Stryker Opinions

Whispering Death

Active member
We've talked out the Stryker but more in terms of technology than flat out opinions and predictions.

Myself, I'm very wary of the vehicle. I guess it depends on how it is used tactically, but the Stryker seems to have a lot of things arayed against it on the modern battlefield.

Now-a-Days tank designers are worried about what newest generation ATGMs can do to their prized chogum armor. You've got that Abrams followed up by a thin skinned wheeled vehicle that needs a cage just to stop an HE RPG round?

It might work for fighting poor ill-equiped insurgents in Iraq but taking the Stryker onto a high-intensity battlefield? Man, that sounds pretty dangerous.

What do you guys think?
 
they all need to be melted down. The US needs to design a APC for Urban Combat. or they could redesign it somehow. load the thing up with armor.
 
They truly are not safe they tend to better suited for use in peacekeeping operations and if they ever do deploy the MGS variant over there I have not so good feeling there going to be history fast if hit by what ever the insurgents throw at them. :(
 
Keyword "Light". they should take the M88 Hercules design and modify that into a Heavy APC.
 
The variant we use is called the ASLAV-25.
IMO it is far superior as a "fighting" vehicle to a standard "Stryker" variant (we pretty much just used the same shell - with armour changes - and drive gear).

It has a whole new control system, different spall lining, RPG cage (in urban ops only) and of course the 25mm Chain Gun, 40mm AGL, M2 .50cal on a remote weapons station and 7.62mm GPMG coaxial mounted.


We, however use it for recon and troop transport (or that was the original intention). They were never designed to take hits from RPG, IED etc... not many APC's have been.

Our ASLAVs are designed to hit hard and fast, then get out. RPG cages though have been useful in Iraq, due to the nature of the work being done.
 
"They were never designed to take hits from RPG, IED etc... not many APC's have been."

Prehaps they should do something to counter that... Like research new ways to to protect APC's
 
Canadians use them and made in London Ontario

General Motors (GM) Defense is one of the world's leading light armoured vehicle manufacturers, serving some of the most demanding military customers in the world. With $4 billion in export contracts in 2001 and a landmark deal with the U.S. Army firmly in its grasp, GM Defense has emerged as an exporting powerhouse.

The company's unique family of light armoured vehicles (LAVs) are in high demand, and GM Defense has contracts to supply many military customers including Australia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and the United States. The current model, the LAV-3, is the premier wheeled light armoured vehicle in the world today. It features increased armour protection, increased payload, outstanding mobility, high reliability and low cost of ownership. An earlier version of the LAV, known as the "Coyote" and supplied to the Canadian Forces in the mid-1990s, is considered the world's most capable armoured reconnaissance vehicle. These vehicles were so highly regarded that the U.S. military specifically requested their inclusion in Canadian Forces support to U.S. military activities in Afghanistan.

In early 2001, the company and joint venture partner General Dynamics Land Systems won a contract to manufacture over 2,100 LAV-3s. Named the "Stryker," this vehicle will form the basis of a major U.S. Army transformation initiative. Valued at $6 billion over its lifespan, the contract for these made-in-Canada armoured vehicles is the largest of its kind in company history.

"When this contract is completed, GM Defense will have 8,000 vehicles in 16 countries," says company Executive Director William Pettipas, whose military background instilled a clear understanding of what it means to wear a uniform. "Canadian and allied soldiers entrust their lives to the dependability and quality of our vehicles. Any product that comes off our production line reflects our dedication to putting their safety first."

GM Defense LAVs have seen extensive service in the cause of international and human security. The Australian, Canadian and U.S. forces have been deployed with GM Defense LAVs for peace and security operations in many of the world's trouble spots. For over 20 years, these vehicles have protected soldiers as they go about the dangerous job of preserving the peace and, in the process, protecting and saving the lives of countless innocent civilians.

Based in London, Ontario, GM Defense has over 1,500 employees and is supported by a Canadian supplier network of over 200 Canadian companies from coast to coast. Parts from these Canadian suppliers have been included in GM Defense's export orders to Australia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and the United States. For the U.S. Army contract alone, purchases of close to $800 million will be placed with these suppliers.




http://www.armyimages.forces.gc.ca/...eng_results_ie_1&sorton=Cataloged&ascending=0


http://images.google.ca/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=lav+3


Cheers
 
Prehaps they should do something to counter that... Like research new ways to to protect APC's

So you mean heavier armour, and then more power to move the weight, which means more size, which makes it a bigger target, so while it's now a big slow target we may as well put heavier weapons on it to protect it.... Hang on, that'd be a tank.

They have a job to do.
It's all about what is called a "battlefield footprint".
A Long Range Patrol Vehicle or Humvee has a lower battlefield footprint than an ASLAV or a Bradley, which in turn has a lower battlefield footprint than a M1 or a Leopard for example. No point making everything into tanks mate, some things are going to naturally be more vulnerable in certain situations than others.
 
Maybe this is a stupid question from a stupid civilian.

But could someone help me understand the differences in what the strykers are supposed to do and what the Bradlies are supposed to do?
 
Whispering Death said:
Maybe this is a stupid question from a stupid civilian.

But could someone help me understand the differences in what the strykers are supposed to do and what the Bradlies are supposed to do?

The armament of the two vehicles should give you some ideas, Bradley armed with a 25mm chain gun and Tow missiles is more of a combat vehicle/troop carrier than the Stryker with its simple .50 caliber mg. Atleast I wouldn't bring the stryker to a full scale assault to the first line anyway, it could serve as an utility vehicle and evacuating wounded while Bradley from the two vehicles mentioned could serve as the warhorse providing fire support for the infantry, I hope that helps :)
 
While alot of you huys made good points the real point is that the Stryker is an APC/LAV and is a 'battlefield taxi"made to transport troops and cargo. It's standard armor is protected agianst 14.5mm shells.

The M113A3 had 7.62mm protection and had a plan for 14.5mm protection but was never produced.

I have used paint and MS Picture It to modify a M88A1 to the M188 UCV.

But we must remember that the Styker is a Light Armored Vehicle, and I heard some comments on the Bardley.

The Bradley is aswell a APC made to transport troops and preform smaller recon tasks. Remember the MLRS is built on the M2/M3 chassis.

We need to take a lesson from the IDF.
 
Armyjaeger said:
Whispering Death said:
Maybe this is a stupid question from a stupid civilian.

But could someone help me understand the differences in what the strykers are supposed to do and what the Bradlies are supposed to do?

The armament of the two vehicles should give you some ideas, Bradley armed with a 25mm chain gun and Tow missiles is more of a combat vehicle/troop carrier than the Stryker with its simple .50 caliber mg. Atleast I wouldn't bring the stryker to a full scale assault to the first line anyway, it could serve as an utility vehicle and evacuating wounded while Bradley from the two vehicles mentioned could serve as the warhorse providing fire support for the infantry, I hope that helps :)

Yes. The Bradley has armor protect against 30mm rounds and is more o less an upgunned APC/CAV.

The Styker is a LAV/IFV used in rear enchlon areas as a support vehicle. The Army has no UCV and uses what it has in it inventory.
 
Back
Top