Reactive Armor for Strykers in 2010:

[Apocalypse 31]

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

I know that 3-2 SBCT (the first SBCT) actually used the FUCHS (Fox) vehicle for testing.

StrykerPSG prob knows about that :-)

[StrykerPSG]

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?

Haven't heard anything about 6 man squads, but they love them and yes, they have been deployed for years. What ranger class were you in, may have actually known your RI?

[Clavicula_Nox]

Haven't heard anything about 6 man squads, but they love them and yes, they have been deployed for years. What ranger class were you in, may have actually known your RI?

I was in 07-04.

Regiment is changing to 6 man squads to fill out slots for the additional companies that have been added to each battalion. It's kind of bizarre, if you ask me, but that's what they're doing.

[StrykerPSG]

I know that 3-2 SBCT (the first SBCT) actually used the FUCHS (Fox) vehicle for testing.

StrykerPSG prob knows about that :-)

We did indeed use the Fuchs, matter of fact, we couldn't pry your former PSG out of it when they were being sent back to Germany. Fuchs wasn't very good tactically, but was hecka comfy up front and had a great frontal compartment view.

[StrykerPSG]

I was in 07-04.

Regiment is changing to 6 man squads to fill out slots for the additional companies that have been added to each battalion. It's kind of bizarre, if you ask me, but that's what they're doing.

I don't believe this to be permanent, but just an adjustment until they have filled such slots. It happened with all of the newer BCT's formed.

As for your class, MSG Harris or SFC Rouse ring a bell?

[Clavicula_Nox]

I was in 07-04.

Regiment is changing to 6 man squads to fill out slots for the additional companies that have been added to each battalion. It's kind of bizarre, if you ask me, but that's what they're doing.

Meant to add:

The RIs who made the biggest impact on me were a SSG Sands, SSG Teller, and SSG Sims. The rest, like most of my drill sergeants, I don't remember names, just mannerisms, and or their "douche bag factor".

Funny thing about SSG Sims, Sims has to be one of the most common names in the Army. I knew 3 different male "SSG Sims", a female "SGT Sims", a male "CSM Sims" and a female "SGM Sims", and of those, only 2 were related (a father and son).

I don't believe this to be permanent, but just an adjustment until they have filled such slots. It happened with all of the newer BCT's formed.

As for your class, MSG Harris or SFC Rouse ring a bell?

Well, if it's temporary, then that lets me breath a sigh of relief. I figured it had something to do with the fact that not everyone graduates from RIP and filling those companies could take some time.

I don't remember the names, but I probably should. I have an extremely poor memory due to a deployment injury I've posted about a couple of times before and carry a portable audio recorder around with me to help. For example, I can only remember the names of 4 of my drill sergeant s(out of 12 in basic, and a comparable number in AIT). I have problems remembering my first 1SG, and the only thing I remember about my first PSG was that he was a tool and that his last name was Marshall.

[StrykerPSG]

Meant to add:

The RIs who made the biggest impact on me were a SSG Sands, SSG Teller, and SSG Sims. The rest, like most of my drill sergeants, I don't remember names, just mannerisms, and or their "douche bag factor".

I don't remember the names, but I probably should. I have an extremely poor memory due to a deployment injury I've posted about a couple of times before and carry a portable audio recorder around with me to help. For example, I can only remember the names of 4 of my drill sergeant s(out of 12 in basic, and a comparable number in AIT). I have problems remembering my first 1SG, and the only thing I remember about my first PSG was that he was a tool and that his last name was Marshall.

Sorry, don't know any Teller or Sands, Sims possibly, but as you stated, a fairly common name, though not a SSG. Too bad about the short term memory loss, used a similar technique for my Soldiers with the digital voice recorders.

Anyway, didn't mean to diverge onto another thread regarding ranger school, just the army is a small enough world that once you have made it into the senior ranks, that world becomes even smaller.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Sorry, don't know any Teller or Sands, Sims possibly, but as you stated, a fairly common name, though not a SSG. Too bad about the short term memory loss, used a similar technique for my Soldiers with the digital voice recorders.

Anyway, didn't mean to diverge onto another thread regarding ranger school, just the army is a small enough world that once you have made it into the senior ranks, that world becomes even smaller.

Yeah, I know. The "Small Army" syndrome hit me all the time. I knew SNCOs who would talk about "Private" or "Specialist" So and So, but I knew them as "SFC" or "1SG" So and So.

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry... a bit late getting back to this.

Remember that one of the critical arguments for wheeled vs. armored is the logistics tail requirements and in-theater redeployment. It is a fact, and I mean a big and indisputable fact, that wheeled armor uses less fuel, lubricants, spare parts, and major overhauls for equal numbers of miles traveled compared to tracked armor. To support tracked armor you therefore need more personnel, more storage/facilities, more vehicles to move stuff around, more logistics headaches, etc. That stuff has to be bought/trained, paid wages, housed, deployed, fueled/fed, supplied, protected, and moved around.

Wheeled armor is also, again without any question, cheaper to maintain over their lifespan for this very reason. So even if the acquisition cost of a Stryker isn't as low as we would like it to be compared to a M113 or Bradley, it's lifetime cost is dramatically lower. Plus, when figuring out the cost of a Bradley you have to include its R&D costs compared to the Stryker's. With the massive problems the Bradley program had, partly because it was new and partly because it was a major FUBAR, the Stryker program by comparison was not bad. Plus, it was EXTREMELY quick. Something like 4 years from inception to first combat deployment. That's something that hasn't been seen since WW2. Whether the M113 could have been the same or better is questionable. In theory it could, but in theory the Stryker should have been easier and cheaper to acquire. Remember, when the Beltway Bandits get involved a good idea goes from 60 to 0 before it goes from 0 to 45 (which is still 15 below the contract specifications ).

As for deployability, it's without a question of a doubt that the Strykers are more deployable vehicle for vehicle compared to the Bradley (or a M113). Again, it's not just the physical weight and size of the vehicle, it's also all the logistics stuff that has to go along for the ride. Remember Task Force Hawk!

Within theater the wheeled armor is, once again no question, more flexible in terms of capability to be somewhere far away in a hurry. In Iraq a Stryker based task force made something like a 300 mile redeployment out of Mosul (I'd have to look up the details) under its own power in record breaking time. It went into combat almost immediately upon arrival. There was a company of Bradely infantry that went along too, but they had to be loaded up on transporters and the infantry stuck into trucks because the Brads (not to mention the poor sods in back) wouldn't have made such a road march in condition to go right into combat ops.

The designers of SBCT doctrine also acknowledge, and always understood, that the SBCT is not a universal tool. It's funny to see how quickly critics of SBCTs ignore something called "combined arms" when pointing out that putting a SBCT up against a full up enemy mech force with heavy tank support isn't optimal. No kidding Just like having the 101st Airborne fighting in Bastone against wasn't optimal. But it's amazing what can be done when it's necessary. Still, it's true that you wouldn't want to deliberately put an SBCT in the path of an armor heavy adversary. Just like you wouldn't want to put an HBCT against a lightly armed fighters in the mountains of some country like, oh... I dunno... Afghanistan comes to mind Hmmm... so no one BCT is good at everything all the time in every situation? Shocking Plus, if you do need to be someplace within a couple of days and have a few thousand highly armed and capable soldiers in place with the basics to take on anything... if you want an HBCT in place you'd better hope is forward deployed already.

Now, as with every post I've made about Strykers in the past 4 years or so... a few caveats. I am not saying that wheeled armor is the only thing that should be on the battlefield, nor am I saying that the Stryker is the best possible vehicle for whatever challenges are out there on the battlefield. It isn't and it's not. But it's a damned fine compliment to our previously Light and Heavy tools in the 'ol toolbox. And the performance of SBCTs in Iraq has shown there utility in at least COIN ops in largely urbanized areas. Which is a good thing since that's going to be on the menu for a long time to come.

Steve

[StrykerPSG]

Sorry... a bit late getting back to this.

Remember that one of the critical arguments for wheeled vs. armored is the logistics tail requirements and in-theater redeployment. It is a fact, and I mean a big and indisputable fact, that wheeled armor uses less fuel, lubricants, spare parts, and major overhauls for equal numbers of miles traveled compared to tracked armor. To support tracked armor you therefore need more personnel, more storage/facilities, more vehicles to move stuff around, more logistics headaches, etc. That stuff has to be bought/trained, paid wages, housed, deployed, fueled/fed, supplied, protected, and moved around.

Wheeled armor is also, again without any question, cheaper to maintain over their lifespan for this very reason. So even if the acquisition cost of a Stryker isn't as low as we would like it to be compared to a M113 or Bradley, it's lifetime cost is dramatically lower. Plus, when figuring out the cost of a Bradley you have to include its R&D costs compared to the Stryker's. With the massive problems the Bradley program had, partly because it was new and partly because it was a major FUBAR, the Stryker program by comparison was not bad. Plus, it was EXTREMELY quick. Something like 4 years from inception to first combat deployment. That's something that hasn't been seen since WW2. Whether the M113 could have been the same or better is questionable. In theory it could, but in theory the Stryker should have been easier and cheaper to acquire. Remember, when the Beltway Bandits get involved a good idea goes from 60 to 0 before it goes from 0 to 45 (which is still 15 below the contract specifications ).

As for deployability, it's without a question of a doubt that the Strykers are more deployable vehicle for vehicle compared to the Bradley (or a M113). Again, it's not just the physical weight and size of the vehicle, it's also all the logistics stuff that has to go along for the ride. Remember Task Force Hawk!

Within theater the wheeled armor is, once again no question, more flexible in terms of capability to be somewhere far away in a hurry. In Iraq a Stryker based task force made something like a 300 mile redeployment out of Mosul (I'd have to look up the details) under its own power in record breaking time. It went into combat almost immediately upon arrival. There was a company of Bradely infantry that went along too, but they had to be loaded up on transporters and the infantry stuck into trucks because the Brads (not to mention the poor sods in back) wouldn't have made such a road march in condition to go right into combat ops.

The designers of SBCT doctrine also acknowledge, and always understood, that the SBCT is not a universal tool. It's funny to see how quickly critics of SBCTs ignore something called "combined arms" when pointing out that putting a SBCT up against a full up enemy mech force with heavy tank support isn't optimal. No kidding Just like having the 101st Airborne fighting in Bastone against wasn't optimal. But it's amazing what can be done when it's necessary. Still, it's true that you wouldn't want to deliberately put an SBCT in the path of an armor heavy adversary. Just like you wouldn't want to put an HBCT against a lightly armed fighters in the mountains of some country like, oh... I dunno... Afghanistan comes to mind Hmmm... so no one BCT is good at everything all the time in every situation? Shocking Plus, if you do need to be someplace within a couple of days and have a few thousand highly armed and capable soldiers in place with the basics to take on anything... if you want an HBCT in place you'd better hope is forward deployed already.

Now, as with every post I've made about Strykers in the past 4 years or so... a few caveats. I am not saying that wheeled armor is the only thing that should be on the battlefield, nor am I saying that the Stryker is the best possible vehicle for whatever challenges are out there on the battlefield. It isn't and it's not. But it's a damned fine compliment to our previously Light and Heavy tools in the 'ol toolbox. And the performance of SBCTs in Iraq has shown there utility in at least COIN ops in largely urbanized areas. Which is a good thing since that's going to be on the menu for a long time to come.

Steve

Wow Steve! For showing up late to the show, you sure pack one heck of a whallup! I couldn't have summed it up better than that if I tried. Thanks Steve, for believing in the SBCT's strengths enough to design a great game around them and for being such an outspoken advocate of all sides, a true porfessional. Hooah!

Matt

[akd]

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.

Perhaps the ATK LW25 (Lightweight Bushmaster) on the PAWS mount will provide a solution that makes everyone happy.

http://www.atk.com/customer_solutions_armamentsystems/cs_as_gs_25mm_LW.asp

[StrykerPSG]

Perhaps the ATK LW25 (Lightweight Bushmaster) on the PAWS mount will provide a solution that makes everyone happy.

http://www.atk.com/customer_solutions_armamentsystems/cs_as_gs_25mm_LW.asp

Whoa, what an improvement over the original! Good find akd.

[MikeyD]

Since the topic of MGS came up, can anybody give an update on how the deployment's going? January '08 the vehicle got pretty thoroughly stomped on. Pentagon tests rated it 'combat ineffective', mostly due - it appears - to the interior overheating and cooking both the crew and the electronics. What fixes were implimented for the troubles, besides keeping them parked during the sumer months?

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks StrykerPSG. I try It's definitely difficult to be a supporter of something new without being perceived as a "cheer leader". I'm definitely not because that would mean thinking everything other than SBCT isn't worth cheering about. Which is absolutely not the case. Combined arms doesn't work if you don't have anything to combine But I'm a historian first and foremost... and the historian in me, looking back into time and forwards, sees the need for rapidly deployable medium weight forces. Just look at Desert Shield, Bosnia, Kosovo, OIF, and even current ops in Afghanistan to see why.

A friend of mine worked on the ATK project. Didn't go anywhere. Here's the main reason why...

Logistics

The problem with the 25mm gun is that in order for it to be effective it needs ammo. Right? Right 25mm ammo is heavy, bulky to ship/store, and takes up a lot of space in a vehicle. The whole point of SBCT is to make sure it's mobile and has a light footprint. Weighing it down (literally) and increasing the size/scope of logistics with 25mm ammo instead of .50 cal was seen as counter productive. They calculated the actual increase in firepower was decreased by the limitations of keeping that firepower supplied. In other words, for the intended role of the Strykers (i.e. supporting fire) it was deemed more important to have quantity of ammo than hitting power:

.50 cal = 117.48 g

25mm = 501 g

You can have 4 times as many .50 cal rounds as 25mm. If your primary role is to suppress enemy forces, with the possibility of limited resupply, I think most people would opt for the .50. Plus, how many different places can a Stryker go to get more .50 cal ammo when at the tip of a spear? Plenty. How many places can it go to get 25mm? Far fewer.

The Stryker and SBCT designers have been VERY careful to avoid "mission creep". SBCT is a medium force designed with specific capabilities. Making it heavier or lighter runs the risk of causing it to fail to meet its intended capabilities. So on this one I side with powers that be for keeping the 25mm off the Stryker.

Now, if someone granted me a magical wish to shoot up an enemy force with either weapon, supplied with plenty of ammo, the choice might be different. But that's not the sort of choice I'd expect to have in most combat environments

Steve

[Guest]

Hmm. Seems like the round selection on the LW25 would have been a great feature, and if spread across all vehicles in a Stryker platoon (as a replacement for both the 40mm and the .50) the ammunition issue would have been somewhat ameliorated. I've only read the "super happy brochures" about it, though (you know, the ones where it will replace every weapons system ever). How is the 25mm round's lethality versus the 40mm? Night and day?

[akd]

A friend of mine worked on the ATK project. Didn't go anywhere. Here's the main reason why...

Logistics

The problem with the 25mm gun is that in order for it to be effective it needs ammo. Right? Right 25mm ammo is heavy, bulky to ship/store, and takes up a lot of space in a vehicle. The whole point of SBCT is to make sure it's mobile and has a light footprint. Weighing it down (literally) and increasing the size/scope of logistics with 25mm ammo instead of .50 cal was seen as counter productive. They calculated the actual increase in firepower was decreased by the limitations of keeping that firepower supplied. In other words, for the intended role of the Strykers (i.e. supporting fire) it was deemed more important to have quantity of ammo than hitting power:

.50 cal = 117.48 g

25mm = 501 g

You can have 4 times as many .50 cal rounds as 25mm. If your primary role is to suppress enemy forces, with the possibility of limited resupply, I think most people would opt for the .50. Plus, how many different places can a Stryker go to get more .50 cal ammo when at the tip of a spear? Plenty. How many places can it go to get 25mm? Far fewer.

The Stryker and SBCT designers have been VERY careful to avoid "mission creep". SBCT is a medium force designed with specific capabilities. Making it heavier or lighter runs the risk of causing it to fail to meet its intended capabilities. So on this one I side with powers that be for keeping the 25mm off the Stryker.

Now, if someone granted me a magical wish to shoot up an enemy force with either weapon, supplied with plenty of ammo, the choice might be different. But that's not the sort of choice I'd expect to have in most combat environments

Steve

Steve,

I'm pretty certain you are listing the weight for 25x137mm ammunition (M242). LW25 Bushmaster uses 25x59mm ammunition (originally for the XM307 program, which was cut). While I can't find a weight for the cartridge, I'm almost certain the cartridge does not weigh more than Mk.19 40mm ammo, maybe even significantly less. This is really more a grenade than a cannon cartridge, but with more advanced ammo, more range, better accuracy and flatter trajectory than 40mm. The LW25 gun itself weighs in at 68 lbs, compared to 72.5 lbs. for the Mk.19 and 84 lbs. for the M2. ATK says the whole system (with the PAWS remote mount and ammo) is light enough to put on a Humvee.

I don't think this project has been abandoned by ATK unless that just happened. I was reading about the system in a report on the 2008 AUSA show.

[StrykerPSG]

Hmm. Seems like the round selection on the LW25 would have been a great feature, and if spread across all vehicles in a Stryker platoon (as a replacement for both the 40mm and the .50) the ammunition issue would have been somewhat ameliorated. I've only read the "super happy brochures" about it, though (you know, the ones where it will replace every weapons system ever). How is the 25mm round's lethality versus the 40mm? Night and day?

You know, when we played with the 25mm armed LAVIII's from Canada, they had much potential to be a great support by fire vehicle. I cannot for the life of me figure out why that is such a difficult concept for the Army to swallow. I don't need all four vehicles per platoon with 25mm, but one per would be fantastic and greatly compliment the MGS. I really like this new 25mm and hopes they may re-consider a SBF vehicle per platoon. The one thing I don't like about the Kongsberg mount is the way we feed the weapon system. The ammo can is very limited in capacity, though with the optics, it doesn't burn through ammo like a pintle mount.

With regards to Steve's comment about the ammo logisitics tail and the fewer rounds per vehicle makes sense, but I still think it is not much different then putting the MGS into the fray with it's 105mm ammo. Besides, most of the units I know would love to be rid of the 40mm. It's very limited in it's functionality in the cities, though doesn't have the concern about collateral damages as the .50 does. Afghanistan may change their views on the 40mm, but why not just replace the 40mm with that 25mm LWS? I am betting the ammo footprint would be about the same.

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

Ah, sorry about that! I didn't look closely enough. The 25mm system I was referring to was basically a chopped down version of what's in the Bradley. In other words, a cannon and not a grenade launcher. ATK was the one behind that project as well and last time I read about it several years ago it was deader than a Do-Do. The reincarnation of the XM307 is a different thing completely.

As StrykerPSG mentioned... the Mk19 is not held in high regard. Supposedly the German HK AGL now being fielded by a number of armies is a much better. Supposedly US forces are ditching the M203 launchers for HK's under barrel launcher. The designation was assigned as M302, but I've heard nothing about the transition for a year or so. IIRC it was supposed to start this year.

The ATK 25mm airburst round is a really interesting innovation. I can see why someone would want to swap out the Mk19 for something that has more capability with almost the same logistics footprint.

As for the 105mm rounds for the MGS... that was a snake oil salesman job if there ever was one. "Let's use this off the shelf round so we can save money". Oooops... someone forgot to mention that the rounds aren't made within the US any more and we have to import them from Belgium (IIRC). Doh!

I think the MGS should have had a smaller caliber gun so they could get more rounds and less problems. I'm sure they could have cooked up something in the 75mm range that could offer a similar capability to the 105mm. The massive problems with the MGS development might also have been avoided, thus offsetting the cost and delay of producing a new weapon. But that's just me, the armchair procurement officer

Steve

[c3k]

I was of the opinion (with NO empirical reasoning) that a breech loading 120mm direct-fire mortar would've been better than the 105mm on the MGS. Common round, MUCH less recoil energy, MUCH more HE capacity on the target.

Doesn't someone have an autoloading 120mm?

Ken

[YankeeDog]

Patria makes a breech-loading 120mm mortar system. It's actually available in both a single and double-barrel turret. And I agree that this system, or something like it, would have been an excellent choice for the Stryker over the 105mm.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Patria system is that its designed to be tactically adept at both direct and indirect fire. So it could potentially replace both the MGS and the 120mm mortar Strykers, reducing the total number of model types and ammo types, while also providing greater tactical flexibility.

Overall, I think the choice of the 105 had more to do with what was immediately available in surplus stocks, than what was the best weapons system for the job.

[gunnersman]

As I said a page or two ago... part of the purpose of the slat armor is to bang up the round prior to it hitting the main armor. Any deformation of the round before it gets to the main armor helps in different ways depending on what is being slung at it.

The problem is that something like an RPG-29 doesn't really care. It's so f'n overmatched for anything other than a top of the line tank (and even then it's pretty damned good) there's really no chance of defeating the round. Even ERA won't help if the PRG-29V round is used since it is a tandem warhead round.

Steve

I've never understood how a tandem warhead could defeat slat armor. If slat armor stops the first part of the tandem warhead, wouldn't it defeat the second stage as well?

I could not find anything definitive on the internet. But the best I can tell is that the first stage would have to completely blow open the slat armor making a gap big enough for the second stage of the tandem warhead to pass through and onto the hull of it's intended target.

[flamingknives]

The first bit of the tandem warhead will have blown a hole through the slat armour through which the jet of the second will pass. As it's just the jet, the hole doesn't need to be very big

[gunnersman]

The first bit of the tandem warhead will have blown a hole through the slat armour through which the jet of the second will pass. As it's just the jet, the hole doesn't need to be very big

That is still a long distance the jet has to cross before reaching the hull.

[YankeeDog]

Shaped charge warheads have come a long way since WWII, and modern ones have a penetration jet that can stay focused and coherent for over a meter. Since the Stryker is only very lightly armored, this means that the slat cage would have to be over a meter away from the main hull to provide any real protection from shaped charge warheads via any kind of stand-off effect.

It is possible that the slat cage could still protect against the shaped charge by other means, such as deforming the warhead prior to detonation. Even a slight deformation of the cone prior to detonation dramatically reduces the penetration capability of a shaped charge warhead. To do this to a tandem-charge warhead, though, the slat cage would have to somehow deform the primary warhead, even though relatively small initial warhead would be what was making actual contact with the slat cage. Not impossible, I suppose, but I've never heard of any effect like this.

[MikeyD]

slat cage would have to be over a meter away from the main hull

The distance between the cage and hull is not inconsiderable. You've got to remember what you're looking at it almost the size of a school bus. I've seen an old photo of a soldier standing in the gap!