I did not see much on these but if this a repeat I apologize.

What does everyone think of the Stryker fighting vehicles? I am over in Iraq as a civilian security contractor and have had the opportunity to ride in and with them and am impressed for the most part.

The only thing I dislike is when it is closed up there is not a lot of firepower that can be used. Each soldier inside can be a shooter but only by exposing a lot of their body.

They are a versatile machine and with the cages on the outside they seem to have adequate armor. I have seen some that took a beating and brought all the troops home alive.

I've been pretty skeptical about the Stryker and actually a bit unsure of its role. Surely it isn't made to replace the M2?

Regardless, I have been a bit skeptical about the armor and firepower of Strykers but I've seen pics of strykers that have made it back with some VERY VERY heavy damadge so I'd say they seem to be holding up pretty well.

better than an unarmored hummer, worse than a M2 and armored hummer

its better then being unprotected but they dont seem to meet the role of what troops need support wise in Combat in my opinion the goverment designed the Stryker to basically be a cheap way to protect troops and move them quickly.

For an APC, it works well.

I'm not sure why more countries don't adopt the ASLAV style of Stryker???? Anyone? It's a gunned up up armoured Stryker with a 25mm cannon, 40mm grenade launcher and 7.62mm GPMG, all capable of being fired from complete concealment through the remote weapons station plus it still has the troop carrying capacity. So far I've only ever seen Aussies use them, but they are built here so that could factor in a lot.

I would not say that it is worse than an uparmored hummer. To shoot any weapon inside the hummer you must be exposed, the Stryker allows for the main weapon to be fired while all personnel are inside with all hatches closed. The Strykers equipped with the cage around them will not be harmed by an RPG where as an uparmored hummer can be totally disabled and some troops could suffer casualties from an RPG. I just really wish that it had more firepower that could be controlled from inside...

As I say, the Aussie ASLAV has 25mm cannon, GPMG (or .50 cal depending on variant), 40mm Auto Grenade launcher, and fitment for 2 TOW launchers, all fired from a remote weapons station, complete with laser range finder, thermal imaging, infra red at shot calculator--- which gives just about 100% assurance of a direct hit first shot, not bad when you think about the normal way of firing a .50cal.

I don't have much experiance wit them being a reservist. I like the idea of a fast motorized apc though. Pete probly has a better understanding of them.

Originally Posted by AussieNick

I'm not sure why more countries don't adopt the ASLAV style of Stryker???? Anyone? It's a gunned up up armoured Stryker with a 25mm cannon, 40mm grenade launcher and 7.62mm GPMG, all capable of being fired from complete concealment through the remote weapons station plus it still has the troop carrying capacity. So far I've only ever seen Aussies use them, but they are built here so that could factor in a lot.

similar to the NZLAV that NZ just bought. my understanding is that it's a slightly newer model than the ASLAV without an amphibious capabilty...but you're right nick, i don't understand why the US doesn't just add the turret.