Reactive Armor for Strykers in 2010:

[StrykerPSG]

Thank you. This Brigade, specifically is built on NCO's that know their ****. Guys with Stryker experience, who have done a tour or two and know the vehicle and its capabilities.

Lt, thanks for the nod and acknowledgement. It also has officer leadership that is open to bold new ideas and the occassional "panache" as we were told in the AAR's in all events, good and bad.

Matt

[Apocalypse 31]

About your NCO comment, Steve has often said that a major (fatal) flaw of Syrian command structure is their lack of NCOs. You've got draftee soldiers and officers with nothing in between. Career sargents are where most of the Army's warfighting "institutional memory" resides.

You're absolutely right.

I've worked with foreign officers before. The command structure in other armies (especially middle east) remains heavily based on their officers. The Officer will do the planning, and most of the work. NCO's just manage the Soldiers and report to the officers.

It's a completely different mindset here in the American Army (thank god. anyone ever see an officer try to change a Stryker tire?).

Officers plan it, NCO's run it, Soldiers do it.

[Other Means]

I thought the slats worked by squeezing the fuze mechanism so it broke?

I read that here so it must be right.

[StrykerPSG]

I went to Mongolia about 2 years ago to help certify and prepare their Army for UN peacekeeping missions. I was able to see how heavily indoctrinated they were in Soviet style leadership, which is very centralized and takes the NCO's out of the decision making process. The first few missions I noticed there were never any NCO's around during the OPORDER and the missions were never dissemenated to the NCO's.

Well, having spent 17 years in the Army at that point, found it to be very odd, they were afterall sending their NCO's to our NCOES system. So, I started killing the PLT CDR every iteration, which enraged several other Mongolian officers. Finally, after talking with their staff about my methodology, I imparted to them what makes many NATO and SEATO countries outstanding was their ability to pass the mission statement off to their NCO's in case the officer leadership is incapable of completing the mission.

Anyway, just thought it was a great lesson learned by me, just how important the role of leadership is, at every level for mission accomplishment. Hat's off to all the fine young men and women of the worlds militaries that make it happen. Hooah!

[StrykerPSG]

I thought the slats worked by squeezing the fuze mechanism so it broke?

I read that here so it must be right.

Mmmm, nope! That is too precise of an operation. The slat is much more simplistic by just providing stand off, via the warhead wedging between slat or de-formation, therefore preventing physical connection with the armor. Depending on the warhead type, the wedging/deformation has different effects.

[Battlefront.com]

StrykerPSG,

So, I started killing the PLT CDR every iteration, which enraged several other Mongolian officers.

Hilarious! And a perfect example of why ridged and centralization doesn't work outside of the parade grounds. In the real world PLT CDRs fall like flies when they are trying to be everywhere micro-managing things in a high intensive combat environment. Then things suddenly go from bad to extremely bad.

Coincidentally I was just talking with someone about the US Army lessons learned in the meat grinder of WW2 NW Europe. LTs had a 300% casualty rate, the highest in the entire Army. They found the primary reason was the LTs were going over fresh, no actual experience, and under the illusion that they knew EXACTLY what to do. The study found that the LTs which did not shed this misconception right away rarely survived long. Instead, the LTs which paid attention to their NCOs (some of which had years of combat experience) tended to live a lot longer. Not only that, unit cohesion and effectiveness was far better, which apparently proves that LTs actually do have something positive to contribute (right Mike? ).

This all makes perfect sense to me from a private sector perspective. The differences in leadership and subordinate interaction between the military and a private sector companies is extremely small. Usually the primary difference is the risk of death when making mistakes Arrogance can not overcome deficiencies in leadership.

Of course... I'm talking about GOOD units with GOOD NCOs. There are definitely cases where the unit is rotten and a fresh perspective with teeth in it is needed. I have long since lost the link to a fairly recent US Army study about the downsides of strong unit cohesion on the battlefield, but somewhere out there it exists and it warns that sometimes the NCOs are the problem because they have forgotten their primary purpose. And that is to follow orders, not to be buddies. Private sector, not surprisingly, has the same problems.

Steve

[flamingknives]

Mmmm, nope! That is too precise of an operation. The slat is much more simplistic by just providing stand off, via the warhead wedging between slat or de-formation, therefore preventing physical connection with the armor. Depending on the warhead type, the wedging/deformation has different effects.

Really?

All those armour experts I've spoken to must be wrong.

And whoever wrote TRADOC Bulletin 3.

While distance degrades the effect of a shaped charge, you still need 12ft for M113 armour to be effective against an RPG7 (TRADOC again)

Bar armour and similar arrangements work by dudding the rounds, which is why they are about 50-60% effective. (Simple geometry. The remainder hit a bar and go off)

[MikeyD]

I thought the slats worked by squeezing the fuze mechanism so it broke?

I've read the offical word and I have my own theory on slat armor.

Official word. With common-type RPG roundss, denting the thin metal outer cone would cause it to make contact with the inner cone. The inner cone conducts the current from the piezo-electric(sp?) nose fuze to the base igniter. It would be shorted-out and fail to detonate the round.

My theory. Whether the nose fuze gets shorted or not, the round will probably bash the cage with enough force to warp/split the fairly fragile HEAT cone. Even if it exploded after passing through the cage the deformed cone wouldn't form a proper piercing jet.

The danger with BOTH methods is if the nose fuze hits square-on and explodes properly. The added standoff distance may actually improve penetration performance.

[flamingknives]

I believe that both theories are applicable.

[StrykerPSG]

Really?

All those armour experts I've spoken to must be wrong.

And whoever wrote TRADOC Bulletin 3.

While distance degrades the effect of a shaped charge, you still need 12ft for M113 armour to be effective against an RPG7 (TRADOC again)

Bar armour and similar arrangements work by dudding the rounds, which is why they are about 50-60% effective. (Simple geometry. The remainder hit a bar and go off)

I don't think I was that far off the mark with my definition and what you have mostly taken out of the bulletin. TB3 that you reference is dated JUL 77 and has no mention of slat/bar armor specifically, if at all. It does mention the former chain link fence method for stand off, where as you mentioned, the fence shorts the fuze. So, I stand corrected to the earlier question about some armor types defeating the RPG fuzes. I don't have the specifics, but I don't think slat had that specific function in mind only, but was additional effect of the design. Seems more suggestive of capturing the round and providing enough stand off to minimize the effects of the round, should it detonate.

I will try to find out the specifics fo the distance and did note the 12 feet needed for standoff with an M113. There is also a difference in armor designs between Stryker and M113 that may have some changes to standoff distance as well. If memory serves me correctly, some of the rationale behind the distance was for fragmenting warheads, that once the propellant ran out, would detonate without contact of the fuse.

The initial briefs we were given were not always extremely technical and I didn't design it, but rather took what the designer told us and noted how well it worked in theater. There are many more technical types that are much more savvy on the warheads. Ultimately, should have allowed someone that has more technical know how reply and am probably armed with just enough info to be dangerous from time to time.

[flamingknives]

No doubt the Stryker has better armour than the M113. The former will shrug off hits from 14.5mm machine guns, while the latter can be perforated by 7.62mm rifle AP.

However, using the 1977 chart for penetration at stand-off the slats would have to be a fair bit further away than they are on Stryker, much less other vehicles, to be effective.

Having stand-off doesn't hurt, but the fuze dudding is the primary method of PG-7 defeat.

[StrykerPSG]

I just recall there was a specific reason why it was (x) distance away from the vehicle and that prescribed distance was definitely not 12 feet but rather inches.

[Clavicula_Nox]

So, for you Stryker guys, what is it about your big metal death traps that you like so much?

[Other Means]

No doubt the Stryker has better armour than the M113. The former will shrug off hits from 14.5mm machine guns, while the latter can be perforated by 7.62mm rifle AP.

You got this the right way round f/k?

Regarding not allowing the round to trigger, doesn't it explode without nose contact anyway? As illustrated by the chopper story previously (it's OK, you can call Vietnam era helicopters choppers).

Although I think Mikey is probably on to something with the shaped charge deformation. Wouldn't take much to de-focus the jet I reckon.

[Battlefront.com]

As I said a page or two ago... part of the purpose of the slat armor is to bang up the round prior to it hitting the main armor. Any deformation of the round before it gets to the main armor helps in different ways depending on what is being slung at it.

The problem is that something like an RPG-29 doesn't really care. It's so f'n overmatched for anything other than a top of the line tank (and even then it's pretty damned good) there's really no chance of defeating the round. Even ERA won't help if the PRG-29V round is used since it is a tandem warhead round.

Steve

[Apocalypse 31]

So, for you Stryker guys, what is it about your big metal death traps that you like so much?

Yup. I've met one in EVERY crowd.

Fort Bragg?

You guys are probably in HMMMV's. And you call the Stryker a death trap?

Thats as far as I'll go with that argument. I've been there before with dudes in light units. Once they've been on the Stryker they've all come back to me and said ''well damn sir, you were right. Thats a great vehicle".

[Battlefront.com]

I think it's because it has more cup holders and it's kick ass stereo system

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

Yup. I've met one in EVERY crowd.

Fort Bragg?

You guys are probably in HMMMV's. And you call the Stryker a death trap?

Thats as far as I'll go with that argument. I've been there before with dudes in light units. Once they've been on the Stryker they've all come back to me and said ''well damn sir, you were right. Thats a great vehicle".

It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Nice professionalism there.

[Apocal]

It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Nice professionalism there.

You can honestly say you didn't expect that kind of reaction going with the line "death trap?"

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I think "death trap" sets a certain tone which has predictable results. If that tone wasn't intended, then we're OK. If it was, then I'll lock the thread up and save us some hassle. But I'm going out on a limb here and presume we can all just get along. I hope I'm not disappointed because I hate being disappointed

Steve

[StrykerPSG]

So, for you Stryker guys, what is it about your big metal death traps that you like so much?

As has been stated by your "professional tone" with the "big metal death traps" remark, why wouldn't a true professional who touts the ranger creed in his signature have approached us in a manner more befitting of someone who goes the extra mile, as stated in the 4th stance of the creed:

"Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress, and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow."

So, perhaps you should edit your post and re-address as we would expect a true professional Warrior to present it? I think, as the Lt Mike has stated and I too have witnessed, we have encountered many initial nay-sayers who quickly become converts once they have experienced the stealthiness and durability of the vehicle. And, lest we not forget, 75th Ranger Regt, has embraced the vehicles for all of it's strengths for more then 4 years now. It is great to argue in a professional manner, but once it degrades to personal attacks, whether intended or not, it generally results in a locked thread. Myself and Lt Mike would be more then happy to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the Styker particuarly and there are others equally informed about the greatness of the LAV chassis.

[flamingknives]

You got this the right way round f/k?

Regarding not allowing the round to trigger, doesn't it explode without nose contact anyway? As illustrated by the chopper story previously (it's OK, you can call Vietnam era helicopters choppers).

Although I think Mikey is probably on to something with the shaped charge deformation. Wouldn't take much to de-focus the jet I reckon.

Yep, the Stryker is much more heavily armoured than a standard M113. Unless of course you happen to be Mike Sparks.

Regarding the PG7, it is my understanding that the deformation of the forward cone duds the round completely, including the safety time fuze.

[Michael Emrys]

I hope I'm not disappointed because I hate being disappointed

And when Steve is disappointed...well, it doesn't bear thinking about. [shudder]

Michael

[Secondbrooks]

It's always fun to watch when "pride of arms/unit/branch" goes to clashing course.

I hate artillery guys, such slobs they are. And usually stupid too.

[StrykerPSG]

So, for you Stryker guys, what is it about your big metal death traps that you like so much?

I too hate the inner-service gnashing, but fear C_N is a Mike Sparks fan boy that has used neither vehicles and at best some locally up armored HMMMV's. So, after reading Mike Sparks rants on Stryker versus M113, he now wants to know why the US military wants to keep supporting the Stryker vehicle. That's my spin on it. Anyway, as stated, his initial statement was written offensively, so should expect some backlash.