bridge carriers, ACEs, or CEVs (my experience is late 90s, fwiw). I know that's not saying much, but of the vehicles I had in my various platoons (M113, Humvee, M548, ACE, CEV, AVLB/AVLM, SEE, HEMMT), the 113 was definitely on the "more reliable" side. Maybe my view is skewed from what I had to work with.

I never really had (many) problems keeping up with Brad/M1 equipped company teams when it was just my organic combat engineer platoon (probably a function of mine not being uparmored with slat armor, etc- I know towing the MICLIC trailer made a difference, so I can imagine that the extra armor would be just as bad). Attach the CEV or an AVLB/AVLM and I had a bear of a time keeping track of the lumbering behemoths behind me, and the tank/bradley platoons speeding ahead.

[Cavguy]

I followed Cavguy's link from another thread and am responding here because it seemed more appropriate.

I agree with all of your points except 5. My M113A3s were never uparmored, but they broke down significantly less than our M60 class bridge carriers, ACEs, or CEVs (my experience is late 90s, fwiw). I know that's not saying much, but of the vehicles I had in my various platoons (M113, Humvee, M548, ACE, CEV, AVLB/AVLM, SEE, HEMMT), the 113 was definitely on the "more reliable" side. Maybe my view is skewed from what I had to work with.

I never really had (many) problems keeping up with Brad/M1 equipped company teams when it was just my organic combat engineer platoon (probably a function of mine not being uparmored with slat armor, etc- I know towing the MICLIC trailer made a difference, so I can imagine that the extra armor would be just as bad). Attach the CEV or an AVLB/AVLM and I had a bear of a time keeping track of the lumbering behemoths behind me, and the tank/bradley platoons speeding ahead.

Good point. My FIST-V always had problems keeping up b/c it was still an A2 version with the smaller engine. The 1SG's 113 was fine until we added all the extra stuff. My cross-attached combat engineer platoon had all the same problems.

Best use of a 113 I saw was as a tricked out "bass boat"/mini 577 for the BCT commander (basically a 113 with extra radios) - difference being he could ride around hatch open with his FSO in tow on the battlefieldof Hohenfels - since it was a light track it could get up high where the M1/M2's couldn't b/c of the goat trail conditions.