Stryker mobility

[Bigduke6]

The Stryker is great for a very specific situation:

- Low AT threat.

- Low artillery threat.

- Low precipitation; it can't rain much and if it does the terrain has to drain well enough so that the roads and paths won't muck up after a few vehicles use them.

- Generally flat and open terrain; there can't be too many trees, buildings, rocks, or barriers a meter high or greater.

- The mission is mostly driving around and surviving bomb ambushes, and driving around alot is very important.

Then sure, an armored 8-wheel bus carrying a squad of soldiers will do a fair job, or at least, it can arguably compete with a tracked AFV. And sure, the troopies will just love the 8-wheel bus because it has AC and it doesn't bang them up like a tracked vehicle. And if the enemy is attacking them with roadside bombs, then of course the troopies are going to prefer a vehicle that's higher off the ground, and moves quicker, which reduces the chances of a bomb blast hitting them.

It is worth noting here that some nations - Israel and the Soviet Union spring to mind - have managed to win mechanized wars without making mech infantry comfort a top priority; and further that avoiding bomb blasts in air-conditioned comfort is not a commonly-acknowledged prerequisite for military success.

Unsurprisingly, the LRDG - a group of highly-skilled soldiers - during 40-42 pioneered alot of what wheeled transport with skilled drivers and passengers able to handle the ride can do buzzing about a desert.

That said, it is worth remembering that war is more than just buzzing about a desert.

Personally, I am unaware of any war out there, that can be won by having outrageously expensive infantry squads buzzing about a desert in expensive wheeled APCs, when tracked vehicles capable of the same thing are available for half the price.

From my perspective, wars are a matter of resources and their commitment.

Troopies saying "well, we love the Stryker, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread" does not make the cost of fielding the Stryker a good idea. Troop opinion does not make a weapon good or bad. Facts do that.

History is littered with examples of soldiers claiming their weapons were just boffo, when in fact they were not. The French knights at Agincourt - combat veterans in an age when combat was hand-to-hand - thought the armored horseman was the best military technology going, and the English longbow unfair and meaningless in a proper war.

Read Tigers in the Mud. The author loves the PzVI to death, and how he loves to relate how he and his Kamaraden wiped out 17 Communist tanks here, or 23 there, without a single scratch to themselves.

It never seems to dawn on him - as it should on any reasonably intelligent reader - that resources the German high command spent on that ueber-tank might well have been better spent on more medium tanks, or better AT aircraft, or an AT weapon that was light enough for infantry to handle, and tough enough to kill a T-34 at 500 meters. The overriding priority to the war from the German POV was to defeat the Soviets, and not to field big heavy panzers that wargamers love, but that arguably wasted resources.

No, instead Jens goes on and on about his amazing victories against the Soviet hordes - without ever realizing that the very commitment decisions that placed him in his expensive Tiger, allowed the Soviets to manufacture masses of men and machines so they could laugh at whatever losses the Tiger could inflict.

The Americans were convinced, just 100 per cent sure, during Korea and Vietnam both, that air power could and would halt the enemy's ability to supply his troops. Huge amounts of money were spent on air offensives that, if you asked the pilots and their commanders, were brilliant examples of military skill and efficiency.

In fact, the dedicated effort by a large portion of the US military bureaucracy - the USAF - to push strategic air power into those wars may well have harmed the US war effort more than helped it. After all, the Air Force generals fed the US decision-makers the illusion that air power can interrupt the movement of thousands of well-organized porters in the terrain of East Asia. In fact it couldn't, and it didn't.

The Stryker's lineage goes right back to that same flawed resource commitment logic; that somehow, fielding the most expensive war technology with the most bells and whistles, that the troopies love, inevitably, is the correct recipe for winning a war.

Waste of resources, I say.

[YankeeDog]

I'm curious. . .

Does anyone have a linke w/ a good estimate as to exactly what it costs to build, field, and maintain a Stryker, as compared to other light armored vehicles, like the Bradley, or the Marine LAV?

I had thought one of the advantages of wheeled vehicles is that they are generally cheaper to build and maintain than a comparable tracked vehicle, but I've never actually seen a cost-to-cost comparision.

I've found a few figures here and there on the web, but they're mostly for the cost of the entire Stryker program, and I can't find anything that breaks it down on a per-vehicle basis.

Thx,

YD

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I'm curious. . .

Does anyone have a linke w/ a good estimate as to exactly what it costs to build, field, and maintain a Stryker, as compared to other light armored vehicles, like the Bradley, or the Marine LAV?

I had thought one of the advantages of wheeled vehicles is that they are generally cheaper to build and maintain than a comparable tracked vehicle, but I've never actually seen a cost-to-cost comparision.

You've never seen one because none exists. I have been researching this question on and off for the last three years. Here's what I know.

1. You can only compare Stryker costs with current in production vehicles, so comparing it to M113 is useless unless it's a BAE/UD MTVL. - or a BvS-10. BvS-10 is 2/3rd the price of Stryker based on one industry analysis I have seen.

2. You can't compare Stryker with Bradley because they are built to completely different specifications and roles. It makes as much sense as comparing it to an M1 MBT.

3. What increase Stryker costs to a silly amount was all the modding field the variants for the Brigade.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by RT North Dakota:

You've never seen one because none exists. I have been researching this question on and off for the last three years. Here's what I know.

1. You can only compare Stryker costs with current in production vehicles, so comparing it to M113 is useless unless it's a BAE/UD MTVL. - or a BvS-10. BvS-10 is 2/3rd the price of Stryker based on one industry analysis I have seen.

2. You can't compare Stryker with Bradley because they are built to completely different specifications and roles. It makes as much sense as comparing it to an M1 MBT.

3. What increase Stryker costs to a silly amount was all the modding field the variants for the Brigade.

Oh, well. Thanks for what info you have.

While I see your point on 2., I'm not entirely sure I agree that there is no value in comparing the relative cost of producing a Bradley w/ a Stryker. Sure, they're different vehicles with different capabilities and different roles. But there is also significant overlap in their capabilities and roles. In short, they may be apple and oranges, but this nevertheless means that they are both fruit.

Of course, any conclusions drawn from cost comparison between the two must also take these different capabilities into account.

Cheers,

YD

[undead reindeer cavalry]

for US the cost is in practice meaningless. money is not the bottleneck.

Stryker is not an exception in that it's the most expensive wheeled APC/IFV in the world: Bradley was the most expensive tracked IFV in the world as well. M1A2SEP is the most expensive tank in the world. you get the pattern.

looking at the price tag is meaningless if cost is not an issue.

[Bigduke6]

Disagree, just because the systems are the most expensive doesn't mean that money was, or is, unlimited. Besides, a dollar cost comparison between a Bradley and a Stryker is a good way to determine how much of the military budget each vehicle absorbed, at least up front.

[YankeeDog]

I agree w/ BD. The US Military may have more money to throw around than anybody else, but it's not an unlimited supply. After a certain point, the DoD can either buy X more Strykers, or Y more Bradleys, or Z more of something else like F-22s instead of either Bradleys or Strykers, but there are limits.

It all comes down to the what missions we as a nation need our military to be able to perform, and what tools will allow the military to perform these missions the most efficiently and effectively. The specifics of any and all of these details are open to debate. Hence the complexity of this argument.

Cheers,

YD

[StrykerPSG]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The Stryker is great for a very specific situation:

- Low artillery threat.

- Low precipitation; it can't rain much and if it does the terrain has to drain well enough so that the roads and paths won't muck up after a few vehicles use them.

- Generally flat and open terrain; there can't be too many trees, buildings, rocks, or barriers a meter high or greater.

- The mission is mostly driving around and surviving bomb ambushes, and driving around alot is very important.

-The LAV III has the same capabilities as the M2/3 for surviving artillery. Both equipped with spall liners and applique armor.

-Low precipitation is not necessarily true, again, check amount of rainfall Seattle/Tacoma receive year round. Then google earth Ft Lewis to see how much of the training area is paved. Again, all LAV III's equipped with CTIS to minimize this issue. Wheeled vehicles certainly can become mired, but so too can tracked vehicles. Rocks are far less an issue for LAV III's then tracked vehicles. Tracked vehicles will avoid major rocks obstacles because of the possibility of throwing/breaking track, whereas LAV III's have run flats giving them an ability to continue to move to more suitable terrain to change a tire, if needed.

-Flat and open terrain is where LAV III shines, but Strykers are also serving well within the confines of the MOUT environment exceptionally well. The limitation is unable to pivot steer in tighter confines. So, we can manuever in and around trees, just cannot pivot steer. As for barriers, well probably something better suited for a tracked vehicle, but would a tracked vehicle commander run over a barrier that is possibly a prelude for an ambush?

Then sure, an armored 8-wheel bus carrying a squad of soldiers will do a fair job, or at least, it can arguably compete with a tracked AFV. And sure, the troopies will just love the 8-wheel bus because it has AC and it doesn't bang them up like a tracked vehicle. And if the enemy is attacking them with roadside bombs, then of course the troopies are going to prefer a vehicle that's higher off the ground, and moves quicker, which reduces the chances of a bomb blast hitting them.

But, isn't the role of an APC/IFV to get the primary weapon system (the Soldier) to the fight in the best shape possible? What good is a squad of tossed around dismounts, in a tracked vehicle, who are so intent on exiting the vehicle, that they are unaware of whats going on around them?

It is worth noting here that some nations - Israel and the Soviet Union spring to mind - have managed to win mechanized wars without making mech infantry comfort a top priority; and further that avoiding bomb blasts in air-conditioned comfort is not a commonly-acknowledged prerequisite for military success.

So are you implying put them in the cheaper, mass produced vehicle and win the wars by numbers alone? Look at most Soviet vehicles, mass produced, with little thought as to it's occupants safety or creature comforts. There are very few nations that want to buy them. They are either given to them in trade or bought because of limited funds available and they are the cheapest equipment for the money. Now, I am not implying the Soviets do not have some great designs, but ultimately they suffer from a flaw of having no regard for the dismount. For Israel to incorporate creature comforts into their vehicles is not as practical fiscally, since they are not an expeditionary force by nature and they are primarily in a constant defensive posture. Israel does however incorporate many more survival features that ensure the Soldier survives the fight, since it is a very limited resource for their country.

[ August 28, 2007, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by tc237:

To add a bit to flamingknives,

An M1 can get smoother the faster it goes especially on roads or smooth ground.

But for all vehicles it depends on the terrain, even what wargames would classify as clear/flat terrain can have enough ruts and bumps to make it a terrible experience if the vehicle is moving to fast. Sometimes it is just too unsafe, even in combat, to go even 20mph cross country.

A lot of misconceptions are based on books, specs, stats, etc.. when real world results aren't taken into account.

Agree on the rough ground bit.

I would hazard (not having experience with M1s) that the apparent smoother ride at higher speed is the increase in track patter frequency is taking the vibration above the natural frequencies of the vehicle. The high level of induced vibration is still there, but it isn't resonating in the vehicle so the vibration that reaches the crew is less. Additionally, as an increase in mass drives the natural frequency down, lighter vehicles, especially those made with lighter materials, will have higher natural frequencies, so the structure will resonate at higher speeds due to the induced vibration.

[Battlefront.com]

Here we go again

I hope people can see a pattern here with the anti-wheel/anti-Stryker group. The first thing to try and do is discredit the vehicle itself in terms of its capabilities. What follows is a laundry list of problems that are dredged up from... well, I don't know where. In response someone who actually uses the things comes on and with first hand knowledge addresses each point and shows why the list is full of strawmen. Then the list comes up in another thread as if there was no challenge the first time. Or better still, a new list of strawmen are invented and challenged, then again ignored.

What should happen is there should be an honest assessment of the pros and cons of each and then comparing them to various different battlefield, logistics, and peacetime conditions. That's what someone with an honest interest in looking at these issues would do. But more often than not only the Stryker/Wheeled proponents are willing to do this. I've not seen a SINGLE person who thinks there is value Stryker/wheeled vehicles dismissing the value of heavy tracked vehicles. Nor do they ever say that such vehicles should be got rid of, despite a long list of cons. This is not true for the anti-Stryker/wheeled lobby, which insists on taking all the Stryker/wheeled vehicle cons (the true ones, not the fantasy ones as I described above) and none if its pros, then comparing it to the pros of the heavy tracked armor without looking at any of the cons. An interesting way to win a debate, I suppose, but not very intellectually stimulating.

Steve

[ August 28, 2007, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6

History is littered with examples of soldiers claiming their weapons were just boffo, when in fact they were not

History is also littered with flawed reactions to changes. Oh, like those who refused to believe that cavlary could defeat pikemen, or that expensive tanks weren't needed because horsed cavalry could do the same job even better, or that the machinegun was a useless novelty, or that aircraft would never have a minor role to play on the battlefield, or... lots of other examples.

Just pointing out that the road of military progress is littered with people who don't see the value in change.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

StryjerPSG,

Thanks for your comments. This is the kind of discussion I like.

-The LAV III has the same capabilities as the M2/3 for surviving artillery. Both equipped with spall liners and applique armor.

Does that apply to Stryker? Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I was under the impression that rubber was less resilient to steel shards than steel. Ya sure, the Stryker can run on flat tires, but unless it can do it all the time day after day you drop artillery on the vehicle, and you put it in the shop until it can get more tires.

Several iterations of that and how many Stryker tires are in the supply chain? While the Bradleys and M-113es are just rumbling along.

Plus there is the crater issue - in a fight where artillery is intense the ground very quickly becomes a lot harder for vehicles to cross, and especially wheeled vehicles. Since the people who are shooting the artillery can be assumed to have reasonable intelligence (usually), things like crossroads and choke points get trashed first.

And if the Stryker does it thing best on trails and roads...well, you get my point.

True there is the arguement that the Stryker wasn't designed for a war where lots of artillery is getting tossed at it - but my arguement is that that limitation (among others) makes the vehicle a less than intelligent fielding choice for a lot of wars, and if you have M-113s that you can upgrade for about half the price, you have to wonder whether whether Stryker is a good buy.

-Low precipitation is not necessarily true, again, check amount of rainfall Seattle/Tacoma receive year round. Then google earth Ft Lewis to see how much of the training area is paved. Again, all LAV III's equipped with CTIS to minimize this issue. Wheeled vehicles certainly can become mired, but so too can tracked vehicles. Rocks are far less an issue for LAV III's then tracked vehicles. Tracked vehicles will avoid major rocks obstacles because of the possibility of throwing/breaking track, whereas LAV III's have run flats giving them an ability to continue to move to more suitable terrain to change a tire, if needed.

I think you're cherry-picking a bit. If there are enough big rocks around to throw a track on a Bradley, that's enough to deny passage to a Stryker in most cases. Sure a Stryker can get over a couple of rocks - but a hillside? That's a stopper for both vehicles. Bot to deny your Fort Lewis experience, but over the last two decades I've seen wheeled vehicles try and cross mucky terrain everwhere from Grafenwoehr to Chechnya, and and it's a given tracked vehicles do the job better. No matter the army.

Certainly, you can find wet ground situations where a wheeled vehicle might do better. However, and pointing out you know the ground far better than I, I would say Ft. Lewis is far from an all-encompassing example. That's not swamp and lowland, that's hills and mountains - i.e., the ground drains.

Generally speaking, if the ground is crappy and gooshy, and you have the choice, you want tracks. And lots of places on the planet are not like Ft. Lewis.

Again, this to me is a limitation that needs to be factored into a judgement as to how valauble the Stryker is, or is not.

-Flat and open terrain is where LAV III shines, but Strykers are also serving well within the confines of the MOUT environment exceptionally well. The limitation is unable to pivot steer in tighter confines. So, we can manuever in and around trees, just cannot pivot steer. As for barriers, well probably something better suited for a tracked vehicle, but would a tracked vehicle commander run over a barrier that is possibly a prelude for an ambush?

Well, to answer your question the answer is "certainly, war is after all more than avoiding ambushes".

The issue here is manueverability; where the vehicle can and cannot go, and what tactical limitations you have to accept, if any, if the vehicle can't go somewhere.

I buy the arguement that in most built-up areas Stryker's inability to turn in place is no biggie. But that said, I am skeptical of your claim Stryker is doing "exceptionally well" in urban fighting.

This probably is because my definition of "exceptionally well" is not the same as yours. I've posted before on that, so no need to beat a dead horse here.

But, isn't the role of an APC/IFV to get the primary weapon system (the Soldier) to the fight in the best shape possible? What good is a squad of tossed around dismounts, in a tracked vehicle, who are so intent on exiting the vehicle, that they are unaware of whats going on around them?

Well, first off as I noted in the previous post riding in a tracked vehicle does not condemn you to defeat. Most of the major mechanized wars of the last half of the 20th century and early 20th century were won by the side with the infantry riding on tracks. The most successful one of all - the Red Army - routinely placed its infantry directly on the tanks, in conditions and campaigns that make the modern US wars laughable by comparison.

As it happens, I'm reading a history on the Manchuria campaign. 5th Guards Tank Army covered something like 3,000 kilometers in roadless conditions, desert, high mountains, swamp, you name it, and their fighting capacity was enough for the job. The infantry rode on tanks.

Perhaps the modern US infantry soldier is genetically not tough enough to handle a ride like that, but I suspect young men are pretty much equally resilient everywhere. The difference is what their societies consider minimum acceptable comfort.

Which leads me to the question, if the only thing the Styker does is keep the troopies comfortable, perhaps the resources would be better spent training the troopies to accept tougher conditions? 42 billion dollars will buy A LOT of field training.

As to the arguement that the point to the APC being to bring the, as you put it,"primary weapon system (the Soldier)" in close contact with the enemy, I think that the arguement starts with a flawed assumption and proceeds on bad logic.

The killing in modern warfare is very much industrial, it is a process of getting the correct killing machines operating in the right place and the right time. The infantry, these days, exists primarily to guard the machines - be it tanks, aircraft, artillery, what have you. Marshall and other have repeatedly documented that the soldier's individual weapon does very little killing, and further more often that not, he never fires it.

True, infantry can move on most terrain and if the opposition is infantry hiding in good cover, it's really hard to geal with the opposition infantry without sending in ground troops of your own. But pretty much any modern commander would prefer, rather than sending a platoon to clear houses, to just level the block with artillery or air strikes. If leveling the block isn't okay for whatever reason, then fine you need a way to bring the infantry close enough to dig out the bad guys.

So you're back to the same problem. In any kind of intense warfare, a key point to the APC is just keeping the infantry alive so it can perform its basic tasks. If it is a high-powered APC, then it maybe has missiles or cannon to kill stuff the infantry spots, but cannot kill itself. If it is a low-powered APC, then it is just a battle taxi that isn't going to fight itself, it just needs to bus the infantry around.

And if the latter option is the paradigm for the Stryker, you have to wonder, even if you're charitable towards the US Army, whether there are other ways to perfom that bus service more cheaply.

If you're not charitable, then you start asking questions like "Can't most of this be done by helicopters?" or "If we spent the Stryker money on spies, intelligence, and mercenaries whose deaths in a war wouldn't make our civilian commenders quit, maybe we would have a fighting chance of snuffing out an Islamic insurgency?"

It all comes down to money: what you spend it on, and what result you are getting for what you spent. The fact that Strykers are deployed in Iraq and that the soldiers are saying the Strykers are doing a great job is pretty immaterial. Great job is when the war is won. Praising an expensive vehicle arguably without a proper role in a war against an insurgency, when that insurgency patently is not supressed, does not strike me as clear-headed thinking.

So are you implying put them in the cheaper, mass produced vehicle and win the wars by numbers alone? Look at most Soviet vehicles, mass produced, with little thought as to its occupants safety or creature comforts.

I think you are missing a key feature of Soviet design. They thought about protecting the people inside the combat vehicle, people are a limited resource like everything else. But they never made protection of crews a "be all end all" requiring the most expensive design and top priority. Rather, they always made a judgement: how much protection can we afford, and what do we lose if we buy the protection?

To continue the Tiger example from the previous post, consider the IS-II tank. The Soviets fielded the first version in Feb '44, and by April '44 it was clear to every one the front end of the tank couldn't keep out standard German AP. What to do? Well, if you're talking about the bow armor they redesigned it to thicken it, removed a hatch that undermined the armor's ability to take hits, and bolted on six track links to the lower bow. For practical purposes, that made the bow armor invulnerable to standard German AP at normal combat ranges.

The turret, however, they did nothing to, because although retooling to produce the milled plates for the bow armor was no big deal, retooling to cast a different turret would have stopped production for months. So, the planners made the decision: the turret isn't a big target, we will keep production at a high level and the Stalin crews will suck up the extra vulnerability.

By Western standards, that was a concious decision away from crew protection, and so unacceptable. "The Russians don't value human life!", yada yada yada.

Well, perhaps. But then again, that same decision placed about 1,000 new heavy tanks in the Soviet forces every four months - tanks that could nail dead pretty much any German tank at any angle at pretty much any combat range, while the Stalin itself was invulnerable from the front at least, unless the Germans got a good turret hit.

Was that a good strategy? Hard to say for sure, but clearly, it was part of a greater strategy that utterly destroyed the German military.

This makes me a little wary of claims (which I am not asserting you made) that, if you don't do everything you can to protect armored vehicle crews, you can't win wars.

The way it seems to me, the crew and its happiness is not the most important thing in war. Figuring out how to win and then executing the right strategy is the most important thing. If you confuse crew comfort maximization strategy with war winning strategy, then in my book you have started down the path towards losing the war.

IMO, Stryker is a clear step in that very direction.

There are very few nations that want to buy them. They are either given to them in trade or bought because of limited funds available and they are the cheapest equipment for the money. Now, I am not implying the Soviets do not have some great designs, but ultimately they suffer from a flaw of having no regard for the dismount. For Israel to incorporate creature comforts into their vehicles is not as practical fiscally, since they are not an expeditionary force by nature and they are primarily in a constant defensive posture.

I suggest you look up Global Security or some other standard site and see if any one is buying Russian equipment these days, and if so who. Here's a hint: India and China are not buying American.

For extra points, you might try and find a big buyer of US weapons that doesn't have even bigger political incentives to buy American. From what I can tell, in the international arms market, most of the time US equipment loses out - it is considered too expensive.

As to valuing the dismount, here is a thought: perhaps it is you that are overvaluing him.

Heresy I know, but consider: Who is the poor bloody infantryman these days?

This is, after all, in most cases a 19-20 year old male without children of his own, or any skills making him useful to the civilian economy. He is generally more poorly educated that the society he is fighting for, and to be quite honest most of the time he is from at least the lower half of the socio-economic pyramid, and quite often the lowest third. His personal loyalties, if any, are to other members of his unit.

And this guy is carrying a rifle that can't hurt much, except other infantrymen.

Fact is, this guy is pretty much the most expendible soldier in the entire inventory. Of all the people in uniform, it is precisely this person the society can afford to lose the most. His death will not significantly affect the GDP or the size of the population.

And that makes perfect sense, as infantry are the ones that take the highest casualties. It is, if one is willing to think brutally, dumb to lavish a bunch of resources on the group most likely to be killed.

Now, I quite agree that sort of thinking won't fly in the modern US military, which has taken as one of its basic assumptions wars can be won without even moderate casualties, and often with light casualties. And the Stryker fits in very well indeed into that doctrine: all we really need to do is keep the infantry alive and comfortable, and so the civilian complaints down, and we will destroy any force out there.

That is to me is sloppy and dangerous reasoning. The US since 1950 repeatedly has been shown there are limits to military power, and every time it has forgotten the lesson, the society has suffered.

Israel does however incorporate many more survival features that ensure the Soldier survives the fight, since it is a very limited resource for their country.

It is worth noting that Israel hasn't won any wars lately.

Perhaps, part of the problem is that the Israeli commanders are substituting a priority on crew survival, for an honest admission on how effective the Israeli military is against the armed threats facing the country. Again, limits to military power. There are times when, no matter how well you protect your infantry, to win the war you are going to have to send them in and some of them will get killed. Pretending that never will have to happen, by building lots of spiffy APCs designed to reduce friendly casualties, is not a war-winning strategy.

It is arguable that the Israeli military's unwillingness to admit that it cannot eliminate the Islamic insurgency around its borders, is not in the country's best interest.

In my view, the same sort of myopic thinking has forced the US taxpayer to plunk out for seven Stryker brigades.

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

Without change, there can be no progress. But not all change yields progress.

This holds true in pretty much all human endeavour - not just in military technique.

Don't you agree?

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

BigDuke6

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />History is littered with examples of soldiers claiming their weapons were just boffo, when in fact they were not

History is also littered with flawed reactions to changes. Oh, like those who refused to believe that cavlary could defeat pikemen, or that expensive tanks weren't needed because horsed cavalry could do the same job even better, or that the machinegun was a useless novelty, or that aircraft would never have a minor role to play on the battlefield, or... lots of other examples.

Just pointing out that the road of military progress is littered with people who don't see the value in change.

Steve </font>

[flamingknives]

Now, I might be wrong, but I don't think that I am, but I understand that the majority cost in a Stryker is the shiny electronics that go into it. It seems to me that this is something that people miss when comparing the Stryker with an uprated M113 (or whatever) By ignoring the electronics, you are actually comparing a LAV III with an uprated M113, and a LAVIII doesn't cost what a Stryker costs (the CROWS costs about $300,000 on its own)

The better ride of the Styker probably helps reduce wear and tear on all that expensive materiel inside.

Bigduke6:

While your observations may hold true in some countries, across the majority of the Western world militaries are unable to maintain large numbers of infantry, so those that are left are specialists and not so easily discarded. Apart from anything else, the cost of training and providing the pay for these soldiers is substantial, and likely more than many of these trinkets that help protect them.

Western forces simply do not have the available manpower to operate without careful regard for their infantry.

[MikeyD]

"Several iterations of that and how many Stryker tires are in the supply chain? While the Bradleys and M-113es are just rumbling along."

From year-or-two old reports i've read Stryker goes through a LOT of very expensive tires due to being shot-up. Not that Strykers are getting immobilized in combat, but when it rolls back to base the holed tires have to be replaced. BUT track wear for Abrams and Bradley have also been at crisis level in Iraq for awhile. New tracks being manufactured in crash programs, units in other theatres being stripped of their useable track. Look at recent photos of Abrams in Korea and you'll see old-pattern rubber chevron tracks on all the vehicles. Iraq got their good stuff.

[kipanderson]

Hi

The Stryker is a vehicle for wars against Third World nations… colonial wars if you wish. In a high intensity war against any nation with even semi-first world military technology they would be slaughtered.. mobile coffins…as CMSF demonstrates very well .

The trend is now back to heavy armour… in most nations this trend never went away. The US is thinking of abandoning the FCS for heavy armour but with the electronics, including Hard-Kill defensive systems, bolted on to the heavy platforms.

There are very real and unambiguous reasons why Israel has even moved its infantry to tank based, heavy carriers.

But if most of your wars ae to be Third World... then why not a Stryker force. But no one should be in any doubt about their limitations against all but very backward/poor nations.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Bradley Dick]

Comparing the tires cost to the cost of new track for a tracked vehicle is something a Chief would have to do.

Track shoes and track pads are on short supply in Iraq for most FOB's. You get it in about half as often as you need it. Most of the vehicles out here wear down the metal on their track shoes because they never get any replacement pads. On the other hand, tires are also on short supply. For all vehicles. From the Stryker to the 5ton to the HMMWV.

Parts in general are harder to come by. Especially if your unit moves around alot and uses vehicles primarily. If you take your vehicle on regular patrols, then you're just going to have maintenance problems. It's unavoidable. If you do everything by the book and are an expert mechanic, you still might have an IED scuff your ride up. 3rd ACR in 2005 was all over the country, and alot of units suffered for the lack of steady parts supply.

[flamingknives]

Kip, I think that you have it wrong.

The Stryker is at least as well armoured as an M113, an FV432 (old style, the new one is pretty tough), any of the BTRs (save the BTR-T) and the BMP1 and 2. So as far as direct fire engagements go it cedes no ground to other APCs designed for high intensity conflict. It is far better in nearly all respects when compared to things like the Saxon or soft-skin trucks, save perhaps cost, but as noted much of the cost of the Stryker is in shiny electronics.

That they lose badly in a direct fire fight with heavy armour isn't in any way a surprise. So would any APC you care to name.

[Bradley Dick]

You would have to be really screwing up to have your APC's in a direct firefight with heavy armor.

I'd probably take a court marshal if I survived such an order.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6,

Without change, there can be no progress. But not all change yields progress.

This holds true in pretty much all human endeavour - not just in military technique.

Don't you agree?

Oh, I totally agree. I was just pointing out that you might not be on the right side of the equation It could be that if you had your way progress would be held back due to a reluctance to change. As I've said many times before... when I first heard about the SBCT concept my first thought was not "oh my GOD we'll never win another war ever again", rather it was "thank GOD because now we will have a capability we are sorely lacking". In short, I've been waiting for this since Desert Shield and saw more and more need for it since. Is the current implementation perfect? Nothing ever is, however the overall concept of a Medium force based on wheeled armor is a VERY sound idea IMHO.

Flamingknives,

Now, I might be wrong, but I don't think that I am, but I understand that the majority cost in a Stryker is the shiny electronics that go into it. It seems to me that this is something that people miss when comparing the Stryker with an uprated M113 (or whatever) By ignoring the electronics, you are actually comparing a LAV III with an uprated M113, and a LAVIII doesn't cost what a Stryker costs (the CROWS costs about $300,000 on its own)

Correct. Pulling a M113 out of mothballs gets you a 40 year old vehicle that is not capable of being integrated into the current military structure. To do that would require expensive retrofitting, if it could even be done effectively. So comparing the cost of a M113 to a Strkyer is just pointless. Comparing the cost of a Stryker to a Bradley M2A3 has some merit from a bean counting standpoint. Those are both frontline vehicles with the same basic "digital" capabilities. Then one can decide if the cost premium for the Bradley's unique features is inline with the cost of the Stryker by US military standards.

The Stryker is at least as well armoured as an M113, an FV432 (old style, the new one is pretty tough), any of the BTRs (save the BTR-T) and the BMP1 and 2. So as far as direct fire engagements go it cedes no ground to other APCs designed for high intensity conflict. It is far better in nearly all respects when compared to things like the Saxon or soft-skin trucks, save perhaps cost, but as noted much of the cost of the Stryker is in shiny electronics.

That they lose badly in a direct fire fight with heavy armour isn't in any way a surprise. So would any APC you care to name.

A set of facts that is so often missed, thanks for the reminder And thanks to a confirmed Bradley Bigot (heh) for this other kernal of truth:

You would have to be really screwing up to have your APC's in a direct firefight with heavy armor.

I'd probably take a court marshal if I survived such an order.

Wargamers might think the Bradleys are supposed to go toe to toe with enemy tanks, but they are not. They are, however, equipped to defend themselves better than the average Stryker. That being said, however, both are supposed to get the heck out of there when tanks are in the area. That's because neither has any chance of withstanding a hit from even the oldest Soviet inventory tank.

When disengaging the Bradley needs more firepower because it can't effectively outrun an enemy tank. The Stryker, with its inferior firepower, can. Therefore, it's the age old tradeoff between speed and brawn.

Steve

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

It is worth noting that Israel hasn't won any wars lately.

Perhaps, part of the problem is that the Israeli commanders are substituting a priority on crew survival, for an honest admission on how effective the Israeli military is against the armed threats facing the country. Again, limits to military power. There are times when, no matter how well you protect your infantry, to win the war you are going to have to send them in and some of them will get killed. Pretending that never will have to happen, by building lots of spiffy APCs designed to reduce friendly casualties, is not a war-winning strategy.

1. Exactly what new "spiffy" APCs does the IDF have. - A bunch of rebuilt T-55's, Centurion, and Merkava I? - eg, Ascharitz, Milifiset, Nakpadon, and Namer. Take a ride in an IDF APC some time, and tell me how "spiffy" it is!

2. Most of the dead (66%) from the last war were Infantry. When exactly has IDF been unwiling to risk infantry?

[thewood]

I thought IDF tank-like APCs were used mostly for moving engineers into place.

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

Great! We're agreed then.

Change makes sense when it gives progress, and so, if you are considering routes of change, the key question to ask is how much progress each option gives you.

Here is an article that I think is useful, first because it sets out not to rag the Stryker but just to compare it to the alternatives, and second because it gives some nice details on the alternative, to wit, an upgraded M113.

Stryker vsGavin

The military likes bullet points, so to add organizational heft to my arguement, I'll distill what I think are useful things to keep in mind when talking about the upgraded M113:

* Fully amphibious

* Turbocharged Diesel gives speed about 80 per cent of Stryker

* Upgraded electrics to include modern digital kit to US Army standard, however, it is not clear from the article whether this would be exactly

* Turns in place

* Can be uparmored to 14.5mm MG standard, RPG bird cage exists

* Aluminum hull, greater chance of fire in case of a HEAT hit.

* Steel belted one-piece radial track, not old-style links, effectively no maintenance

* Also quiet and smooth, as vehicle is not on steel tracks any more. 50 per cent weight savings over steel track, increased travel range to 4,000 miles.

* Track can burn and is more complicated to replace than a steel track.

* 4-5 of these vehicles fit into a Herc

* Can be air-dropped

* Vehicle is already in supply system.

* Same remote .50 as the Stryker has

* Existing frames for upgrade exist, according to the article there are close to 10,000 M-113 in US Army inventory that could receive the upgrade

* For the price of one Stryker ($3.3 million), you get eight of these upgraded M-113

Now Steve, even acknowledging that the Styker has it over the Gavin on survivability in case of a road bomb, I know one thing: In CMSF, I would definately prefer to have 8 x upgraded M113, rather than 1 x Stryker.

Correct. Pulling a M113 out of mothballs gets you a 40 year old vehicle that is not capable of being integrated into the current military structure. To do that would require expensive retrofitting, if it could even be done effectively. So comparing the cost of a M113 to a Strkyer is just pointless.

Disagree. The article makes clear the upgraded M113 are electronically equipped to operate to modern US Army standard, specifically digital communications.

It is not clear to me whether that package includes thermals, I strongly doubt it.

Nevertheless, it is definately possible to compare the battlefield worth of 8 x upgraded M113 without thermal sights but otherwise integrated into the US Army digital standard, and 1 x Stryker which has the same communications, plus thermals.

When disengaging the Bradley needs more firepower because it can't effectively outrun an enemy tank. The Stryker, with its inferior firepower, can. Therefore, it's the age old tradeoff between speed and brawn.

That assertion of yours can only hold water, if you assume Strykers could only bump into tanks in a place wheeled vehicles have a decisive mobility advantage over tracked vehicles, for instance flat, dry, arid, solid, arid terrain, or a place with plenty of roads with lots of cover from fire, and fortunately heading in the direction the Stryker wants to run.

If the ground is mucky, a tracked vehicle is faster.

If the ground is bumpy, a tracked vehicle is faster.

If the ground contains lots of steep inclines, a tracked vehicle is faster.

If there is a lot of pivot steering involved, a tracked vehicle is faster.

If there is artillery being thrown about, a tracked vehicle is faster.

I think the battle here is alot like the pros and cons of the cavalry two centuries ago, with the cavalry insisting and insisting there is a war out there is is perfectly suited for, and the war never coming.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Disagree, just because the systems are the most expensive doesn't mean that money was, or is, unlimited. Besides, a dollar cost comparison between a Bradley and a Stryker is a good way to determine how much of the military budget each vehicle absorbed, at least up front.

if you can field only a limited number of vehicles, while you do have practically unlimited amount of money to spend, you of course make those limited number of vehicles as good as possible. it would be stupid to use BTR-80 instead, just because it costs only 300 000 USD a piece.

Bradley absorbed over 5 500 000 000 dollars of US military budget. a single Bradley cost around 3 million USD.

[ August 29, 2007, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

* For the price of one Stryker ($3.3 million)

in the latest contract (april 2007) one Stryker (command variant) costs 1.8 million dollars.

[ August 29, 2007, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]