Stryker Vehicles deploy to Iraq.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


we must be talking about different footage - the one I was referring to was on a narrow Afghan mountain road. One of the crew can be clearly seen being blown a couple of hundred feet into the air.

Anyway, its an argument about nothing really - we don't see troop transport as fighting vehicles. Its a secondary role for them.

The army is also getting about a 100 Bradleys as well I believe. They would be used in a close support role rather than the armored truck.

We don't do ground transport without it being integrated as part of the combat firepower of the unit to which it's integrated. If we want to move lots of troops from point A to point B in a rear area, they just get sent over to a transport battalion, or more likely, air transport battalion. Vehicles with the Infantry and Cavalry branches are purpose built fighting vehicles.

[Zylka]

and where do the Australian camels fit in to all of this?

[Alexander's Horse]

camels can look quite attractive on a cold night

[Zylka]

Indeed they can. Furthermore, who let the dogs out?

[Case]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The army is also getting about a 100 Bradleys as well I believe. They would be used in a close support role rather than the armored truck.

Are you talking about the Australian Army here? (though Bradleys would make a lot more sence then the Leopard 2s and Abrams which the Army is currently deluding itself that the government will pay for)

Incidently, just to really turn Americans against the Stryker, New Zealand's Strykers are more capable then the versions being introduced into the US Army [the NZ Strykers have a LAV-25 turrent fitted in the place of the American .50 cal machine gun].

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
A Stryker costs how much?

An infantry portable guided anti-tank missile costs how much?

An RPG costs how much?

A fanatic to fire the missile comes free.

Uncle Sam pays for the funeral.

If I were thinking of a career in the US military I would join the marines rather than risk being ordered into one of these things (unless they are going to force them on the marines too?).

Oh, Uncle Sam's Misguided Children (it's the initials if you have heard the derogatory expression ) get shafted on equipment in so many more ways. Marines always get the short end of the stick on the procurement and support side, but having organic air support and their training level and agressive doctrine tends to make up for it. Usually.

The total planned procurement for the Strykers so far is to put them into six independent "light" mechanized brigades. The light infantry, airborne and "heavy" divisions won't be contaminated. In theory, anyway. They'll probably just get shafted in other ways.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Case


Are you talking about the Australian Army here? (though Bradleys would make a lot more sence then the Leopard 2s and Abrams which the Army is currently deluding itself that the government will pay for)

Incidently, just to really turn Americans against the Stryker, New Zealand's Strykers are more capable then the versions being introduced into the US Army [the NZ Strykers have a LAV-25 turrent fitted in the place of the American .50 cal machine gun].

The US versions are supposed to (sooner or later, I don't know the exact variant mix of the current brigade) have 105mm gun variants, as well as 25 mm chain gun and TOW and some other variants along with the M2HB. There's something like 9 or 10 total, including an ambulance and command vehicles.

[Case]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The US versions are supposed to (sooner or later, I don't know the exact variant mix of the current brigade) have 105mm gun variants, as well as 25 mm chain gun and TOW and some other variants along with the M2HB. There's something like 9 or 10 total, including an ambulance and command vehicles.

According to the first Stryker Brigade's website ( http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadlightning/ ) most of the variants are in service, with extra TOW Strykers being issued while someone figures how to mount a 105mm gun on a strkyer without the damn thing overturning every time a round is fired

BTW CerberusIV, the LAV - an earlier version of the Stryker - makes up the most capable APCs used by the Marines. Their other type of APC (the AAV-7) is amphbious and is the size of the bus, as fast as a bus, and has only marginally more armour then a bus

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Case


According to the first Stryker Brigade's website ( http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadlightning/ ) most of the variants are in service, with extra TOW Strykers being issued while someone figures how to mount a 105mm gun on a strkyer without the damn thing overturning every time a round is fired

Yeah, that was a bit of a problem. If you can believe this, they were actually built, and tested at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin using the typical lasers and blank ammo bit, before they were ever live fired. Troulbe is, against the NTC OpFor, even in slanted tests against heavy mechanized/armored forces, they couldn't get better than a 1:1 kill ratio.

It's like a modern wheeled StuG III, without the armor protection, of course. You have to point it in the direction you shoot. Unless they just abandon the big gun version, they'll have to drop the performance of the 105 rounds to reduce recoil. More TOAB.

[Ted Striker]

what the hell is it supposed to do with TOW missles anyway?

i mean if it has to go up against something so heavy that it needs TOW missles, wouldn't you want to call in something like, oh, I don't know, a TANK???????

[Ted Striker]

Actually when I first saw this thing the first thing I thought of were those anti-riot (Apartheid era) vehicles with the water cannons on top that they use in South Africa, and also the armored vehicle the LAPD uses to ram into houses

[Ted Striker]

oh and finally any vehicle with the name, "stryker" in it has to be BAD AZZ

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
what the hell is it supposed to do with TOW missles anyway?

i mean if it has to go up against something so heavy that it needs TOW missles, wouldn't you want to call in something like, oh, I don't know, a TANK???????

The idea of the Stryker brigades is to be air deployable by short field transports. So they won't have tanks available to bail their asses out.

[Case]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Actually when I first saw this thing the first thing I thought of were those anti-riot (Apartheid era) vehicles with the water cannons on top that they use in South Africa

The South African Army has a long history of using wheeled IFVs in combat operations fought over long ranges and very rugged terrain, aparently with a great deal of sucess. From memory, they produced thousands of Ratel wheeled IFVs* and hundreds of Rookiat recon/tank destroyer wheeled AFVs, both of which were routinely deployed to Nambia and Angola, two of the worlds most road-free countries. The Rookiats aparently outperfromed the Cuban T-62 tanks they came across from time to time.

I agree 100% on the vehicle's name. The Canadians have named their version after some kind of animal (Coyote?) and the New Zealanders are just calling theirs the LAV III, both of which are considerably less naff then 'Stryker'.

*Which weren't the ones which used to patrol the townships and now, with wonderful irony, are a mainstay of UN peace keeping operations: those were Buffels and Caspiers. The Ratel is sleeker, shorter and mounts either a 20mm cannon or a 60mm mortar.

[Saras]

Was the name perhaps inspired by this:

http://www.stryper.com/imagegallery.html

MY EYES!!! MY EYES!!!

[Chemical Ollie]

RPG fodder, surely, but is it really less armoured than the Hummer?

[Az]

I doubt that. It's still a POS. ( MtG convinced me of that. )

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Case
BTW CerberusIV, the LAV - an earlier version of the Stryker - makes up the most capable APCs used by the Marines. Their other type of APC (the AAV-7) is amphbious and is the size of the bus, as fast as a bus, and has only marginally more armour then a bus

I know about the AAV-7. The Argentinians used them in the Falklands IIRC. The defending Royal Marines hit one with a LAW and didn't see anyone get out afterwards...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


1AD has five line battalions of M2 IFV's, so that alone gives them as many 11-Mikes (mechanized infantryman) as the 505 PIR/3 Bde 82ABD has 11-Bravos (light infantry). Add the M2 vehicle crews (who provide the squad leader and squad heavy weapons capability) as dismounts, and before you even get into the tankers, cav scouts and artillery vehicle crews, 1AD has more mechanized infantry in the field than all infantry MOS combined in the 505 PIR/3 Bde.

That doesn't count all the rest of the pseudo-infantry, who are taking a lot of menial base security and patrol heat off the real infantry elements of the division.

As far as what 82ABD's capabilities are, 505 PIR/3 Bde plus Div H&HC elements moved in to replace 3ID, which has over four times the personnel, and more than 150% of the trained infantry.

325 AIR /1 Bde of 82ABD is operating separately from 505 PIR/3 Bde, but even if you combine the two, 1AD still has almost as many infantry MOS's, plus the additional non-infantry types being used as pseudo-infantry.

So youre saying 82nd's problem is simply not enough infantry? But Baghdad has a far large population than Fallujah(even including nearby towns and villages) . That should balance out.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Oh, except for ****ing over those Airborne *******s with their berets and jump boots and bloused trouser legs.

HEY!

My beret and jump boots look very nice, thank you.

[Oerdin]

Wheeled vehicles have their place just as tracked vehicles have their place. I've noticed that most of Europe's Armies, both east and west, have wheeled vehicles in service because they are cheaper and more suited for the mission of peace keeping which is what most of their militaries are used for. True, in a stand up fight the wheeled vehicle will get stomped on by a proper treaded military combat vehicle but for many, if not most, jobs an eight wheeled vehicle will work just fine.

That said I really don't think the Army needs both and MtG is right about the tremendous waste which occurs in the military procurement process. I honestly feel they should be forced to fully care for and maintian their existing equipment before one red cent is used to acuire new toys. Other wise you get the current situation where the military constently is robbing the soldiers of equipment and supplies so some chairborne office can pay for his useless pet project just so he can get promoted.