Manic Moran
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 28
Was linked to this thread from another forum. Methinks Mr rmgill is quite correct, and I thought I'd give him a little support, although most everything I could say has been said already.
Most of the criticism of the vehicle has come from the Heavy Armour Mafia. If it's not as heavily armoured and armed as a Bradley or a Tank, it cannot be as good. Well, I'm a tanker. I love my tank. I also think that Strykers are a fantastic vehicle, having both worked with them in Iraq, and just using my noggin about it a bit. Would I trade my tank for an MGS? No. Then again, I'm not of the infantry mentality. I just -enjoy- tanking, and the rush of being the 'baddest boy on the block'. When I'm able to reach the block, at least. Those who gravitate towards infantry units, which is exactly what Stryker teams are, will have a slightly different mentality. Thus, on this issue, my preference is completely irrelevant!
Just going back a point or two...
Vern, you are equating low profile with depression ability which while the two are usually related (Max depression is most usually limited by a combination of size of the breech meeting the height of the roof. The higher the roof, the more ability there is to depress the gun, thus the less need to drive up to the crest of the hill to reduce hull superelevations thus and less need to expose yourself) is a false equation. There are other ways around it. For example, on the mentioned S-tank (Which I would categorise as a tank, not an assault gun, by role), as the gun was totally fixed to the hull with not even a recoil mechanism, that limitation of turret roof doesn't apply. Depression is limited solely by the ability of the suspension to raise/lower the vehicle. This can be combined with a conventional elevation system: I would lay serious money that the later Japanese tanks (Type 74 and Type 90) with their combination of hydropneumatic suspension and conventional trunnion mounting have the greatest depression ability of any tank, regardless of the relative overall height profile of the vehicle. http://fortus.hp.infoseek.co.jp/tank/jgsdf2902_lg.JPG. The M1's max depression of 10 degrees, which is quite excellent by modern standards is equalled by the S-tank's fixed gun at only half the height profile. http://www.gf81.com.cn/16/images/tank-strv.jpg
I have no issue with autoloaders, I'm willing to wager that the reason most Western countries still use manual loaders is simply inertia.
Yes, there are places that tracks can go that wheeled can't. Believe it or not, I've also seen tracked vehicles immobilised where 8x8s have been able to claw out. (The problem with tracks is that they have no directional control. Either one track goes straight forward, or both do, but the first four wheels of an 8x8 can provide angular pull). The difference really is pretty minimal. And you have the issue of mobility kills: A small charge or obstruction is enough to immobilise a tank track. I've seen (with my own eyes) a Stryker take a car bomb and just keep on rolling with a couple of flat tyres. Tactical mobility is only slightly in favour of tracks overall.
Someone asked about travelling at 40mph. Maybe it doesn't happen so often in conventional warfare, but it is happening in Iraq. Strykers can do it. My tank can do it. I did a high-speed chase of an Opel Kadett once. The difference is that my tank could only do it for a brief run, if I kept it up, the track would probably fall apart. The operational mobility of a wheeled vehicle is far superior than a tracked vehicle. In terms of getting around in theater, getting to the fight, a wheeled vehicle will win hands down, even if it has to go around a bog or sand pit that a tank can go straight through. This is an issue not just for the current low-intensity ops, but also any conventional fight.
Maintenance is hands-down also in favour of the Strykers. Pull track maintenance on a tank, compare it with truck maintenance on a Stryker. Even simple logisitical support like fuel and spare parts is simpler with an SBCT: Remember, you're not just flying in the vehicles, you're flying in all the fuel, grease, oil, and maintenance supplies as well. Which is another issue when comparing something like a LAV-25 to a Stryker ICV: The primary weapon of a Stryker unit is an infantry squad. (Do not two squads constitute a section, by the way? Two tanks are a section in the US Army). It takes two LAV-25s to transport the same amount of troops as a single Stryker ICV. Which means that the Stryker unit only needs to transport half the vehicles, half the fuel, and half the spare parts.
I have to go before I complete my rant (I'm late for the pub), but basically, if you look at the Stryker from what it's supposed to do, not from what a tank is supposed to do, it's very hard to find it lacking. There is no vehicle in the US inventory that can do the job a Stryker is doing in Iraq as well as it is doing it, and I don't think that there's any vehicle in the US inventory that can fulfill the rapid deployment of operationally survivable infantry as well as Stryker can either. I also have yet to meet a Stryker soldier who doesn't love the vehicle.
NTM
Most of the criticism of the vehicle has come from the Heavy Armour Mafia. If it's not as heavily armoured and armed as a Bradley or a Tank, it cannot be as good. Well, I'm a tanker. I love my tank. I also think that Strykers are a fantastic vehicle, having both worked with them in Iraq, and just using my noggin about it a bit. Would I trade my tank for an MGS? No. Then again, I'm not of the infantry mentality. I just -enjoy- tanking, and the rush of being the 'baddest boy on the block'. When I'm able to reach the block, at least. Those who gravitate towards infantry units, which is exactly what Stryker teams are, will have a slightly different mentality. Thus, on this issue, my preference is completely irrelevant!
Just going back a point or two...
Vern, you are equating low profile with depression ability which while the two are usually related (Max depression is most usually limited by a combination of size of the breech meeting the height of the roof. The higher the roof, the more ability there is to depress the gun, thus the less need to drive up to the crest of the hill to reduce hull superelevations thus and less need to expose yourself) is a false equation. There are other ways around it. For example, on the mentioned S-tank (Which I would categorise as a tank, not an assault gun, by role), as the gun was totally fixed to the hull with not even a recoil mechanism, that limitation of turret roof doesn't apply. Depression is limited solely by the ability of the suspension to raise/lower the vehicle. This can be combined with a conventional elevation system: I would lay serious money that the later Japanese tanks (Type 74 and Type 90) with their combination of hydropneumatic suspension and conventional trunnion mounting have the greatest depression ability of any tank, regardless of the relative overall height profile of the vehicle. http://fortus.hp.infoseek.co.jp/tank/jgsdf2902_lg.JPG. The M1's max depression of 10 degrees, which is quite excellent by modern standards is equalled by the S-tank's fixed gun at only half the height profile. http://www.gf81.com.cn/16/images/tank-strv.jpg
I have no issue with autoloaders, I'm willing to wager that the reason most Western countries still use manual loaders is simply inertia.
Yes, there are places that tracks can go that wheeled can't. Believe it or not, I've also seen tracked vehicles immobilised where 8x8s have been able to claw out. (The problem with tracks is that they have no directional control. Either one track goes straight forward, or both do, but the first four wheels of an 8x8 can provide angular pull). The difference really is pretty minimal. And you have the issue of mobility kills: A small charge or obstruction is enough to immobilise a tank track. I've seen (with my own eyes) a Stryker take a car bomb and just keep on rolling with a couple of flat tyres. Tactical mobility is only slightly in favour of tracks overall.
Someone asked about travelling at 40mph. Maybe it doesn't happen so often in conventional warfare, but it is happening in Iraq. Strykers can do it. My tank can do it. I did a high-speed chase of an Opel Kadett once. The difference is that my tank could only do it for a brief run, if I kept it up, the track would probably fall apart. The operational mobility of a wheeled vehicle is far superior than a tracked vehicle. In terms of getting around in theater, getting to the fight, a wheeled vehicle will win hands down, even if it has to go around a bog or sand pit that a tank can go straight through. This is an issue not just for the current low-intensity ops, but also any conventional fight.
Maintenance is hands-down also in favour of the Strykers. Pull track maintenance on a tank, compare it with truck maintenance on a Stryker. Even simple logisitical support like fuel and spare parts is simpler with an SBCT: Remember, you're not just flying in the vehicles, you're flying in all the fuel, grease, oil, and maintenance supplies as well. Which is another issue when comparing something like a LAV-25 to a Stryker ICV: The primary weapon of a Stryker unit is an infantry squad. (Do not two squads constitute a section, by the way? Two tanks are a section in the US Army). It takes two LAV-25s to transport the same amount of troops as a single Stryker ICV. Which means that the Stryker unit only needs to transport half the vehicles, half the fuel, and half the spare parts.
I have to go before I complete my rant (I'm late for the pub), but basically, if you look at the Stryker from what it's supposed to do, not from what a tank is supposed to do, it's very hard to find it lacking. There is no vehicle in the US inventory that can do the job a Stryker is doing in Iraq as well as it is doing it, and I don't think that there's any vehicle in the US inventory that can fulfill the rapid deployment of operationally survivable infantry as well as Stryker can either. I also have yet to meet a Stryker soldier who doesn't love the vehicle.
NTM
Last edited:
