Stryker slat armor

[Secondbrooks]

This is what i've read. Got it from Globalsecurity.

Acording troops in field (this was done by interviews i believe). Slat was averagely about 50% effective againt all types of RPGs shot at them. It was said to them that 9 out of 11 will be defeated, before they were sent to Iraq.

It had zero effectivity against RGP rounds functioning like AT (= armorpiercing). I'm not sure are these present in CM:SF.

Naturally slat could defeat HE round, but it posed serious threat to those who were not inside vehicle.

To CM:SF

I've seen M2 and M3 withstand many shots from RPG-7s, they might cause penetration, but usually Bradley keeps on fighting. Very tough opponents indeed. If my well armed platoon (4 RPGs, full loads of grenades) ambushes platoon of bradleys, theres usually 1 or 2 bradleys which are still fighting back when my men have used all their grenades. Most grenades have hit the bradleys and they were shot from high angles.

I've seen Strykers survining in fighting condition against various HEAT warheads (but it's more like 5-10%). Penetration usually comes with serious casualities.

I tend to believe that penetration kills cargo way too easily and maybe slat ain't as effective as it should be. Bradley might be almost fine altough, i haven't searched anykind records about it.

When i do get possibility to station my men to foxholes with roofs or enable proper AT-drills (like hit-and-run or shoot-and-change-position) in MOUT, this Stryker-thing can be fixed

EDIT: Damn AT and AP i always mix them together! AP != AT round but AP = HE. I shall repeat this thousands of times to make it sure that i will remember in comming days. Why do you english invent such stupid words as these. I don't know how many times i've been fooled.

Back to real life:

Also when Strykers were hit something like 9 times with RPGs it most likely that there were many HE (antipersonel = AP) rounds involved.

[ October 29, 2007, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[MikeyD]

"It had zero effectivity against RGP rounds functioning like AT (= armorpiercing). I'm not sure are these present in CM:SF. "

They're in the game and they're in the photo posted above too. Those two 'little' rounds at the very top of the photo are the HE type. When I saw the photo I thought those things were the first half of a tandem warhead too, but I don't believe tandem warhead can disassemble.

You can see why Slat wouldn't effect that little HE round, besides being fused differently it could slide between the Slat bars without even touching them! You see the small RPG HE in-game when a short stubby round is loaded for use against infantry.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Exel:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Statisoris:

The Abrams does have a spall liner Exel, I asked a real world tanker. He didnt know if they had been in since the beggining, but they are now. Its made of thick kevlar.

They have had them from the start. The book "King of the Killing Fields," notes that the designers were concerned about stopping Soviet versions of the British HESH warhead which creates spall effects as its primary killing agent.</font>

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

"It had zero effectivity against RGP rounds functioning like AT (= armorpiercing). I'm not sure are these present in CM:SF. "

They're in the game and they're in the photo posted above too. Those two 'little' rounds at the very top of the photo are the HE type. When I saw the photo I thought those things were the first half of a tandem warhead too, but I don't believe tandem warhead can disassemble.

You can see why Slat wouldn't effect that little HE round, besides being fused differently it could slide between the Slat bars without even touching them! You see the small RPG HE in-game when a short stubby round is loaded for use against infantry.

So... HE is Anti-tank? I thought that HE would be antipersonel.

Like this from that document i have:

There are three types of RPG attacks that have been

encountered, Anti-Personnel (AP), High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT), and Anti-Tank (AT).

Conserning AT:

AT RPG attacks are not be defeated, in

most cases, because the penetrator is not affected by the slat armor. In one case a Stryker VC

was struck by the penetrator after it went through the slat armor, Stryker vehicle armor, kevlar

lining ...

Infact: I haven't found mentions about any AT rounds for RPGs. Only AT rounds i can think of would be "hardnose" HEATs which penetrate reactive cells and such with their "hardnose" before detonating their shaped charge to penetrate rest of the armor. But i have heard only one heavy recoiless gun to have these kind grenades.

conserning antipersonel:

The AP RPG attacks were not reduced by slat armor because the rocket explodes with shrapnel

and is dangerous to the Stryker Vehicle Commander (VC) and air guards that are exposed out

side the vehicle regardless of where it hits the vehicle or the slat armor.

so: Are you sure we are speaking of same thing? Cause i understand that round your talking about is purely antipersonel.

[ October 29, 2007, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[Exel]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

You're probably right, although I have heard differing reports from various tankers. To be honest though, lots of guys don't often know their equipment like they should. I know that prior to GW1 I heard tanker officers gushing about the protection of their tanks and including spall liners. Of course they could have just been parroting the sales brochure. I know they were supposed to have them.

What I can say from personal experience is that at least in our training they didn't put much emphasis on technical specifications of most of the systems where maintenance or usage issues were not concerned, including armor and ammunition specs. More information on both is generally available in books, official documents and even on the net.

Training emphasizes operating the equipment, not so much estimating if that enemy ATGM is going to mutilate you inside or not. Then, it could be different in the US, but somehow I doubt that it would differ much.

Tankers know an awful lot about their equipment for sure, but sometimes engineers know more.

[MikeyD]

"So... HE is Anti-tank? I thought that HE would be antipersonel. "

Do'h! I misread your original post, answered a question you didn't actually ask. One of the hazards of clandestinely surfing the internet at work.

[tiny_tanker]

Here's an interesting article from china-defense.com about there RPG-7 variant. It shows there HE-incendiary warhead that looks alot like the one in MikeyD's picture. Sounds like a nasty round, it uses the ring on the front to bounce up on impact before detonating and shooting out hundreds of tiny steel balls.

But the original HE warhead would be effective in killing exposed personnel and shattering armor and maybe even destroying the slat armor so a HEAT round could rip right through (if they could hit anywhere near the same spot that is).

[Nicoch]

This was pretty informative. I always assumed the slat armor was just a lightweight kind of spaced armor to take a little of the brunt of the jet away.