User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 9:04:54 PM EDT
The Patria seems like the superior 8x8 wheeled platform in almost every regard. It offers better protection (30mm cannon resistant armor across the frontal arc) and also seems to be a much better weapons platform. The 105mm gun on the Stryker MGS is honestly too much gun for that platform, whereas the Patria can mount a full up 120mm gun and still remain more stable than the Stryker MGS.
    Interesting vehicle. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 9:26:20 PM EDT
[#1]
My threads never generate any interest or discussion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 9:28:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Stryker looks cooler.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 9:28:49 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My threads never generate any interest or discussion. It's arguing about history. We don't know why one was chosen over the other. Cost? Some other benefit that we don't know about? Speed? Range? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 9:35:53 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's arguing about history. We don't know why one was chosen over the other. Cost? Some other benefit that we don't know about? Speed? Range? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 9:38:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Check the weights.
I remember the Striker being specifically design around a carry weight to fit one in a 130 or two or three of them in a C-141 at the time. Patria 16,000 to 32,000 kg |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 9:38:51 PM EDT
[#6]
That company didn’t buy enough hookers and offer post retirement consulting jobs for the decision makers?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 9:40:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Source select was done before the vehicle was even developed and when you get back to requirements, one of big ones was a weight limit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 9:45:24 PM EDT
[#8]
I do remember the C-130 requirement. Yet have we ever actually transported a Stryker into a combat theater via C-130 since they've been in service? It seems they sacrificed protection by going with a lighter option to meet a specific requirement that is never actually used in practice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 9:54:29 PM EDT
[#9]
It was a ridiculous effort to distribute money to various armed forces select committees’ home states to develop the Stryker on our own, rather than go to one of our NATO allies who have excellent wheeled vehicles themselves.
The Sunny Peninsula, for instance, has the Centauro, both IFV and support versions:  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 9:56:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Don’t know about the LAV-III, but we fit 4 LAV-25 plus a bunch of other shit in a C-17 and landed on a dirt strip in the middle of No Where Afghanistan.
Speaking of the LAV-25, is the Corps still rocking those things? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 10:00:59 PM EDT
[#11]
As a former LAV-25 commander, ain’t nobody got time for a ginormous gun that takes more than one crewman to disassemble.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 10:06:27 PM EDT
[#12]
Only 12 MGS exist. I trained on Strykers in Cav Leaders’ Course. Whisper quiet, but not well protected. I concur with the previous poster about “we need to invent it” syndrome. Army spends based upon gap analysis for vehicles 10-30 years in the future…
For the record, I like the LAV-25 better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 10:14:21 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don’t know about the LAV-III, but we fit 4 LAV-25 plus a bunch of other shit in a C-17 and landed on a dirt strip in the middle of No Where Afghanistan. Speaking of the LAV-25, is the Corps still rocking those things? Yes, their replacement the ARV is in development |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 10:37:09 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, their replacement the ARV is in development Oof. Those things were rough 20 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 10:46:37 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oof. Those things were rough 20 years ago. I was on the analysis of alternative team two years ago, I think they just did source selection last year for a prototype from Textron/GLDS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 10:59:09 PM EDT
[#16]
The 82nd Airborne formed an armor company within one of their BCTs a year or two ago. They were equipped with (I shit you not!) hand me down LAV-25's from the Marines. I believe that company has since been disbanded and I do not know what became of those LAV-25's. But I suppose they served their purpose in helping the U.S. Army develop certain tactics and procedures that will help them get off on the right foot when the MPF vehicles (aka light tanks) go into production and become a part of light divisions over the next few years.
BTW, might as well post some images of the MPF too while I'm at it: BAE Systems design, based on the M8 Buford  GDLS design, based on the Ajax chassis with M1 Abrams fire control system  For those not familiar, the Army is going back to the division as its standard unit of maneuver, since we are training and equipping to face conventional foes such as Russia and China. Each light infantry division will have an armored battalion assigned to them and one of the two designs above will be the light tank they end up operating. These are only for light infantry, airborne and air assault divisions. The heavy divisions will retain the M1A2 Abrams. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 11:06:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a ridiculous effort to distribute money to various armed forces select committees' home states to develop the Stryker on our own, rather than go to one of our NATO allies who have excellent wheeled vehicles themselves. The Sunny Peninsula, for instance, has the Centauro, both IFV and support versions: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/21383/7CF90E83-CC78-46EA-979C-1381A4CFE17E_jpe-2302924.JPG |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 11:23:02 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only 12 MGS exist. I trained on Strykers in Cav Leaders’ Course. Whisper quiet, but not well protected. I concur with the previous poster about “we need to invent it” syndrome. Army spends based upon gap analysis for vehicles 10-30 years in the future… For the record, I like the LAV-25 better. 12? I most have worked on 4 of the 12 then (91BR4). I have taken a few MGS maintainers courses. Strykers are built general dynamics. GD holds lots of military contracts. One more wont hurt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 11:32:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 82nd Airborne formed an armor company within one of their BCTs a year or two ago. They were equipped with (I shit you not!) hand me down LAV-25's from the Marines. I believe that company has since been disbanded and I do not know what became of those LAV-25's. But I suppose they served their purpose in helping the U.S. Army develop certain tactics and procedures that will help them get off on the right foot when the MPF vehicles (aka light tanks) go into production and become a part of light divisions over the next few years. BTW, might as well post some images of the MPF too while I'm at it: BAE Systems design, based on the M8 Buford https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/webImage/20210715202817/1434622859865.jpg GDLS design, based on the Ajax chassis with M1 Abrams fire control system https://sites.breakingmedia.com/uploads/sites/3/2020/08/General_Dynamics_unveils_its_light_tank_for_U.S._Army_MPF_program_1.jpg For those not familiar, the Army is going back to the division as its standard unit of maneuver, since we are training and equipping to face conventional foes such as Russia and China. Each light infantry division will have an armored battalion assigned to them and one of the two designs above will be the light tank they end up operating. These are only for light infantry, airborne and air assault divisions. The heavy divisions will retain the M1A2 Abrams. light eh?... that thing on the bottom is massive wonder how many tons? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 11:32:36 PM EDT
[#20]
Well for one thing, Larry Vickers is old...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 11:38:15 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Not invented here" syndrome? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's arguing about history. We don't know why one was chosen over the other. Cost? Some other benefit that we don't know about? Speed? Range? Neither was the LAVIII. Canadian adaptation of a Swiss design. Most likely the extra armor protection put it over the weight limit for the C-130 requirement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 11:40:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I do remember the C-130 requirement. Yet have we ever actually transported a Stryker into a combat theater via C-130 since they've been in service? It seems they sacrificed protection by going with a lighter option to meet a specific requirement that is never actually used in practice. The whole idea of flying a Stryker brigade into a theater in a crisis was a fantasy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 11:48:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only 12 MGS exist. I trained on Strykers in Cav Leaders' Course. Whisper quiet, but not well protected. I concur with the previous poster about "we need to invent it" syndrome. Army spends based upon gap analysis for vehicles 10-30 years in the future For the record, I like the LAV-25 better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 11:49:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only 12 MGS exist. I trained on Strykers in Cav Leaders’ Course. Whisper quiet, but not well protected. I concur with the previous poster about “we need to invent it” syndrome. Army spends based upon gap analysis for vehicles 10-30 years in the future… For the record, I like the LAV-25 better. Unless something changes, all MGS are retired this year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 12:00:46 AM EDT
[#25]
Because kickbacks to the Finnish government don’t buy votes in America?
Follow the money and you will find some dirty people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 12:16:02 AM EDT
[#26]
I deployed to Iraq with a Stryker unit, I have also done a rotation at NTC and a deployment to Northern Macedonia in Strykers. Overall I like the platform and like the overall design.
That being said, the Army still has no idea how to properly implement them into the battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 12:34:02 AM EDT
[#27]
The weight limit for Stryker was a mistake. They also cost 3 times more than an AMV.
MPF is a mistake also. Too light to get shot, too small a gun to kill an MBT if it runs across one, can’t fire an air burst round. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 12:36:10 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: light eh?... that thing on the bottom is massive wonder how many tons? 27-38 tonnes depending on accessories and armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 12:39:23 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Centauro (and related IFV/APC family) is everything the Stryker wishes it could be MPF should be an 8x8 with a 120 OR a real medium tank of 40-45 tonnes with a 120 OR a sub 18 tonne tracked vehicle with a 50mm. A tracked 105 is just wtf. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 12:42:32 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My threads never generate any interest or discussion. I'm just now seeing this, sorry. Your comments are usually quite interesting, don't despair! I'll have a look in the morning and try to come up with a thoughtful contribution to the discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 12:58:25 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Don’t know about the LAV-III, but we fit 4 LAV-25 plus a bunch of other shit in a C-17 and landed on a dirt strip in the middle of No Where Afghanistan. Speaking of the LAV-25, is the Corps still rocking those things? I have loaded 3 slatted strykers in a c17 and I think 4 or 6 in a c130. Quoted: Only 12 MGS exist. I trained on Strykers in Cav Leaders’ Course. Whisper quiet, but not well protected. I concur with the previous poster about “we need to invent it” syndrome. Army spends based upon gap analysis for vehicles 10-30 years in the future… For the record, I like the LAV-25 better. there's way more than that. I think we'd issue 9 at a time. (Wikipedia says 142) A lot of soldiers would talk shit about strykers but it seems like it almost always revolved around them not being like different vehicles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 1:48:57 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: MPF should be an 8x8 with a 120 OR a real medium tank of 40-45 tonnes with a 120 OR a sub 18 tonne tracked vehicle with a 50mm. A tracked 105 is just wtf. Yeah, if they want an armored vehicle with a big ass gun, might as well make that big ass gun a 120mm. Even if the vehicle itself is not well suited to duking it out with a real tank (this is more like an IFV with a tank's gun), it should at least possess armament capable of taking out a real tank in an emergency, should one be encountered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 2:10:16 AM EDT
[#33]
Good question.
I think it probably had something to do with GEN Shinseki wanting it to be C-130 capable. I had a peripheral role in some of the testing and the funny thing was that they had to take the vehicle apart in some ways to get the center of gravity more forward when it was in the C-130. I guess you could say the C-17 was just getting fielded in the 1990s and the C-130 requirement was a needless limitation. On the other hand, there was a lot of resistance to the Stryker. Tankers didn't want it as they were influenced by Desert Storm, and Shinseki knew the next CoS would probably kill it. I think he was worried that he needed to get it up and running in an interim version on his watch, so perhaps the C-130 req limited it to one vehicle and that sped the process up. Of course 9/11 happened and the rest was history. But speed of fielding was definitely a big deal and there weren't a lot of options presented. So, speed of fielding. Go with good enough, get it to program of record, and fix it later. Except a war took place and the fixing didn't happen so much, and the Stryker wasn't a super vehicle against IEDs anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 3:13:04 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, if they want an armored vehicle with a big ass gun, might as well make that big ass gun a 120mm. Even if the vehicle itself is not well suited to duking it out with a real tank (this is more like an IFV with a tank's gun), it should at least possess armament capable of taking out a real tank in an emergency, should one be encountered. Aside from the fact that nothing in 105mm will penetrate a T-90 reliably from the front, ammunition development has stopped, so it’s unlikely that an AMP round, which should be a fantastic choice for MPF, will be made in 105mm. 105 has the HEP advantage and all that ammunition that has to get shot up somewhere I guess. I’m convinced that MPF is a 105mm either as a favor to BAE, or because they want to fit three on a C-17, or because the M8 is by far the best developed option and they don’t want the technical risk that comes with the GDLS offering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 3:34:25 AM EDT
[#35]
AMX 10 RCR is an Interesting concept.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 3:38:36 AM EDT
[#36]
Or check out the Rooikat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 3:44:14 AM EDT
[#37]
Why do most larger bore cannons have that fat spot about middle of the barrel?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 3:48:19 AM EDT
[#38]
I thought the Strucker was a terrible fighting vehicle? At least in the eyes of people like Sylvian
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 3:49:20 AM EDT
[#39]
Am I the only one thinking that militaries the world over are reconsidering their armies after the last couple of wars? Tanks seem to have troubles surviving air strikes from drones these days.
I'm wondering when we are going to hear about a light armored vehicle that is essentially a carrier for mass amounts of drones with anti armor missiles or just heat warheads the drones can crash into a tank with. It would be damned easy to build prototypes with OTS components. The hardest part would be hardening the drones against operators, jamming or directed energy weapons. If anti-armor weapons keep improving tanks will have to have armor so thick they will need a nuke plant to move. Maybe we will get to see the creation of Keith Laumer's Bolo tanks in my lifetime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 4:04:54 AM EDT
[#40]
Anti armor weapons are in a cycle of being offset by countermeasures, not the reverse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 4:05:38 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do most larger bore cannons have that fat spot about middle of the barrel? Bore evacuator. It gathers pressure and uses it to force the smoke down and out the barrel instead of back into the open breech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 4:12:20 AM EDT
[#42]
Back to the OP's question. I think the Patria is a much more recent design, maybe 15 years newer(?)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 4:16:09 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bore evacuator. It gathers pressure and uses it to force the smoke down and out the barrel instead of back into the open breech. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why do most larger bore cannons have that fat spot about middle of the barrel? Bore evacuator. It gathers pressure and uses it to force the smoke down and out the barrel instead of back into the open breech. Hah, would have never guess. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 4:18:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Too bad Sylvan isn’t here to discuss this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 4:18:39 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Back to the OP's question. I think the Patria is a much more recent design, maybe 15 years newer(?) LAV III 1999 Stryker 2002 Patria AMV 2004 The officer ultimately responsible for the Stryker is CPT James Blount if the British army. Long story. He’s a singer now and absolutely hilarious on Twatter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 4:48:25 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aside from the fact that nothing in 105mm will penetrate a T-90 reliably from the front, ammunition development has stopped, so it’s unlikely that an AMP round, which should be a fantastic choice for MPF, will be made in 105mm. 105 has the HEP advantage and all that ammunition that has to get shot up somewhere I guess. I’m convinced that MPF is a 105mm either as a favor to BAE, or because they want to fit three on a C-17, or because the M8 is by far the best developed option and they don’t want the technical risk that comes with the GDLS offering. The M8 was dropped from the competition. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-eliminates-bae-systems-from-light-tank-competition 105mm guns could use LAHAT. https://www.iai.co.il/p/lahat |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 9:32:46 AM EDT
[#47]
The LAHAT would be an interesting and viable option for a 105mm tank gun. It has a range of 5 miles, can be used in either direct attack or top attack mode and its warhead can penetrate 800mm RHA behind ERA. That should make it pretty lethal to most anything found on the modern battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 9:36:10 AM EDT
[#48]
The 105mm gun on the Stryker MGS is honestly too much gun for that platform Tell us about the last time you were at an ATEC test range or a Stryker BCT.  The MGS has issues, but it's not the gun. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 9:41:18 AM EDT
[#49]
Why is the DoD so terrible at developing and procurement?
*Looks at the Generals, Pentagon, Defense companies, and Politicians. Oh yeah, them. Just like anything at the very top. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2022 9:59:48 AM EDT
[#50]
The LAV III isn't in the same class as the AMV, and the AMV came out later.
Apples to oranges. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
