Will the Stryker's capabilities and limitations be accurately modelled?

[Ryan Crierie]

Since so much of the game is apparently going

to center around the Stryker, will the drawbacks

of the Stryker series of vehicles be accurately

modelled, in particular:

1.) Propensity to roll over from blasts, or taking

turns too fast.

I have a video 984 kb in size, which I can supply on

demand, showing a Strkyer rolling down a street

in Iraq, and being hit by an IED and being blasted

onto it's side.

The single injury resulting from that attack

was a broken arm of one of the troops inside

the Strkyer, despite it being blasted onto it's

side.

2.) Issues with mobility, which you can read

about from the "INITIAL IMPRESSIONS REPORT

OPERATIONS IN MOSUL, IRAQ", which you

can obtain HERE.

The interesting stuff begins in:

Chapter 4 Stryker Vehicle Performance and Survivability on Page 45.

Topic B:

With slat installed, to the Stryker vehicle, a number of design and safety issues have

been identified to include fuel can spouts and tow bars not being long enough to fit past the slat

armor, causing a safety hazard to Soldiers, and the lowering the rear troop ramp causeing a loud

noise signature, reducing stealth, during operation (the installation a rubber stopper could

possible address this noise issue). Slat armor did not significantly impact Stryker handling, off

or on roads, during the dry season however, the additional weight significantly impacts the

handling and performance during the rainy season. Mud appeared to cause strain on the engine,

the drive shaft, and the differentials. During a mission in Tall Afar, one Stryker had two drive

shafts and a differential broken while trying to maneuver in the mud. The bolts on the rear ramp,

of the slat armor, tend to break off frequently with just normal use of raising and lowering the

rear troop ramp. The slat armor also bends, with continued operation and during accidents and

roll-over incidents, covering vehicle escape hatches and can block the rear troop door in the

ramp.

Topic D:

The additional weight of the slat armor was not accounted for in the design of the

Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS). Operators must frequently check throughout the day that

the tire pressure is maintained at 95 psi. The vehicle encounters soil bearing difficulties when

operated off of an improved road and frequently becomes mired. The additional weight of the

slat armor greatly reduces the take off speed, but does not affect the braking characteristics of the

vehicle. The slat armor attached to the rear ramp places a weight that exceeds the normal

capacity of the lifting equipment which raises and lowers the ramp. The lifting equipment (ramp

lift diaphragm) becomes inoperable over time. When the rear ramp is dropped on an improved

road surface, the slat armor causes a loud clanging sound that is counter-productive during

operations when noise discipline is required.

...

The slat armor attached to the driver side escape hatch makes the hatch extremely

difficult to lift when the vehicle is in an inverted position following a rollover.

[juan_gigante]

News of the Stryker's limitations is quite common here in Washington, what with most of the Strykers being based out of Fort Lewis and all. I was wondering a little about this myself - how well the Stryker would do in the environment's we'd find in CM:SF. I assume that they will do a good job showing this, but I'll be interested to see how it might be demonstrated in game.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, we do plan on showing the limitations. Many of the teething problems, however, have been addressed. The tire inflation issue really isn't any more, for example. Some others have not been addressed but don't matter in combat (the inability to get a slat armor Stryker in a C-130, for example). Others are yet to be fixed because the design itself isn't the issue, rather the concept is (the RWS with .50cal). So it will be interesting to simulate the vehicles with all their flaws, but we must be careful to make sure we're simulating actual and current flaws instead of earlier or perceived issues.

As for the blast effects of a 500# IED... rolling over actually shows the strength of the vehicle, not a weakness. I can show you the remains of an armored Humvee that hit a smaller IED and there was nothing left to rollover. One thing Iraq has shown is that uparmored softskinned vehicles are not much better off than unarmored ones.

There are a number of reports out there of the Army's alarm at the accidental death and injury numbers from driving accidents. The majority of them are, not surprisingly, in Humvees. The uparmored Humvees are apparently extremely dangerous to drive at high speeds when the driver hasn't enough experience. The frame was never designed to handle that weight.

Steve

[Ryan Crierie]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The tire inflation issue really isn't any more, for example.

In anycase, the problems from tire inflation; IE

having to have people manually check each tire

three times a day, are beyond the scope of CM.

However, the mobility problems; such as Strykers

having problems when moving on anything other than

road surfaces or dry terrain, are problems which

can't be changed by modifications in the field;

as the LAV III chassis the Stryker was based off

of was already near at it's weight limit before

they bulked it up into Stryker; so having to worry

about immobilizations if you decide to take an

off road route with your Strykers should be an

important part of tactical planning in CM:SF.