Reactive Armor for Strykers in 2010:

[SD Smack]

I didnt know we were allowed to use THAT GUY's name on the internet anymore.....most of the time that happens and hell and brimstone come raining from the sky!

Secondbrooks

That made me laugh!

steve

[StrykerPSG]

I didnt know we were allowed to use THAT GUY's name on the internet anymore.....most of the time that happens and hell and brimstone come raining from the sky!

Secondbrooks

That made me laugh!

steve

LOL, he has a self imposed cult following regarding the evil of the Stryker and how it was acquired and the greatness of the M113 (Gavin as he would call it).

[Clavicula_Nox]

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.

It was just a question meant to be framed in a slightly humorous tone, hence "death trap". Have you never been part of a light-hearted exchange of ****-talking? As for the Mike Sparks stuff, I think you're reading too much into it, but that's okay.

I'll re-frame the question:

What are the advantages to using Stryker as opposed to any other vehicle / infantry fighting platform? Or, why would I use a Stryker vs a Bradley?

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.

Normally the way it's done is that one side talks ****, the other side comes back, and they all laugh at each other and walk away still talking ****.

Steve, there's no need to lock the thread, it was a miscommunication due to the limitations of the text medium.

[StrykerPSG]

It was just a question meant to be framed in a slightly humorous tone, hence "death trap". Have you never been part of a light-hearted exchange of ****-talking? As for the Mike Sparks stuff, I think you're reading too much into it, but that's okay.

I'll re-frame the question:

What are the advantages to using Stryker as opposed to any other vehicle / infantry fighting platform? Or, why would I use a Stryker vs a Bradley?

Try this link. It was an earlier discussion that goes into great detail about the pro's and con's of wheeled versus tracked, etc. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=259

Without rehashing the entire debate, there are obvious pro's and con's to both. Tracked has an obvious advantage in more challenging terrains, such as climbing steeper grades and traversing some softer ground. However, as a tracked vehicle, one limit is it's track and the wear and tear it imposes on the local infrastructure and it's crew. Tracked vehicles vibrate and that takes a major toll on the crew. Then, the obvious, that it's a tracked vehicle and subject to loosing one or both tracks and becoming an expensive pillbox until repairs are complete.

Wheeled vehicles have not only a speed advantage, but the tires are much more stealthier then track, for obvious reasons. Wheels have their limitations with regards to softer terrain and steeper grades. Some vehicles can minimize these limitations with adjustable tire inflation, but it's not a cure-all. Many, though not all wheeled vehicles often are equipped with run flat tires, giving them the distinct ability to leave the kill zone. Wheels also cannot pivot, which has some great advantages when in a built up area.

The list goes on and on, but would refer to the above link. It too became quite heated but went into the Stryker strengths, as I knew them, and some of it's weaknesses too.

Finally, with your reference to a humorous tone, that humor may not always be shared by those that have fought and believe in the vehicle. Those same people you are choosing to spar with well more then likely have lost comrades fighting their vehicles too and so you remarks, with regards to your perception, are not what I would expect of someone that purports to be a professional warrior. I have served in airborne, air assault and light infantry postings before coming to Strykers, but have enough professional common sense to not ask a Mech person why they believe in their "iron coffins". I welcome banter about vehicles, tactics and units, matter of fact, who are you with at Bragg? There are lot's of inner Bragg rivalries we can hash out as well, on a more humorous note.

I agree there doesn't need to be a reason to lock the thread, but perhaps a tool to utilize is the tool that looks up prior postings and that persons background, as I did with you and your comments on the Gavin. If would like to know more about the vehicle professionally, I will be more then happy to give you my POC info and we can discuss some more sensitive items off line, in a non-public forum.

[SD Smack]

Question for StrykerPSG and LT Mike-

IIRC when the Army was first testing the Interim BCT they used LAV III with the 25mm cannon. But when the final choice for the vehicle was made the Styker obviously didnt have a turret. I thought that was rather strange, but what do I know? Just curious on your thoughts about this.

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

Try this link. It was an earlier discussion that goes into great detail about the pro's and con's of wheeled versus tracked, etc. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=259

Without rehashing the entire debate, there are obvious pro's and con's to both. Tracked has an obvious advantage in more challenging terrains, such as climbing steeper grades and traversing some softer ground. However, as a tracked vehicle, one limit is it's track and the wear and tear it imposes on the local infrastructure and it's crew. Tracked vehicles vibrate and that takes a major toll on the crew. Then, the obvious, that it's a tracked vehicle and subject to loosing one or both tracks and becoming an expensive pillbox until repairs are complete.

Wheeled vehicles have not only a speed advantage, but the tires are much more stealthier then track, for obvious reasons. Wheels have their limitations with regards to softer terrain and steeper grades. Some vehicles can minimize these limitations with adjustable tire inflation, but it's not a cure-all. Many, though not all wheeled vehicles often are equipped with run flat tires, giving them the distinct ability to leave the kill zone. Wheels also cannot pivot, which has some great advantages when in a built up area.

The list goes on and on, but would refer to the above link. It too became quite heated but went into the Stryker strengths, as I knew them, and some of it's weaknesses too.

Finally, with your reference to a humorous tone, that humor may not always be shared by those that have fought and believe in the vehicle. Those same people you are choosing to spar with well more then likely have lost comrades fighting their vehicles too and so you remarks, with regards to your perception, are not what I would expect of someone that purports to be a professional warrior. I have served in airborne, air assault and light infantry postings before coming to Strykers, but have enough professional common sense to not ask a Mech person why they believe in their "iron coffins". I welcome banter about vehicles, tactics and units, matter of fact, who are you with at Bragg? There are lot's of inner Bragg rivalries we can hash out as well, on a more humorous note.

I agree there doesn't need to be a reason to lock the thread, but perhaps a tool to utilize is the tool that looks up prior postings and that persons background, as I did with you and your comments on the Gavin. If would like to know more about the vehicle professionally, I will be more then happy to give you my POC info and we can discuss some more sensitive items off line, in a non-public forum.

Yeah, Tracked vs Wheeled has been raging for some time. On another forum, I was discussing the Army's old M8 and comparing / contrasting with the Stryker. I think there is a good argument for armored wheeled vehicles, I just wouldn't want to ride around in one.

Now, with the Army expanding it's Stryker BCTs (or implying that they will be doing it), do you think that's a wise move? Is Stryker an effective offensive platform against a conventional force more effective than Iraq? I honestly don't know; I'll check the link out in a bit.

I was promoted to "civilian" last year, but I was in 327th Sig Btn / 35th Sig Bde and USASOC. In the case of Bragg rivalries, I used to live in a barracks next to 82nd soldiers, and we routinely engaged in fisticuffs, and my time in USASOC was generally spent competing with 3rd and 7th group for soldiers and resources.

Posts on the M113? I barely remember posting something about them awhile ago, if I remember correctly, I was just advocating the use of a light armored vehicle for Airborne units. Calling me a "Mike Sparks fanboy" is pretty weird, because I had never even heard the name until that thread. *edit* I'm at a total loss as to what you're talking about with this. The only thread on M113's I've ever posted in, I was talking about Bren Tripods and wash racks.

Seriously, I wasn't trying to offend anyone, but I can see how it would come across that way and apologize. Now, I've had friends, a great many of them, die in humvees and on foot. I'm not going to go around half-cocked at people who talk trash on humvees or LPCs.

[MarkEzra]

Seriously, I wasn't trying to offend anyone, but I can see how it would come across that way and apologize. Now, I've had friends, a great many of them, die in humvees and on foot. I'm not going to go around half-cocked at people who talk trash on humvees or LPCs.

Well said. Thanks for your service

[JonS]

I think there is a good argument for armored wheeled vehicles, I just wouldn't want to ride around in one.

What's a HUMMV? :confused:

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Clavicula_Nox]

What's a HUMMV? :confused:

Good eye, but I was talking more about Strykers and similar vehicles.

[StrykerPSG]

Yeah, Tracked vs Wheeled has been raging for some time. On another forum, I was discussing the Army's old M8 and comparing / contrasting with the Stryker. I think there is a good argument for armored wheeled vehicles, I just wouldn't want to ride around in one.

The M8 was a great idea, in my opinion, that just lost momentum because of the introduction of the Stryker and the possibility of the MGS, let's call it redundancy of systems if introduced. I too, thought the M8 had great potential and should have been investigated further, however, not in the decision making process.

Now, with the Army expanding it's Stryker BCTs (or implying that they will be doing it), do you think that's a wise move? Is Stryker an effective offensive platform against a conventional force more effective than Iraq? I honestly don't know; I'll check the link out in a bit.

I think the Stryker has a niche role within the army's hierarchy of conflict. I think it is more then capable of holding it's own in light and medium intensity conflicts. However,the higher the intensity of the conflict, the more it should be relegated to exploiting weaker areas due to the lighter armor. It does put more boots on the ground than any other similar asset so can minimise the number of vehicles needed and the logisitical tail associated.

I was promoted to "civilian" last year, but I was in 327th Sig Btn / 35th Sig Bde and USASOC. In the case of Bragg rivalries, I used to live in a barracks next to 82nd soldiers, and we routinely engaged in fisticuffs, and my time in USASOC was generally spent competing with 3rd and 7th group for soldiers and resources.

As a signal soldier, I have no doubt the amount of ribbing you endured from Divisional units, so will leave well enough alone.

Posts on the M113? I barely remember posting something about them awhile ago, if I remember correctly, I was just advocating the use of a light armored vehicle for Airborne units. Calling me a "Mike Sparks fanboy" is pretty weird, because I had never even heard the name until that thread.

As for the Gavin comments, you supported the unofficial name by stating how an old 1SG and others referred to it in such capacity, therefore making the name correct.....etc, basically supporting naming the vehicle after Jumpin Joe, which he deserves, but the originator of that arguement is, well, unique. Most of the fans that jump on his wagon are generally former para's and bring a valid arguement, but they also twist the facts to fit their version of truth without trying to validate both sides of the story.

Seriously, I wasn't trying to offend anyone, but I can see how it would come across that way and apologize. Now, I've had friends, a great many of them, die in humvees and on foot. I'm not going to go around half-cocked at people who talk trash on humvees or LPCs.

Nor would I talk trash with regards to anyone and their efforts to fight a common enemy, regardless of their preference of delivery means. Since you were a signal type, meaning you weren't offered an SBCT assignment at the time, perhaps you didn't know that the original core leaders were mostly taken out of the light/airborne community, including many from 2-75. I think the Army tried rather successfully to not adopt more "death before dismount" mindsets. We routinely conducted monthly 12 milers for everyone, including the supporting units, because if you're vehicle is blown away, you are now an infantryman. We also ensured those same softskill MOS's qualified in the shoot house and ARM.

[StrykerPSG]

Question for StrykerPSG and LT Mike-

IIRC when the Army was first testing the Interim BCT they used LAV III with the 25mm cannon. But when the final choice for the vehicle was made the Styker obviously didnt have a turret. I thought that was rather strange, but what do I know? Just curious on your thoughts about this.

Steve

Steve, we did indeed use the LAVIII with the 25mm, was a fantastic truck! However, the initial arguement for not keeping the 25mm was the turret was too high and would not fit in the C-130. We voiced that a 25mm FSV vehicle would increase the lethality with at least one 25mm per plt, however, it fell on deaf ears.

[JonS]

... the initial arguement for not keeping the 25mm was the turret was too high and would not fit in the C-130. ...

Which is a weird argument to make, since the LAV III with 25mm turret does fit into a C-130.

[StrykerPSG]

Stryker PSG your link doesn't work.

Well, herre is the title at least, apologies for it not working right: Strykers...and Why I thank god I am not Stryker Infantry, started by Guardsman11B

My problem with the Stryker (just personal interest) has always been the cost. As an infantry carrier it's awesome (with the slats). I have my doubts about the wheeled performance in mud and off-road but I only have impressions on that. The vehicle does have a higher ground pressure than any other, and last I checked a lower hp/weight ratio than any other active in US service. But those are minor problems in developed areas.

But how did it get to cost the same as a Bradley? Cost per unit in some studies has exceeded the M2.

I don't disagree the vehicles costs may have been excessive, but was only the guy put in place to execute higher's plan, regardless of the cost, so can't comment. The powerplant has been improved and the vehicle does untilise auto-inflation/deflation to help with the ground pressure, not making a one size fits all, but providing more abilities to climb and negotiate other terrain not normally suitable for wheels.

The old debate, iirc, was mostly about how the M113 could have been upgraded with armor kits and sensors and would be what the Styker is now. Then the cost/unit would be pretty low. Some people don't like tracks but that was never the central argument - the cost was the issue. And just as many people prefer tracks to wheels.

The airlift difficulties with slat cages don't really seem to me a significant problem, either.

Both sides seemed to agree protection and mobility were good enough. It's just that price tag...

I got to briefly use the M113 when I first entered service in 1990 and did love the robustness of the A3. However, it's suspension was no match for the M2/M3 in the cross country arena. I know the original mandate put forth for the interim vehicle was that they wanted wheeled over tracked and that was the main disqualifier for the M113. We were one of the few nations that failed to recognize the benefits of wheeled armored transport. Sure we had the HMMMV, and it's a great truck, but it's very limited as a warfighter.

[StrykerPSG]

Which is a weird argument to make, since the LAV III with 25mm turret does fit into a C-130.

Well, no disagreements, just what GDLS told us. I think the 25mm would have put quite the punch in the SBCT's, allowing them to be more heartier contenders in the medium intensity fight.

[Clavicula_Nox]

The M8 was a great idea, in my opinion, that just lost momentum because of the introduction of the Stryker and the possibility of the MGS, let's call it redundancy of systems if introduced. I too, thought the M8 had great potential and should have been investigated further, however, not in the decision making process.

[\quote]

Just so I'm sure we're talking about the same thing; I meant the WW2 era M8 Greyhound

I think you're right. Do you think that in such conflicts the SBCTs would act as an ad hoc reconnaisance unit? I am unfamiliar with how Regiment is using their Strykers, but is their intended use a mirror of the Marine's LAV battalions?

I don't mind, I was only in a Signal unit for a little over a year. I never changed MOSs, but barely touched anything Signal related after changing MACOMs. Technically, I occupied a signal-mos team leader slot, but the actual signal workload was negligent. I eagerly talk trash about Signal Corps on a daily basis, so seriously, I don't mind.

Now I remember. I actually spent some time during, and after, that thread (I can't remember the title) trying to find the source of the "Gavin" name. I never actually found it, if I remember right.

That's a good training cycle, and I didn't know where the SBCT cadre came from. It's nice to know that my light infantry brethren were there and had an impact.

[Other Means]

Saying Gavin on this forum has become like Blackadder saying "Macbeth".

"The M113..."

"Oh, you mean...the Gavin?"

"Hot potato, off his drawers, pluck to make amends."

I'd have thought the unit cost of a vehicle doesn't really reflect on the - to use the IT phrase - total cost of ownership.

If you've got to put a tracked vehicle in every week for maintenance and the Stryker every month, you'll quickly make up any initial cost differential.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[StrykerPSG]

Just so I'm sure we're talking about the same thing; I meant the WW2 era M8 Greyhound

Here is what I was taking about. 3-73 Armor (ABN) tried them out a few years back.: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-ags.htm

I think you're right. Do you think that in such conflicts the SBCTs would act as an ad hoc reconnaisance unit? I am unfamiliar with how Regiment is using their Strykers, but is their intended use a mirror of the Marine's LAV battalions?

I think the SBCT's are equipped with some of the finest recon assets available. While the recon equipment is not exclusive to the SBCTs, it seems to be disproportionately higher, giving them better situational awareness then a BDE with less assets. I am not sure how the Marines use their LAV's within their organization, but can tell you without hesitation, the Rangers love em too.

Now I remember. I actually spent some time during, and after, that thread (I can't remember the title) trying to find the source of the "Gavin" name. I never actually found it, if I remember right.

Here's another link for you. Be forewarned, if you have never visited the site as you stated, the originator, to remain nameless, is a bit on the wild side of reality. He has some valid points, but refuses to acknowledge the goodness of both designs.

http://www.combatreform.com/m113combat.htm

Anyway, glad I could help direct you onto a more informed path of enlightenment.. : )

[Clavicula_Nox]

Yeah, AIR are definitely missing a vehicle heavier than a humvee, I won't argue that. What always seemed weird to me was that the Army dropped the Sheridan..but never replaced it; that always seemed to run counter to the Army mindset.

I think the SBCT's are equipped with some of the finest recon assets available. While the recon equipment is not exclusive to the SBCTs, it seems to be disproportionately higher, giving them better situational awareness then a BDE with less assets. I am not sure how the Marines use their LAV's within their organization, but can tell you without hesitation, the Rangers love em too.

Have they been fielded in the Ranger regiment? Last I knew it was a new acquisition, and was being met with some difficulty (such as not slotting Stryker mechanics). I misspoke when I said LAV battalions, but I meant the Marine Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalions.

Here's another link for you. Be forewarned, if you have never visited the site as you stated, the originator, to remain nameless, is a bit on the wild side of reality. He has some valid points, but refuses to acknowledge the goodness of both designs.

http://www.combatreform.com/m113combat.htm

Anyway, glad I could help direct you onto a more informed path of enlightenment.. : )

Wow.

I recognized the name, and I think I read an article about reversible camouflage uniforms before, but that M113 article is insane. The M113 is supposed to be "the greatest armored fighting vehicle of all time. Ever." ? Seriously?

[MikeyD]

What always seemed weird to me was that the Army dropped the Sheridan

Ever since the early 50s the Pentagon's attempt to field a light tank (or light tank equivalent) has been a comedy of errors - the Sheirdan included. The thick Hunnicutt reference book "Sheridan" is a catalog of design & acquisition horrors!

I read recently that the Army's replacing its M707 recon humvees. They're using the beefier M1114 AC chassis.

I wonder what's going to happen to the Humvee production line with the recent auto industry troubles. I hear 'HUMMER' brand might be purchased by the Chinese!

[StrykerPSG]

Which is a weird argument to make, since the LAV III with 25mm turret does fit into a C-130.

Jon, welcome back. Haven't seen you in a while. Sorry, forgot to add that earlier. Anyway, ironically enough, the MGS with it's 105mm turret is actually taller then the 25mm turret, as is the RWS when setup into operation.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Ever since the early 50s the Pentagon's attempt to field a light tank (or light tank equivalent) has been a comedy of errors - the Sheirdan included. The thick Hunnicutt reference book "Sheridan" is a catalog of design & acquisition horrors!

I read recently that the Army's replacing its M707 recon humvees. They're using the beefier M1114 AC chassis.

I wonder what's going to happen to the Humvee production line with the recent auto industry troubles. I hear 'HUMMER' brand might be purchased by the Chinese!

I don't know any of the history, I just think the Airborne could use a "light armored vehicle" bigger than a humvee. Heck, make it have multiple gun platforms like the Stryker; make MG, Recon, TOW, and whateverelse variants.

[Yardstick]

Have they been fielded in the Ranger regiment? Last I knew it was a new acquisition, and was being met with some difficulty (such as not slotting Stryker mechanics). I misspoke when I said LAV battalions, but I meant the Marine Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalions.

2/75 has been rolling in them for at least two years.

[Clavicula_Nox]

2/75 has been rolling in them for at least two years.

I meant "have they been deployed", sorry, I really don't know. I never paid much attention to what Regiment did once I realized I wasn't going there after graduation. I also didn't know they've had them that long, I didn't become aware of it until a couple months ago when I read in Army Times they had "recently acquired X amount of Strykers". Though "recently" in this context could be anything under 10 years, I suppose.

Since Regiment is transitioning to 6-man squads, how does that impact their Stryker fleet?