Dedicated to brave tankers that have gone down to the sea... - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
January 3rd, 2004  
Gunner13
 
 
Peace Thru Superior Firepower! I just love it!
January 3rd, 2004  
GuyontheRight
 
Well first off the Stryker isn't built for urban Iraqi combat, but no APC is really. Were getting our Hummers shot up, we already shot there BMPs up, so yea, a tank would be more ideal then the Stryker. But concidering how it stakes up against other APCs, it's revolutionary. Nobody said this thing was gonna replace the Abrams, If it was we wouldn't be upgrading to M1A2s. And frankly few vehicals in the world can wistand an RPG from meters away right up the gut.
January 3rd, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
The Abrams is getting phased out, GuyontheRight. There's supposed to be some new medium tank coming in to replace it and the Stryker is supposed to be the interim armor workhorse.
--
Boots
January 3rd, 2004  
GuyontheRight
 
Hmm...Well I certainly would like to see some evidence of an RPG attack on one of these things, because I know they have been deployed to iraq and I havnt heard any bad things out yet.

Man I didnt want to do this, but all you Stryker haters leave me no choice....



January 3rd, 2004  
GuyontheRight
 
Ahah!

From army.mil...

Quote:
Three block improvements are planned for the Stryker. A crew-installable add-on armor kit that provides 360-degree RPG-7 protection, an internal recoil-mounted 120mm mortar system, and embedded training that will be provided beginning with the third SBCT. Block improvements will be retrofitted to SBCTs 1 and 2 in subsequent years.
January 3rd, 2004  
Redleg
 
 
Hm.

I don't know much about the Stryker, so I found this link for the ones of us that doesn't understand much about this discussion..

http://www.army-technology.com/proje...ker/index.html

I really like the Remote Weapon Station option.. 8)
January 4th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: Sherman 105mm


The Israeli armymodifyed its Shermans to carry 105mm main guns, changed the engines to a much powerfull disel, and put in new fire control....then in 1973 a brigade of Israeli M51s(improoved shermans) beat the heck out of a brigade of Syrian T62s and T55s. Bet you those 105mm guns could take on a King Tiger...
January 4th, 2004  
diplomatic_means
 
I think it should only be used as a transportation vehicle and even then not so much. It's much easier when you don't have middle ground vehicles. Make them either light or heavy. The Stryker stands no chance against a tank and it would only take 8 bullets to turn it into target practice for an artillery battery. I say leave it with the tanks and Humvees. They were doing fine.
January 5th, 2004  
GuyontheRight
 
In the words of several Rangers in the Battle of Mogadishu...

Quote:
These things are ****en bullets magnets
The Hummer is getting shot up almost daily in Iraq, they are to seseptable to roadside bombs and a 7.62 round can peirce portions of it. Id rather drive around in a Stryker.
January 5th, 2004  
Acerbus
 
A stryker's just as bad, it's designed for use in open environments. It's too compact to have much use in an urban environment, not enough directions to fire weapons in. Tanks are lousy in urban environments too. Too easily trapped and disabled by the tight areas, not to mention the contstraints of rules of engagement on their reactive capability. But with the M1 it's not so bad since they're damned near impossible to kill, but that's changing with the rise of new types of anti-tank mines.

Mobility and firepower, a combo which I think is best personified in the hummer. The Stryker's nice in the open, but it's got too many sore spots crunched up in the city. A hummer offers a better view of the situation, not to mention ability to reach out and touch someone.

Just my little ditty, I won't know for sure till I actually get into one of those things.