Looks like an answer to a question that wasn't asked.

This thread is full of retard.

I know there's a few Stryker guys in here, like me, that get what the fuck a Stryker is for. The rest of you guys...I got nothing.

ETA) And this.

But we don't dare cut military spending to reduce the deficit. It would harm our readiness.






Welfare ain't the only thing that needs an ax taken to it.

I supported two SCR's last deployment on a 50/50 mounted/dismounted mission.  Strykers are air mobile, and they run fast and quiet, that's about the only good thing I can say about them.  They also seem to have finished the project concept and locked the door on the building 10 minutes before it was determined flat bottom hulls and low ground clearance was NOT a good idea.

I'm generally of the school of thought that if you are going to put guys into armor, at least have it able to protect them from the very basic level of the most prevalent threat out there.  The Stryker was a day late and a dollar short on that.

The tracks seem to fix the issue they had in Afghanistan of not being very good off road, but a land mine would still wreck that thing.

To be fair, my feelings on the Stryker are the same as it's an answer to a question that wasn't asked.  It occupies the same cubage on a ship as an M1A1 while offering no significant advantage over a Brad or M1A1 at arrival in theater.

They worked decently in Iraq where there were lots of roads and infrastructure.  The flip side of that is they are pretty awesome at creating thousands of acceleration injuries being so flat and low.  Essentially they share the worst aspect of the Bradley without the offensive capacity and the only trade-off being speed.....which goes out the window in rough terrain (Afghanistan) and in a victim-initiated IED threat scenario (also Afghanistan).

I guess that, realistically speaking, theres only so much you can cask a design from the 1960s that was meant to weigh 12 tons and be protected from little more than shell splinters to do.

BAE Systems has a proposal to replace the 113 with a bigger better version, using some stuff we already know how to build and fix.

A smart idea too.  They are trying to use the USMC model of procurement.  

Call it the same name as the stuff we have in inventory and call it an upgrade.  Viola brand new stuff without the hassle.

You have to use the Stryker correctly, or it's a piece of unnecessary shit.

It's fast. Keep it moving.
It's quiet. Don't make it noisy.
It's not limited to roads, but can't handle super shitty terrain.
It can hold a shitload of people. More than a BFV, in a pinch.

I'm not sure if I should post the doctrine for fighting with the Strykers, or what worked best for us, so I won't. I'll just say that if you're using it to wander around with a trunk full off Infantry, you're fucked up. It's more like an armored taxi.

Sure, we used to call the Stryker the "kevlar coffin", but most of the Strykers that I saw destroyed weren't destroyed by an RPG or a measley couple of 155mm. They were destroyed by a fuckload of 155mm or EFPs. The Stryker was perfect for how the Brigade I was in worked. I heard some really fucking retarded stories about how they were using them after 2006, though.

The article states that General Dynamics designed this tracked version of the Stryker to offer to the Army as an M113 replacement. It isn't meant as a replacement for the Bradley. It isn't meant as a replacement for the wheeled Stryker. It is only meant to be a lower cost alternative than fielding a new M113 replacement entirely from scratch. And considering how long the M113 has been in service, it seems it is very much in need of being replaced.

I actually think the tracked Stryker variant looks like a good idea. If it really weighs 42 tons, then it must have quite a bit of extra armor added to it. If you can provide added protection to folks in heavy divisions who previously depended on the M113 family of vehicles (command groups, engineers, medics, etc) then that seems like a good idea to me. I saw nothing mentioned of the new designs speed, but I'm also guessing it will likely be faster than the M113 as well, giving it the ability to better keep up with Abrams tanks and Bradley IFVs on the battlefield.

In a day where everything that gets developed from scratch usually ends up overweight, way over budget and usually late to boot, it actually pleases me to see defense companies take the initiative of experimentation. Three of the most cost efficient replacement programs we've witnessed over the past two decades involve tweaking a previously existing design into a whole new class of aircraft....the AH-1Z for the AH-1W...the UH-1Y for the UH-1N...and the F-18E/F for the F-14. If that type of thing can be done successfully with aircraft, why not armored vehicles? In the end, you'd get something comparable to an all new design anyway, but without the massive development costs. This is one way we can reduce spending without negatively impacting defense.

WTF?

I guarantee you a solid hit from a single 155mm HE just subsurface would eviscerate a Stryker, just like it would do to most everything light with wheels.  There is no "couple of measly 155s" in the survivability equation.  Thats infantry RUMINT spun out of control.

I'm not going to get into specifics of armor defeat but you can check out NGIC if you don't believe me.

Good post. The problem with the Stryker are the fanboys that drink too much of the kool-aid and honestly believe that a Stryker can outdo any other vehicle in our inventory. I had BNCOC phase one with some guys that were absolutely convinced that a Stryker BN could go toe to toe with a standard Armored Cav Squadron (M1's and brads) and win. And as a JRTC/NTC O/C I met too many senior leaders that thought the same thing. Doing ops in a place like Baghdad or Mosul? Give me a Stryker. Moving to contact against a armored unit (even one with old shit like Iran) and I'd rather be in my M3 as part of a hunter/killer team with a M1 covering my ass.

The Stryker is superior to brads and M1's in certain situations and terrain types. And in other situations a good scout platoon in M3's could wipe the floor with a Stryker company. And I'd bet good money that a M1 platoon that had it's shit together could decimate a Stryker BN (assuming they had enough ammo). Putting tracks on a Stryker take away almost everything about it that make it useful.

And part of the problem is the tendancy to assume that newer is better. Just because a Stryker is newer, doesn't always make it better. Perfect example; the 82nd used to have a tank Bn with air droppable tanks (M551). The tanks were old beat down pieces of shit. So the army shut down the tank BN and told the 82nd to make do with a rotating alert company of M1's from another post. Were the M1's better then the Sheridans? Absolutely. Was replacing the M551 with M1's a good idea? Hell no. The INF BDE's in the 82nd went from having a tank company for each BDE that lived right across the street that trained together and they KNEW those M551's would be on the DZ with them to having 16 M1's crewed by strangers that were promised to arrive as soon as as we could secure a big enough runway. When a BDE went to JRTC, they knew the Sheridan tank crews with them and knew exactly what they could and would do.

The Bradley wasn't much better then what we had when it first came out. The 20+ years of modifications and learning to fight it effectively made it better (despite it's many faults and questionable parontage, I love Brads).

Sometimes newer isn't always better.

I believe that he was referring to 155's as 155 rounds used as a IED, not a 155 round hitting a stryker as direct or indrect fire. I don't think anyone has anything that could hold up to a hit from a 155 arty piece.

so was I.  Surviving residual blast from buried ordnance 20-50 feet away does not equate being able to does brush off multiple direct hits.  It pissed me off when troops tell me they went over a culvert or didn't clear a route first because their vehicle can handle it, even though 99% of the one the guys that actually get hit have no idea whatsoever of the specifics of what happened.

Whatevs. You can believe what you want. I honestly don't give a shit.

I actually got hit by 155mm on at least two occasions. Hell, it might not have been 155mm. I just took EODs word for it. Whatever surplus bullshit they were daisy chaining up circa  2005-2006. Whatever that was, it was the most common type of IED in Mosul until early 2006, when EFPs became all the rage.

Not to mention the ball bearing IEDs, foo gas IEDs, pressure plate IEDs, trip wire, etc that Strykers have  Survived just fine. Shit, one of my friends got hit by a VBIED in a Stryker. Destroyed the vehicle, broke his back, and he was back in Iraq 6 months later. Maybe 8 months. Got killed a few months after he returned, poor motherfucker. Shot by a fucking teenager while doing a raid.

Did you ask them how deep it was buried, what type of round, how far away, etc? Or did you just hear 155mm and now are confident enough to tell everyone and anyone that the vehicle will survive anything involving that particular round?

Saying a vehicle will survive a particular attack like a 155mm IED or VBIED because of a specific situation you encountered and have limited knowledge about is stupid.

This IS a possible answer to an asked question.  It is their response to the emerging Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle proposal that is coming.  It will replace the M113 and variants in HBCT's and other mechanized formations in various rolls.  Right now the anticipated competitor will be a turretless Bradley variant.

It is anticipated that the requirements will favor a variant of a system already in the inventory for parts commonality, as well as system and operations familiarity.  That pretty much leaves us with 3 options, a Stryker variant, a Bradley Variant, or a total rebuild of the M113 line and design.

It is an industry concept build.  Not sure why that is so strange…..

Fuck it. Not like it'll make a difference to you. I wrote out two pages of text on word, but fuck it. You probably don't believe I've hit one IED, so why waste my fucking time?

whether or not you have hit an IED before is irrelevant.  Believe me, I've had this same discussion a hundred times with guys that equate getting hit with an IED with some sort of proficiency or knowledge about IEDs in general, armor penetration, vehicle survivability, etc.  I hit my fair share of IEDs as combat arms, and in reality I had no clue of the specifics of what happened.  I definitely didn't use my limited experience of being blown up to make broad generalizations well outside of my skill level.

You know, if you didnt come off as such an asshole, I would have shared some data that would have supported your position. I love the stryker and it has saved my ass many times. Ive had many experiences where we hit 155mm IEDs and the bitch just kept on rolling. However our ancedotal evidence is not the deeply calculated scientific data that Daemon has access to, though Id like to see it. He IS the SME on IEDs, trust me. My experience is different from his but if hes telling me what I know is not accurate Id tend to believe hes telling me the truth.

Aco 1/5 IN 1/25th ID SBCT. 2003-2006. Tal Afar/Mosul 04/05

In reality there are too many variables to go one way or another in a tactical setting.  A Stryker will not shrug off a single surface laid 155mm HE round directly beneath it, that is the hard fact.   Everything past that is directly related to the variables tied to the specific incident.  How deep, what type, how far away, what direction the baseplate was facing, how it was primed, soil composition, what donor charge, angle and placement of hit on vehicle, vehicle speed, and how fate decides to treat you today among a host of other things.  That's why you can't generalize with anecdotal experience.  If the vehicle in question can take a surface 155mm going off directly beneath it then you can start talking about how it can take a hit from a that type of round, everything past that is conjecture.   There are vehicles in our inventory capable of that, BTW.

My main issue with the Stryker is not its armor or ability (or lack thereof) to be breached.  For me the concern is how low it rides and the flat hull.  Even with no penetration the real danger is the transference of blast energy into the crew compartment.  Spalling, acceleration injury, TBI, are all real concerns that have been addressed in every other new production tactical vehicle up there.

Strykers were so great we bought 40 billion dollars worth of MRAPs.

Wheeled Armored Vehicles
Neva ben dun befo


Although, to be fair, the above pictured armored vehicle has an actual turret and more armament.

 

We need to start a collection to send you to some of these trade shows with a camera.

I'd pay to see you making fun of this stuff in person.

OH PLEASE OH PLEASE that would be awesome.
We could call him "Sumthin' Fancy".
 

What about the V-hull retro-fit they did over the past year or so (for the Stryker)?  I am racking my brain for vehicles that could carry such a large number of dismounts and move as quickly as a Stryker, that would be able to survive a direct underneath hit from a 155. Bradley? Nope. M113? Nope. MRAP? As I said...move quickly and carry a similar number of troops.

As for anecdotal evidence....do line units really give a shit about all the stats? No...they use strategies they come up with themselves or from the previous unit to keep alive. AO specific Enemy TTPs change and thus, our TTPs have to change. When you own a huge AO (in Iraq, so lots of roads) with relatively few guys, you have to realize that speed is key, and that most of your IED threats will be pressure plate or crush wire, which means your tire will most likely be taking a lot of the blast. Or in Baghdad...EFPs become the new threat, and armor will do jack shit to save you.

It is a much better idea to adapt your vehicle to your AO and use lessons learned to counter what ever threats are out there. Obviously the units you were with found the IED threat bad enough to primarily dismount, which is awesome as long as they were still able to accomplish the mission. You shouldn't automatically discount a vehicle just because one unit you were with found that dismount was the way to go for their AO. My experience differs from yours. Doesn't mean your're totally wrong...doesn't mean I am totally right.

We have the tracked Stryker already.  

It's called the M113.

When I was in that's what they told  us they were going to do for
medics and engineer vehicles.  Use Bradley hulls.

Personally, I like the 113A3.  Fast, good on fuel.  Low profile, and can be configured
to various missions from gun truck, to scout, to whatever.

and cheap...relatively.

And loud as fuck

Quieter than a Bradley.

I feel I was pretty general in my description and nothing I said about the Stryker was exclusive to a particular theater or AO.  Dismount AOs on my last deployment were because you could not bring vehicles period, not so much because of a specific threat to them.   That said, the shortcomings in blast protection on a Stryker don't change much whether its 155mm's in Baghdad or 75lb UBE jugs in Kandahar.

just about the only thing the Stryker has going for it is speed, yet the mandated speed limits in sector are pretty slow.  Its also useless to be fast when all you end up doing is leaving your other vehicles behind. The Stryker would be ok for the bad dash to Baghdad, but then sucks past that. Virtually all of our MRAPs have much better blast/frag protection right now, aside from maybe an MATV, and the Stryker rides along right next to them 90% of the time.

Regarding TTPs, my biggest pet peeve is that every Tom, dick and harry in a line unit that had ever hut an IED before now becomes an expert on them.  Its my job to study them and in 3 months I can be completely out of the loop.  The TTPs are usually driven through a mixed gaggle of misinformation streaming out of every leader that considers themselves to be virtually omnipotent regarding all things combat related.  This is just my observations coming from working with upwards of a dozen line units and counting.  You rarely find an E6 or E7 in combat arms with the balls to say he doesnt know something, leading to a dragging around of old or completely wrong TTPs from deployment to deployment.  BTW,  if your threat is victim operated as in pressure plates or crush wire, speed is probably the worst thing you could possibly do.  Hard to see potential triggers when your are doing 60mph.


Regardless, you fight with what you have.  1151s saved my ass more than once, but it doesnt mean they are worth a shit.  They just happened to have what it took to stop me from dying that day.  Note I never discounted the Stryker from being used, I just countered an erroneous statement that it can take multiple 155mm IED strikes, which led to me offering my opinions on the vehicle.  I stand by the statement that it was just a day late and a dollar short from the conception.