Stryker Survivability Far Too Low

[DaveDash]

There are tons of sources on this, but I decided to pick an interesting one, written from a Russian POV on U.S. armour

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2005/ac/us_armor/

In this summary, he actively gives the Stryker better survivability vs RPGS than the Bradley due to its extremely effective anti-RPG meshings.

Now pray tell why in game those meshings seem to do diddly squat against RPGS?

RPGs and ATGMs disabling Strykers and Bradleys is borderline fine, but the crew survivability modelled in CM:SF is absolutely appauling. I think in Iraq there has been one KIA from a RPG hit on a Stryker. That's right. One.

Now I realise those red guys arn't nessesarily dead, but if you read many accounts of survivability of the Stryker is poorly under-modelled. Often they take IED hits without any crew injury AND they keep on driving. Crew survivability is also extremely poor.

Now I'm not saying you should be able to charge your guys into battle like rambos, the likely chances are of a squad bailing out without cover is death anyway, but it does irk me (especially after playing the scenario Hammertime) that one lousy RPG-7 not only destroys the Stryker (which is extremely unlikely) but also the entire squad.

A simple solution would be to change the status of IFV's and APC's to 'knocked out' from RPG/ATGM's far more often than 'Destroyed' and increase Stryker survivability. Those things CAN keep driving after an RPG and IED hit in real life, wheras a Bradley's track damage will force the crew to bail out.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[DaveDash]

Tandem RPG's naturally have a much higher disable rate, but my main point was internal survivability of the crew and squad. Even against Tandem RPGS the Stryker still has protective measures that will keep the crew alive and squad alive.

There have been a few cases in Iraq where Bradleys have been catasrophically destroyed and the squads still dismounted to fight.

This is rare in CM:SF.

U.S. vehicles are built with survivability in mind, since personale are a very expensive commodity in moral, political, and $ value.

[DaveDash]

Another source:

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slat-stryker.htm

"In Iraq, Slat armor proved quite successful in defeating attacks of High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) of Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPGs). This type of armor is not effective Attacks by high explosive and fragmentation RPG rounds which explode before they hit the cage. In one mission, a Stryker vehicle, with slat armor, was attacked and hit with nine RPGs. The locations of the hits on the vehicle were sporadic. The crew escaped with minor injuries and the vehicle moved under its own power to the nearest operating base for assessment and repair."

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[DaveDash]

Works for me. Here is what he says on the Stryker and Bradley (and his findings are verified as being relatively accurate by those such as on TankNet)...

"It is interesting to compare the losses sustained by the Bradley Fighting Machines from light anti-tank weapons and IED to the experience of the new Stryker Medium Armored Vehicle. This wheeled 8x8 has about the same ballistic protection as the Bradley (360-degree protection from 14.5 mm shells). Enhanced survivability against RPG is provided by slat armor: testing and combat experience in Iraq has shown that this steel grille is able to prevent the proper functioning of anti-tank grenades and the formation of a hollow-charged jet. The Stryker also has higher survivability against mines. Whereas exploding mines have almost always stopped the Bradley in its tracks, the Stryker as a rule has been able to escape from the area of detonation. For example, on 9 September a Bradley was blown up by an IED placed in a parked car on Haifa Street in Baghdad with an explosive charge of about 10 kg. The IFV suffered damage to its tracks and lost mobility. Two crew members were injured and another four were hit by small arm fire and RPGs when they tried to exit the vehicle. Reinforcement units evacuated the crew and the vehicle burned unchecked. On 11 October, 2004, a car in Mosul rammed into the side of a Stryker, detonating a similar explosive charge. The MAV suffered serious damage, the commander was killed, and seven out of 8 wheels were punctured, but the vehicle retained mobility and was able to return to base on its own. In another pair of incidents, a Bradley and a Stryker each lost their front suspension arm, on 12 October and 20 December respectively. Again, the Stryker retained mobility while the Bradley did not. "

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[DaveDash]

I dont think he meant they literally have the same armour, but rather the same protection against 14.5mm shells. The Bradley has reactive armour and the Strker has mesh, the author knows this so naturally he does not mean the same kind of armour. Apart from that I am sure they have the same ballistic protection.

Re survivability - you are forgetting context. A vehicle slammed into the Stryker and the commander was killed. In that context in all likelyhood the commander was unbuttoned and the explosion from the blast killed him, however I do not know the details.

That aside there have been many many many cases of Strykers hit by IEDS and RPGs and the crew only suffering minor injuries. A much lower attrition rate than is modelled in CM:SF.

Wheels vs Track - The Stryker can still move with 7 punctured wheels (in fact all wheels I believe) whereas the Brad cannot move with a disabled track, making the crew/squad vulnerable in an ambush situation and forced to dismount, whereas the Stryker can still manouver out of an ambush. In CM:SF when your stryker is hit by an IED it's toast.

[MikeyD]

I used to think I had a handle on Stryker survability. For the first year that it was in-theatre it was touting as the best thing since sliced bread. Then some time later i stumbled on a report claiming 25(?) or so vehicles of 300 sent over were total write-offs from combat and a similar number needed major depot rebuilding to be useable again. It started to sound like Stryker might be just another armored truck afterall.

Still, i'd like to see slat a bit more effective in-game too.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Nicoch]

Well, that's probably why it says "about the same". And yes, strykers can of course be destroyed, but that's not what the issue was. Yes, they needed major depot rebuilding, but more than likely they got to the depot under their own power. The issue was crew or passengers are practically never killed or seriously wounded after multiple hits while in-game a single RPG-7 will likely kill everyone in the vehicle and set it on fire.

[MikeyD]

I read Bradley's front is more-or-less the same protection of an old Centurion, about 120mm equivent on the bow, enough to (hopefully) stop a Russian BMP-2 autocannon. Stryker's literally half that at 56mm equivalent, enough to stop a Russian HMG from 50m. Its all in the Mexas ceramic tyles. I understand Bradley uses a much tougher, much more expensive ceramic layer than Stryker. That's why you see BMP-2s in-game firing HE against a Stryker. The armor protection is just on the cusp - BMP-2 gun's HE should be juuuuust enough to penetrate Stryker's armor at game ranges.

Of course 120mm vs 56mm equivalent doesn't make much of a difference when a plain-Jane RPG can penetrate about 400mm of armor steel, Kornet closer to 1200mm! I think BFC is going by the notion that the Syrian army's RPG will have a lower dud rate than the rusting piece-of-crap rounds being launched by insurgents in Iraq over the last 4 years.

[ November 29, 2007, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Nicoch]

Mikey: I thought range was irrelevant to the target with HE?

Adam: I understand that, but maybe it was meant that it was similar enough that both were able to survive the common threats faced. When was the last time an insurgent went after a stryker column with BMP-2s?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Nicoch]

Okay, then disregard him. Another line was supplied from defense-review, which is most certainly reputable, citing similar survivability.

[MikeyD]

Range is irrelavent to target with HE but angle of attack makes a difference.

I think in the game BFC's assuming the more robust 73mm recoilless rifle (and BMP-1 gun) rocket HE will have enough mass and momentum to make it thru the slat bars before exploding (plus, the 73mm round's literally narrow enough to slip between the bars). So rccl guns in the game can be a b**tch.

[Nicoch]

Sure, but that's not the problem. I don't have an issue with BMPs taking strykers out, though the mortality rate is still high. The problem was RPG-7s, the very thing the stryker was made to survive, killing everyone on board almost 100% of the time.

Every now and then I'll see an RPG hit and only immobilize it (another thing they really don't do), but that's pretty rare. Usually it's a one shot kill.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Nicoch]

"In Iraq, Slat armor proved quite successful in defeating attacks of High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) of Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPGs)."

"In one mission, a Stryker vehicle, with slat armor, was attacked and hit with nine RPGs."

"The crew escaped with minor injuries and the vehicle moved under its own power to the nearest operating base for assessment and repair."

But I guess you could argue that it didn't specify if they were HEAT or HE, which I'm sure you will do. I'd like to think they'd be smart enough to use HEAT, personally.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Nicoch]

What do you mean I'm not sincere?

[MikeyD]

I spotted an interesting photo yesterday. A Cougar mine-protected vehicle sporting its own slat cage! Never saw that before. I don't know if it was deployed or was just a test vehicle. Slat must be effective enough, its certainly catching on. Slat can be seen on M113s, Canadian Leo2s, Australian LAV A2, Brit APCs, Even some proposed upgrade configurations for Abrams! I think Stryker slat cage weighs about 2 tons, the ERA package that was designed for it weighed closer to 8.

Back to Slat armor effectiveness.

Early reports i've seen put Slat effectiveness (stopping the round from exploding like it ought) at 50%. Add to that about a 50% dud rate early in the war; the occassional HE round fired at it; the rounds that detonate at odd angles to the vehicle; and Stryker stowing all its ammo and fuel externally and you get a pretty darned high Stryker survival rate.

[ November 29, 2007, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[DaveDash]

Slat is only really effective against the RPGs and tactics employed by them - found in Iraq.

Adam1 - ignore whether or not the Bradley and Stryker have similiar balisitc protection.

Nicoch got my original point, the survivability of squads in CM:SF inside your Stryker and IFVs are way too too low. RPG-7's AND IEDs destroying entire squads is not correctly modelled.

[Nicoch]

I'll try to find more things about the survivability of the stryker.

http://www.blackanthem.com/News/U_S_Military_19/Stryker_increases_troops_survivability3281.shtml

"A 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team Soldier told Lopez that he survived 11 different IEDs and went home safely with the rest of his unit, recalled Lopez with pride."

"We have Strykers drive away from an IED strike with all eight tires flat, roll into the (forward operating base), get refitted with new tires and equipment and be back on the streets within hours."

This one is several years old, but oh well. I keep seeing promising links to articles that are dead.

http://www.usarpac.army.mil/news/xform/aerospace-ddr_052704.asp

"The first SBCT has had no fatalities from RPGs and only one fatality, from a grenade. Two vehicles have been lost, to secondary fires, he said."

Interesting note: When one of my bradlies is hit by a tank, there's usually more survivors than there are when a stryker is hit by an RPG.

[ November 29, 2007, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Nicoch ]