When I started reading the Stryker debate I remembered a photograph from the Russian operations in Afghanistan. Three guys in a delapidated pick up had just taken out three Russian personel carriers with RPG's. The cost of troop carriers versus the beat up pick up must have been enormous.
Selil,Originally Posted by selil
That's what happens anytime you don't employ equipment properly and use poorly trained conscripts. The unwritten Soviet creed of death before dismount gave the initiative to the mujihadeen, allowing for their successful ambushes.
As far as the performance of the Stryker against the RPG in Iraq, the RPG has been ineffective. I'm aware of only one catastrophic kill, which was a fluke (the RPG hit some POL loaded on the exterior of the vehicle, started an exterior load fire, and the soldiers weren't able to put the fire out resulting in 0 injuries but one burned Stryker), and the slat has been nearly 100% effective in preventing penetration into the vehicle. For nearly three years of service across all of Iraq, that's a pretty substantial track record.
other options besides 113
has anyone looked into OTHER vehicles that have most of the strykers advantages but cost less, are easier to maintain, easier to transport and did I mention cost less? (May even be smaller then a large city bus too)? Dingo-2, Bushmaster, the New Wildcat (Built for RPGs baby!), etc.? The you could mix and match with a light armoured track such as the BVS-10 and never have to listen to "Gavin" vs Stryker arguments ever again. Otherwise, If it HAS to be a huge honking 8x8, I want at least a 20mm cannon and powerful IR capabilities.
Reed
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.
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
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.
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
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.The Dingo, Bushmaster and Wildcat are different vehicles with different roles and do not have the x-country mobility of the Stryker.
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.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'
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.)-- which too many Brads get used for according to some.
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.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
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks