Stryker mobility

[thewood]

How would Stryker mobility compare to the German PSW 234 AC's from WW2. Has Wheeled mobility taken any great leaps forward in 60 years?

[tiny_tanker]

Well you have new more capable suspensions, central tire inflation systems with run flat tires, the ability to use 8 wheel drive. Improvements in tire tech would probably make a difference as well.

[thewood]

I thought german AC's had central tire inflation. I am an auto analyst and I would say computer engine and transmission management and, as you say, better tires. I was wondering if I was missing something with all the talk about better mobility.

[Grumbling Grognard]

Both go boom when they hit a mine...are hit by infantry borne missles...or practically anything that a large, "police force" would face. Not that this would 'ever' be a mission the US military would face...

[StrykerPSG]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grognard:

Both go boom when they hit a mine...are hit by infantry borne missles...or practically anything that a large, "police force" would face. Not that this would 'ever' be a mission the US military would face...

So does an tracked vehicle....... :eek:

[thewood]

So when I ask a valid question about the Stryker that all the Stryker proponents can jump in and answer, almost no one answers, and the one proponent who does come just gives a snide retort to a troll-like comment. Come on, show your bigger than that and give me a selling point on the Stryker. Instead of arguing with Jason C, show him you can give a valid answer.

btw, thanks to tiny for his answer.

[JasonC]

The first German AC in WWII with good all around mobility was the 231/1 8 Rad model. The 234/1 was better still. The first weighed only 8.2 tons and had 150 horsepower for a bit more than 18 hp per ton. The second upped the power to 220 horsepower for 10.5 tons, or 21 hp per ton. For comparison, the LAV-25 has 275 hp for 14 tons battle weight, a ratio of 20 to 1, and the Stryker 350 hp for 18 tons or 19 and change.

All of them have good road speed and decent but not spectacular off road ability. Size and weight have been ratcheting upward, but power has not moved appreciably.

[thewood]

Jason, I know I could root around and find the answer, but is that the loaded weight with the cage on the Stryker?

[RT North Dakota]

Stryker has poor soft terrain mobility by any measure. - not good.

What folks are missing, and the US Army more than most, is the tying of an infantry formation capability to a vehicle.

Example, change Stryker for BvS-10 ATVP, mount the M-151 RWS and a few other bits of kit, and you would have VERY capable sub-units.

-Stryker squandered all it's advantages to pander to a few ill-thought out opinions that ignored 40 years of OA study!

[MikeyD]

The big advantage of Stryker over earlier wheeled armor MUST be armor protection. Even the big South African Rooikat is only protected against 7.62 and is as vulnerable as a paper bag to RPG. Imagine the advantage an old Greyhound AC would get if given a coating of ceramic armor plates. Besides the usual vehicular 'march of progress' - better suspensions, engine, etc. - Stryker's a wheeled vehicle thru & thru. Big turn radius, bad obstacle clearance, better gas mileage and maintenance.

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

- Stryker's a wheeled vehicle thru & thru. Big turn radius, bad obstacle clearance, better gas mileage and maintenance.

Yes, but it's a bad wheeled vehicle. Wheels aren't the issue.

[thewood]

Why have Stryker-like vehicles never been successful in previous wars, other than recon or battle taxi type roles?

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by thewood:

Why have Stryker-like vehicles never been successful in previous wars, other than recon or battle taxi type roles?

Is the question "why have wheeled vehicles never been successful except for the times they have been successful??"

Their utility has generally been overshadowed by tracked vehicles designed for the post-nucelear strike mobility, or heavy armour systems inherent to armoured formations.

The idea that wheeled vehicles have somehow consistently failed is an utter myth. Southern African and Saharan conflicts showed them to be extremely useful, as did many others. Don't let a few pictures of burning wheeled vehicles fool you. The "wheels suck" campaign comes from the folks who can't grasp the complex arguments - and errors - surrounding the Stryker concept. It's very easy for the US Army to defend Stryker, because of the idiotic arguments used by the Stryker opponents.

Battle Taxis? - do you mean armoured personel carriers? Every peice of OA done since 1945 shows that infantry effectiveness can be substantially enhanced by reasonable (not absolute) degrees of protected mobility. - Thus the name APC. - which is an enhancement to infantry.

[Battlefront.com]

I agree with RT North Dakota. The anti-Stryker folks have to ignore the successes the Stryker has enjoyed in Iraq. Therefore, they are more correctly called anti-wheeled lobby. The Stryker is the target for their negativity simply because it is the vehicle being used. If the US Army created a ground up vehicle (which would have cost a ton more, would still be in development, and possibly could be worse than the Stryker) or had go with one of the other European designs, the argument against them would basically be the same: wheels bad, tracks good.

Back to the question that started this post, the inherent problems of wheeled vehicles offroad has likely improved little since WWII. LIkewise, the inherent problems of tracked vehicles hasn't improved much either. Wheeled vehicles still have more offroad limitations than tracked ones, tracked ones still go relatively slow and have far greater mechanical problems compared to contemporary wheeled vehicles. Therefore, my answer is that neither wheeled or tracked vehicles have made anything but evolutionary improvements over their WWII couterparts when looking at mobility alone. Other things have improved far more dramatically in the last 60 years.

Steve

[lrrprecon]

I'm going to throw in my opinion here, considerin gi have been to the Stryker Bone yard in Kuwait, when i was redeploying back to the states, but had to stay a extra month to help load Tanks and Bradley's, on the ship to send them back to the states. Strykers are a OK wheeled VEH with the RPG rails on, they are quiet and perfect for night OP's. But personnally i dont like them, the GUN system is nice, just like the M1114 Uparmored HWMMV's (Some) have over there now. Less casualties from gunners being shot by snipers. The US government just spent 3.2 or 2.3 billion dollars on the MWRP the vehicles that Blackwater (Mercenaries organization) uses there now. They are trying to replace the M1114 with the new MWRP, as it can stand a AT mine hit directly. I have seen this with my own eyes and it is very amazing!

Anyways rant off, i just wanted to give my opinion .

[Bradley Dick]

If I was a Blackwater employee who was in between deployments, which I wouldn't say if I was or not, I would resent the "Mercenary" label.

It's Private Security Contractor.

[thelmia]

All the Stryker units were light infantry. That means nothing but trucks and Humvees. Now they have Strykers. That's an improvement.

One thing I notice is that soldiers actually seem to ride inside Strykers. In Vietnam they rode on top of M113s because it was safer. Mines would kill you if you were inside. This makes me think that they must be doing something right.

I fooled with the M113 in the National Guard, and the Stryker has got to be better than that. There were patches in the side of some of them where bullets had come through in Vietnam. Truly ancient vehicles.

[flamingknives]

I think that it's worth noting that the BvS-10, while a very nice vehicle, only has base armour proof against 7.62mm and isn't so great against mines.

[Merkin Muffley]

Originally posted by thewood:

Why have Stryker-like vehicles never been successful in previous wars, other than recon or battle taxi type roles?

I'm not sure there were Stryker-like vehicles in previous wars that weren't battle taxis or recon vehicles were there?

The British used Saracen APC and Saladin armoured cars together with Ferret scout cars as a matter of course in all their low-level conflicts, with what seemed to be success albeit there weren't really alternatives at that time.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Merkin Muffley:

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

Why have Stryker-like vehicles never been successful in previous wars, other than recon or battle taxi type roles?

I'm not sure there were Stryker-like vehicles in previous wars that weren't battle taxis or recon vehicles were there?

The British used Saracen APC and Saladin armoured cars together with Ferret scout cars as a matter of course in all their low-level conflicts, with what seemed to be success albeit there weren't really alternatives at that time. </font>

[lrrprecon]

Originally posted by Bradley Dick:

If I was a Blackwater employee who was in between deployments, which I wouldn't say if I was or not, I would resent the "Mercenary" label.

It's Private Security Contractor.

Well i wasn't trying to be PC about the comment, cause thats what Combat MOS personnel call 'em Mercs, Mercenary, Hired Killers...etc. Why hide behind a PC "Private Security Contractor" anyways.. in my opinion. I met some Blackwater employee's in BIOP, i think it was FOB Victory or FOB Stryker, good bunch of guys though.

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I think that it's worth noting that the BvS-10, while a very nice vehicle, only has base armour proof against 7.62mm and isn't so great against mines.

Correct, but it also has and was designed to take applique packs. The reason the armour was kept to 7.62mm NATO was to keep the vehicle amphibious. If you don't need to swim you slap some pretty good armour on it.

As for mines, you might be very surprised how well it performs. - obviously how well is classified, and with less ground pressure than a human foot, it doesn't set off SOME AT mines. Just the AP mines!

[StrykerPSG]

Originally posted by thewood:

So when I ask a valid question about the Stryker that all the Stryker proponents can jump in and answer, almost no one answers, and the one proponent who does come just gives a snide retort to a troll-like comment. Come on, show your bigger than that and give me a selling point on the Stryker. Instead of arguing with Jason C, show him you can give a valid answer.

btw, thanks to tiny for his answer.

Sorry theWood, just really got tired of being the minority in believing in the vehicles capabilites and BDE design overall. Since the beginning I have fought uninformed or armchair theorists on everything I had to bring to the discussion. It is just truly a lot of energy at times to be the sole defender.

That being said, with regards to the vehicles mobility, there are some limitations, mud being one of them, but this isn't exclusive to wheeled vehicles, mud also hinders tracked vehicles, hence the self recovery kit for M113's in Vietnam. The Stryker also comes with a very robust winch and recovery kit as well. Just means the vehicle commander must be smart on not only his terrain but assorted choke points as well. If mud were truly an issue, Ft. Lewis would be the last Army post to showcase Strykers with a rainforest type climate year round. The Stryker does come equipped with a centralized tire inflation system that is phenominal, however, it isn't guaranteed to keep you from bogging down in extreme mud.

Cross country mobility is spectacular as well. The Hydrop suspension automatically compensates for harsher terrain. We were able to patrol the Syrian border, off road, covering a frontal area of about 300km each day. There were times, while negotiating some more difficult wadis, but for the most part, we could cover our border section and still pause at multiple points, providing overwatch and security.

Paved/improved road and trails, you are quite literally able to do 65-70 without hesitation. The CAT powerplant has great power to weight ratios and at speed, is still a very quiet machine for it's weight class.

It does have some limitations within tighter city streets, without it's ability to pivot steer, but front 4 tires turn to give a pretty good turn radius.

As for climbing limitations, again, track should beat us, but we have continously climbed up many inaccessible trails in NTC, YTC, here and in theater, that tracked vehicles could not get up. End result was a totally suprised DIRT teams or insurgent that previous rotations left unmolested.

While certainly not a "out of the book" reply, these are some of my experiences with the vehicle. I fought the first variant with great success and there have been many improvements on the design I will take with me on my deployment.

[ August 27, 2007, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: StrykerPSG ]

[Bradley Dick]

Well i wasn't trying to be PC about the comment, cause thats what Combat MOS personnel call 'em Mercs, Mercenary, Hired Killers...etc. Why hide behind a PC "Private Security Contractor" anyways.. in my opinion. I met some Blackwater employee's in BIOP, i think it was FOB Victory or FOB Stryker, good bunch of guys though. [/QB]

I personally think PSC is just a politically correct word for it, too. But not everyone you meet is so accepting of the word mercenary. You get some strange looks from the everyday person if you answer the "What do you do for a living?" question with "I'm a mercenary". Independant contractor, private security contractor, self-employed, etc etc.... it just makes things easier to swallow for Mr. and Mrs. Don't-know-how-the-world-works in Suburbia.

[lrrprecon]

True considering in my MOS 19K (M1 Tank Crew Member), in PC terms would be: "Heavy Machinery Technician or Operator" or something in that general aspect....crazy how Civ's come up with those terms. Granted i guess you wouldn't want to be called a "Janitor" if you did that in real life, now they got new PC job titles for every profession....Its funny actually...anyways i will shut up now.