Stryker collection (merged thread)

[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.

[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.