Vern Humphrey
Member
Back to old Bob Sunnell's study. The most expensive part of the vehicle is the crew. In the long run, the cheapest armored fighting vehicle is the one with the best crew protection.
Last Stryker variant unveiled - with BIG gun!
- Thread starter Preacherman
- Start date
- Status
pcf
Member
The closest I've ever been to a 105mm gun was 1500 feet overhead. Around 155mm Artillery pieces and Abrahams tanks firing 50ft away will pound your body and brain, but they won't fry you and certainly won't take you out of the fight.
Strykers have been in Iraq for a while and they've been doing a hell of a job. The issues some of you raise have been proven to be non issues in combat.
For the Stryker naysayers, do you have any complaints that haven't originated from Mike Sparks' 1st Tactical Studies Group or are you going to keep reiterating his baseless arguments?
A Bunch of you are running off on some points I've seen covered handily over on Tank Net. (http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?act=idx)
First thing, the stryker brings good old cheap gun tube weapon into the mix that's been missing in the light infantry tactics that the strykers are meat to bolster. One of the Marines on Tank.net (E5Mike) was wishing he had a 70-105mm type HE weapon for his use in Iraq on his last deployment. He kept looking for a way to snag some ex-soviet weapons or rockets for a cheap easy to shoot weapon that wouldn't cost a million dollars a shot. Good cheap HE that you can put several rounds through a window with are useful in that environment. Plus you can mix round types. HESH, HEAT APDS (or similar) Cannister, Beehive (Different than cannister, Beehive dispenses AFTER a preset time, which is useful at longer ranges) and other fancy rounds like MPAT.
Strykers are meant to be part of the low high mix that is really useful in modern warfare. They're far quieter and the enemy doens't hear you coming a mile away. Very good for patrols. You can't escort a convoy with Bradleys and M1s because they just don't have the sustained road speed. Wheeled vehicles are easier on the logistics trains and use less fuel for miles covered. And as I said, their much quieter signature makes them excellet. Best example is the German Luchs armored recce vehicle. Big 8x8 amphibous vehicle with a little dinky 25mm cannon and 4man crew. They were VERY good at recce inspite of thier size. Several folks I know have been surprised by them in the dark when they were guarding a post and the next thing they knew there was a big armored vehicle in front of them that just sort of ghosted up on them. Now, the strykers aren't as quiet as a luchs, but they're still pretty damn quiet.
Colby Buzzell, one of the first well known bloogers from Iraq seemed to like his. His unit was able to sneak up on insurgents more than a few times because they didn't hear them coming. Had they been in Bradleys, M113s or similar it would have been different. The locals in their area called them the Ghosts because of their stealth in getting up on the insurgents. He's not alone, from what I've read of the folks out there that are using them, they're liking them, a LOT!
Insofar as protection, you're not going to get big protection levels on ANY kind of Armored vehicle that'll shrug off RPGs and the like with out getting into tank level weights. We're talking 50-70 tons. The Israelis have APCs like this that they've made out of old Centurions and Russian T-55 tanks. The achzarit is the T-55 based APC. Bradleys and other vehicles with similar size/protection levels tend to be as heavy as well.
Strkyers are shrugging off some pretty big damage. The worst I've seen is the Stryker that was rolled over and badly damaged by an IED. After it was righted and the tires replaced (they were shredded) it was able to be driven back to the FOB under it's own power. The V-Shaped hull is an advantage for dealing with mines. You don't get that with M113s. Having one family is also simpler on the supply train.
There's more but thats enough for now. I'm gonna go home and work on my own wheeled armored car now.
First thing, the stryker brings good old cheap gun tube weapon into the mix that's been missing in the light infantry tactics that the strykers are meat to bolster. One of the Marines on Tank.net (E5Mike) was wishing he had a 70-105mm type HE weapon for his use in Iraq on his last deployment. He kept looking for a way to snag some ex-soviet weapons or rockets for a cheap easy to shoot weapon that wouldn't cost a million dollars a shot. Good cheap HE that you can put several rounds through a window with are useful in that environment. Plus you can mix round types. HESH, HEAT APDS (or similar) Cannister, Beehive (Different than cannister, Beehive dispenses AFTER a preset time, which is useful at longer ranges) and other fancy rounds like MPAT.
Strykers are meant to be part of the low high mix that is really useful in modern warfare. They're far quieter and the enemy doens't hear you coming a mile away. Very good for patrols. You can't escort a convoy with Bradleys and M1s because they just don't have the sustained road speed. Wheeled vehicles are easier on the logistics trains and use less fuel for miles covered. And as I said, their much quieter signature makes them excellet. Best example is the German Luchs armored recce vehicle. Big 8x8 amphibous vehicle with a little dinky 25mm cannon and 4man crew. They were VERY good at recce inspite of thier size. Several folks I know have been surprised by them in the dark when they were guarding a post and the next thing they knew there was a big armored vehicle in front of them that just sort of ghosted up on them. Now, the strykers aren't as quiet as a luchs, but they're still pretty damn quiet.
Colby Buzzell, one of the first well known bloogers from Iraq seemed to like his. His unit was able to sneak up on insurgents more than a few times because they didn't hear them coming. Had they been in Bradleys, M113s or similar it would have been different. The locals in their area called them the Ghosts because of their stealth in getting up on the insurgents. He's not alone, from what I've read of the folks out there that are using them, they're liking them, a LOT!
Insofar as protection, you're not going to get big protection levels on ANY kind of Armored vehicle that'll shrug off RPGs and the like with out getting into tank level weights. We're talking 50-70 tons. The Israelis have APCs like this that they've made out of old Centurions and Russian T-55 tanks. The achzarit is the T-55 based APC. Bradleys and other vehicles with similar size/protection levels tend to be as heavy as well.
Strkyers are shrugging off some pretty big damage. The worst I've seen is the Stryker that was rolled over and badly damaged by an IED. After it was righted and the tires replaced (they were shredded) it was able to be driven back to the FOB under it's own power. The V-Shaped hull is an advantage for dealing with mines. You don't get that with M113s. Having one family is also simpler on the supply train.
There's more but thats enough for now. I'm gonna go home and work on my own wheeled armored car now.
No, that's part's pretty easy, and it's simplistic to assign all the kill/loss ratios to that simple factor. American tanks typically have better trained crews, better optics and fire control systems, are better maintained, and don't use auto-loaders, with their penchant for loading crew members.
"that level of long-range anti-tank firepower"
Cosmoline, you haven't actually been listening, have you? Read first, then debate. This is a support platform, not (primarily) an AT one. There may
still be reasons for doubting the IAV/MGS is a good idea, but do the research
first.
John
Vern Humphrey
Member
The "American" tankers in the Arab-Israeli wars were Israelis. They attribute much of their success to the ability of American tanks to fight in hull defilade. In fact, in some critical sectors, such as the Golan Heights, they constructed tank roads parallel to the crest on the near side. Tanks ran up and down these roads in hull defilade, using their ability to depress the gun to engage Soviet tanks manned by Arabs.
Ohen Cepel
Member
I hope they fixed the issue that the earlier version had in that the weapon being fired could/would cause the vehicle to flip onto it's side.
I'm not the brightest guy. However, in combat your vehicle flipping over is not a good thing:banghead:
I'm not the brightest guy. However, in combat your vehicle flipping over is not a good thing:banghead:
Vern Humphrey
Member
That's why old Bob Sunnell pointed out that big guns need big chassis.
Stiletto Null
Member
Well, there was the training advantage, the tactical advantage, the information advantage, the systems advantage...
Vern Humphrey
Member
Were you under the impression I said vehicle height (and the ability to depress the gun) were the only advantages we had?
The M1 tank series -- and especially the M1A2 -- is a quantum leap in AFV technology. For earlier tanks, our margin of superiority was not so great -- and the ability to fight from hull defilade was a significant advantage.
Adam Lee
Member
stryker pros/cons
Just to chime in....
on this discussion of the true value of the stryker system, I'd have to say I think it's pretty redundant to use strykers, what with the bradleys/113's/etc since what we really need are tracked systems instead of this goofy focus on wheeled systems.
why? well.....tires are rubber, get damaged in virtually any firefight, and tracks....well....they don't have the survivability problem.
and how often do you stay on the road, anyway?
I just see a deviation from tracks which I don't agree with....anyway....with those newer rpg's they can defeat pretty much anything, so it goes back to mobility which means TRACKS.....
Just to chime in....
on this discussion of the true value of the stryker system, I'd have to say I think it's pretty redundant to use strykers, what with the bradleys/113's/etc since what we really need are tracked systems instead of this goofy focus on wheeled systems.
why? well.....tires are rubber, get damaged in virtually any firefight, and tracks....well....they don't have the survivability problem.
and how often do you stay on the road, anyway?
I just see a deviation from tracks which I don't agree with....anyway....with those newer rpg's they can defeat pretty much anything, so it goes back to mobility which means TRACKS.....
Vern Humphrey
Member
The idea that anything but a tank can mount a tank gun and be successful on the battlefield is one that has blown up in our faces before.
pcf
Member
A tracked vehicle that's lost a track to an IED, no matter how much better it is than a Stryker, still lost a track and isn't going anywhere on it's own.
The Stryker can lose all 8 tires and still limp its way out of danger.
In an enviroment where the number one threat are IEDs, the wheeled vehicles have an advantage over their tracked counterparts.
Adam Lee
Member
stryker talk
pcf, the point i wanted to make was that trakcs DON"T have to ride in the streets and get hit with IED's.....they can use their tracks to their advantage (as they should) and stay off the mined roads.....
pcf, the point i wanted to make was that trakcs DON"T have to ride in the streets and get hit with IED's.....they can use their tracks to their advantage (as they should) and stay off the mined roads.....
carebear
Member
When the baddies are fighting assymetrically and sticking to urban or built up areas you're going to be on the roads or you won't be moving at all.
A bunch of tracks doing racetracks outside of town isn't going to get the job done. Unless that job is prepping for beltway construction.
Us jarheads have been driving around on wheels for a while now and we still seem to be moving, though the closest I personally ever got to a LAV was almost being run over by one doing over 40mph going around a bend in the bottom of a dried out riverbed. I had to dive out of the way but the driver seemed to be in complete control of the vehicle.
As far as mounting tank guns on non-tanks, I really think we run into problems because we have continuously allowed those weapons system to drift into being tank destroyers, which the AGS isn't by doctrine. If we can stick to doctrine, especially in a Bosnia or Iraq (or Somalia or Darfur) situation, I think we'll be ok.
Not that good ol' mission creep won't rear its ugly head again someday, the next time we take on people with tanks (Iran).
A bunch of tracks doing racetracks outside of town isn't going to get the job done. Unless that job is prepping for beltway construction.
Us jarheads have been driving around on wheels for a while now and we still seem to be moving, though the closest I personally ever got to a LAV was almost being run over by one doing over 40mph going around a bend in the bottom of a dried out riverbed. I had to dive out of the way but the driver seemed to be in complete control of the vehicle.
As far as mounting tank guns on non-tanks, I really think we run into problems because we have continuously allowed those weapons system to drift into being tank destroyers, which the AGS isn't by doctrine. If we can stick to doctrine, especially in a Bosnia or Iraq (or Somalia or Darfur) situation, I think we'll be ok.
Not that good ol' mission creep won't rear its ugly head again someday, the next time we take on people with tanks (Iran).
Last edited:
pcf
Member
When alot of your fighting occurs in urban enviroments, there's no getting off of the roads.
Sometimes you have to go out, patrol the MSRs and ASRs, and look for trouble, there's no avoiding it, otherwise CSS gets eaten up. No fuel, no food, no ammo, no good. In a perfect world, we could send Soldiers into combat and there'd be absolutely no risk to their lives. Ain't there yet.
On paper tracks are superior to wheeled vehicles. The reality is that in the current enviroment (Iraq) criticism of wheeled vehicles has been unfounded. No one here has produced an AAR that's supported a single complaint or criticism that they've had of the Stryker.
I had the opportunity to learn how to drive the LAV-25.
You better believe I jumped all over it!
Big as a bus, but it handles like a sports car. An eight wheeled 11 ton sports car... Folks were a bit suprised to get passed on the highway by us.
Off road, I was doing over 40mph going around a bend in the bottom of a dried out riverbed with complete control of the vehicle. It would handle just about any terrain I put it through, including some rather nasty mountain trails that are difficult for regular sized 4x4 trucks.
All that said, I do wonder how the extra weight from the armor inserts affects performance on the Stryker.
For the 105mm gun carriage, I really did like the M8 AGS before it was canned, but a wheeled platform is better than nothing.
The M113 is dead and gone, except for a large number of targets and a few used here and there by units that have not received some sort of replacement. Hopefully it will stay that way.
You better believe I jumped all over it!
Big as a bus, but it handles like a sports car. An eight wheeled 11 ton sports car...
Folks were a bit suprised to get passed on the highway by us. Off road, I was doing over 40mph going around a bend in the bottom of a dried out riverbed with complete control of the vehicle. It would handle just about any terrain I put it through, including some rather nasty mountain trails that are difficult for regular sized 4x4 trucks.
All that said, I do wonder how the extra weight from the armor inserts affects performance on the Stryker.
For the 105mm gun carriage, I really did like the M8 AGS before it was canned, but a wheeled platform is better than nothing.
The M113 is dead and gone, except for a large number of targets and a few used here and there by units that have not received some sort of replacement. Hopefully it will stay that way.
History Nut
Member
This is FUN!
Quote:
No, that's part's pretty easy, and it's simplistic to assign all the kill/loss ratios to that simple factor. American tanks typically have better trained crews, better optics and fire control systems, are better maintained, and don't use auto-loaders, with their penchant for loading crew members.
The "American" tankers in the Arab-Israeli wars were Israelis. They attribute much of their success to the ability of American tanks to fight in hull defilade. In fact, in some critical sectors, such as the Golan Heights, they constructed tank roads parallel to the crest on the near side. Tanks ran up and down these roads in hull defilade, using their ability to depress the gun to engage Soviet tanks manned by Arabs.
End Quote.
A long time ago, I read a book by one of the commanders of of a tank unit on the Golan Heights in the 1973 war. He made it fairly clear that they had carefully prepared positions. They had excavated 'hull-down' fighting positions for each Centurion tank. They also had prepared 'fall-back' positions. It wasn't so much depressing the gun as good training of good troops. The Israelis would stay in their hull-down positions until the Syrians got too close and then pull back to another prepared position. It was a well-planned and executed mobile defense-in-depth. One thing pointed out by the author was that as he looked through his infared night-vision device, he saw a large number of pairs of spots getting closer. He realized that the Syrians were driving at night using their infared headlights. After that, they just 'aimed between the spots' until something blew up! Their biggest problem, other than being vastly outnumbered was rearming the tanks quickly. When a tank ran out of ammo for the main gun, it would have to drive back to an ammo point and rearm by passing one round at a time through the turret hatch. That is one reason the Merkava has the rear access door. It not only provides the 'Chariot' ability but makes rearming the tank very quick. I wish I could remember the title as it was a great read.
Wheeled armor, especially one with 8 wheels has certain advantages over track-laying armored vehicles. A single mine will stop a tracked vehicle by breaking the track. One wheel can be blown off an 8x8 and it still function. Of course size matters. A big enough mine and any vehicle can be inoperative.
I have to take issue with demanding a vehicle be "RPG-7 proof". Now I would love to have vehicles that our troops can operate in that are "proof" against all weapons, mobile, air-transportable in C-130s and have devastating firepower that can be applied with point precision or wide-area destruction. However, those capabilities are beyond current engineering. Like all AFVs, design must choose a balance between protection, mobility and lethality. So far, we can't 'max out' all three in one vehicle although the Abrams seems to come close. The Stryker looks like it will max on mobility even on rough terrain and the AGS version will add lethality.
Tracked vehicles may seem 'perfect' but they carry a lot of unsprung weight, wear quickly ( notice most MBTs are moved long distances on 'Transporters' that run on wheels) and require lots of maintenance like track-tension and lubrication on lots of road wheels. It goes back to making choices. Transportability/mobility will be the Stryker's strong points. It can be the AFV that will "be there" before the heavy armor can show up.
Quote:
No, that's part's pretty easy, and it's simplistic to assign all the kill/loss ratios to that simple factor. American tanks typically have better trained crews, better optics and fire control systems, are better maintained, and don't use auto-loaders, with their penchant for loading crew members.
The "American" tankers in the Arab-Israeli wars were Israelis. They attribute much of their success to the ability of American tanks to fight in hull defilade. In fact, in some critical sectors, such as the Golan Heights, they constructed tank roads parallel to the crest on the near side. Tanks ran up and down these roads in hull defilade, using their ability to depress the gun to engage Soviet tanks manned by Arabs.
End Quote.
A long time ago, I read a book by one of the commanders of of a tank unit on the Golan Heights in the 1973 war. He made it fairly clear that they had carefully prepared positions. They had excavated 'hull-down' fighting positions for each Centurion tank. They also had prepared 'fall-back' positions. It wasn't so much depressing the gun as good training of good troops. The Israelis would stay in their hull-down positions until the Syrians got too close and then pull back to another prepared position. It was a well-planned and executed mobile defense-in-depth. One thing pointed out by the author was that as he looked through his infared night-vision device, he saw a large number of pairs of spots getting closer. He realized that the Syrians were driving at night using their infared headlights. After that, they just 'aimed between the spots' until something blew up! Their biggest problem, other than being vastly outnumbered was rearming the tanks quickly. When a tank ran out of ammo for the main gun, it would have to drive back to an ammo point and rearm by passing one round at a time through the turret hatch. That is one reason the Merkava has the rear access door. It not only provides the 'Chariot' ability but makes rearming the tank very quick. I wish I could remember the title as it was a great read.
Wheeled armor, especially one with 8 wheels has certain advantages over track-laying armored vehicles. A single mine will stop a tracked vehicle by breaking the track. One wheel can be blown off an 8x8 and it still function. Of course size matters. A big enough mine and any vehicle can be inoperative.
I have to take issue with demanding a vehicle be "RPG-7 proof". Now I would love to have vehicles that our troops can operate in that are "proof" against all weapons, mobile, air-transportable in C-130s and have devastating firepower that can be applied with point precision or wide-area destruction. However, those capabilities are beyond current engineering. Like all AFVs, design must choose a balance between protection, mobility and lethality. So far, we can't 'max out' all three in one vehicle although the Abrams seems to come close. The Stryker looks like it will max on mobility even on rough terrain and the AGS version will add lethality.
Tracked vehicles may seem 'perfect' but they carry a lot of unsprung weight, wear quickly ( notice most MBTs are moved long distances on 'Transporters' that run on wheels) and require lots of maintenance like track-tension and lubrication on lots of road wheels. It goes back to making choices. Transportability/mobility will be the Stryker's strong points. It can be the AFV that will "be there" before the heavy armor can show up.
Vern Humphrey
Member
But an IED that would blow a track off a tank will do more than just flatten the tires or a Stryker. Given equivallent IEDs, what a tank will shrug off will cripple a Stryker. What will blow the track off a tank will kill the crew of the Stryker.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Aberdeen Proving Ground is in an extreme climate? Since when?
Yuma and White Sands are hot, sandy climates. Okay. But I don't see any cold weather testing venues here. Are we projecting now that all future wars will be fought in hot, sandy environments?
Dannyboy
Member
Not necessarily. It doesn't take much to throw a track on a good day. Get a big enough rock stuck in the idler wheel of a Bradley and, Whoops, there it goes. My point is that when it comes to tracks, the size of an IED is irrelevant. Someone else mentioned track tension. Big problem, especially when you're riding on old track shoes and a major cause of thrown tracks. It ain't hard to do.
0007
Member
Maybe "they" should have brought the ONTOS back? Six 106mm recoiless rifles on an armored short chassis. Of course the down side was that you had to dismount to reload...
Vern Humphrey
Member
The Ontos had higher ground pressure than any tracked vehicle we had at the time, except for the Hawk reloader. It was not a success in Viet Nam.
Hazwaste
Member
Battle Cruiser?
This configuration reminds me of the old battle cruiser concept; guns the same size as those on a battleship, yet thin armor and high speed.
The Battle of Jutland (WW1) and The Battle of the Denmark Straits (WWII, sinking of HMS Hood) proved the concept of powerful offense, weak defense a flawed idea.
This concept was repeated on the Sherman Firefly medium tank, with similar results. Putting a 90mm gun on a lightly armored, gasoline powered vehicle didn't stop the German 88 from poking holes in them.
Militaries have a tendency to forget lessons, even when learned at the expense of many thousands of lives. I'm afraid we're doing it again.
This configuration reminds me of the old battle cruiser concept; guns the same size as those on a battleship, yet thin armor and high speed.
The Battle of Jutland (WW1) and The Battle of the Denmark Straits (WWII, sinking of HMS Hood) proved the concept of powerful offense, weak defense a flawed idea.
This concept was repeated on the Sherman Firefly medium tank, with similar results. Putting a 90mm gun on a lightly armored, gasoline powered vehicle didn't stop the German 88 from poking holes in them.
Militaries have a tendency to forget lessons, even when learned at the expense of many thousands of lives. I'm afraid we're doing it again.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
