Strykers

Rotty261

Active member
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
AussieNick said:
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.
 
I think it is OK. the M113 does a better job. Same armor thickness, same weapons, same anti-RPG system, but its tracked and has a smaller capasity of troops that it can carry, the M113 also has firing ports for the troops to shoot out of. I'd say the M113A2 ACAV is better. The ACAV has One M2 (.50cal) and two M60's or M240's, and the weapons have armor plates to protect the gunner.

m113a1-981025-f-4116m-505-s.jpg


stryker_040513-a-3978j-001a-s.jpg
 
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
I think it is OK. the M113 does a better job. Same armor thickness, same weapons, same anti-RPG system, but its tracked and has a smaller capasity of troops that it can carry, the M113 also has firing ports for the troops to shoot out of. I'd say the M113A2 ACAV is better. The ACAV has One M2 (.50cal) and two M60's or M240's, and the weapons have armor plates to protect the gunner.

m113a1-981025-f-4116m-505-s.jpg


stryker_040513-a-3978j-001a-s.jpg

The M113 is also slower, and is starting to show it's age. I have to agree with my commonwealth buddies as, the 25mm turret seems like such an critical system; why the US opted not to include it is beyond me.
 
r031Button said:
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
I think it is OK. the M113 does a better job. Same armor thickness, same weapons, same anti-RPG system, but its tracked and has a smaller capasity of troops that it can carry, the M113 also has firing ports for the troops to shoot out of. I'd say the M113A2 ACAV is better. The ACAV has One M2 (.50cal) and two M60's or M240's, and the weapons have armor plates to protect the gunner.

m113a1-981025-f-4116m-505-s.jpg


stryker_040513-a-3978j-001a-s.jpg

The M113 is also slower, and is starting to show it's age. I have to agree with my commonwealth buddies as, the 25mm turret seems like such an critical system; why the US opted not to include it is beyond me.

So is the M2 and the M1 and the Hummer. The M113 can get places Strykers can't and the M113 had a 25mm turret. Why throw away a good design?
 
One thing to be kept in mind that some of todays 'wars/conflicts' are kept politically correct and we are befriending/rebuilding nations (such as Iraq). You take a few hundred tracked vehicles through a city on a regular basis and their roads will soon become gravel. I think that is one of the main factors in trying to go with wheeled vehicles for some of these missions, I do not agree with it but that is something I am sure gets thought of at a higher level...
 
Rotty261 said:
One thing to be kept in mind that some of todays 'wars/conflicts' are kept politically correct and we are befriending/rebuilding nations (such as Iraq). You take a few hundred tracked vehicles through a city on a regular basis and their roads will soon become gravel. I think that is one of the main factors in trying to go with wheeled vehicles for some of these missions, I do not agree with it but that is something I am sure gets thought of at a higher level...


You lead a patrol throught a village everyday and you get attack eveyday, the buildings are pockmarked and the roads a gravel becasue of IED's and RPG's. I don't see to many roads in Iraq except for Baghdad and do you really think those road are in good shape. Besides it lets people know that there is something that they don't want to tangle with outside there door and make them think twice.
 
the advantages of tracks (as i understand) is a decrease in ground pressure...therefore making it possible to moved across soft ground conditions. in a mainly urban environment (and in peacetime) the increased benifits over higher speed & lower fuel consumption can be a serios advantage over tracks.

also, with run flat and kevlar armoured tires...wheels aren't the weakness they used to be IMHO
 
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
Rotty261 said:
One thing to be kept in mind that some of todays 'wars/conflicts' are kept politically correct and we are befriending/rebuilding nations (such as Iraq). You take a few hundred tracked vehicles through a city on a regular basis and their roads will soon become gravel. I think that is one of the main factors in trying to go with wheeled vehicles for some of these missions, I do not agree with it but that is something I am sure gets thought of at a higher level...


You lead a patrol throught a village everyday and you get attack eveyday, the buildings are pockmarked and the roads a gravel becasue of IED's and RPG's. I don't see to many roads in Iraq except for Baghdad and do you really think those road are in good shape. Besides it lets people know that there is something that they don't want to tangle with outside there door and make them think twice.

Keep in mind that Rotty is in Iraq. So if anybody has a good idea of the situation there, it would be him, and the others who have served there.
 
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
Rotty261 said:
One thing to be kept in mind that some of todays 'wars/conflicts' are kept politically correct and we are befriending/rebuilding nations (such as Iraq). You take a few hundred tracked vehicles through a city on a regular basis and their roads will soon become gravel. I think that is one of the main factors in trying to go with wheeled vehicles for some of these missions, I do not agree with it but that is something I am sure gets thought of at a higher level...


You lead a patrol throught a village everyday and you get attack eveyday, the buildings are pockmarked and the roads a gravel becasue of IED's and RPG's. I don't see to many roads in Iraq except for Baghdad and do you really think those road are in good shape. Besides it lets people know that there is something that they don't want to tangle with outside there door and make them think twice.


I do not mean to disrespect you so don't take it that way, but I have lead patrols when I was enlisted and I would have loved nothing more than to be totally wrapped up in armor and not expose my self to danger. I see that you are still in high school so obviously have not lead or been in a patrol during combat and I hope you never have too. But unfortunately troops have to hit the ground and even worse off politics does play a role in war now. There are lots of paved roads throughout Iraq and I am sure that through the political process some people want to try and preserve those. Like I said before, just because I am saying this does not mean that I agree with it, I am just sure it is a topic of why wheeled vehicles are preffered in some situations.
 
Back
Top