User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:51:50 AM EDT
[#1]
I always thought they had a cannon.
I had no idea they only had a .50 on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:55:17 AM EDT
[#2]
Isn't the Stryker supposed to be basically a weapons platform any way?
As in it can be fitted for whatever specific mission the troops are conducting? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:57:44 AM EDT
[#3]
Don't the Marines already have LAVs with the 25 on them? What's the big deal about putting a 30mm on the Stryker?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:00:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always thought they had a cannon. I had no idea they only had a .50 on them. depends on the variant, theres like 8 or 9 and a double v hull version iirc |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:00:30 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't the Marines already have LAVs with the 25 on them? What's the big deal about putting a 30mm on the Stryker? Indeed. Seems like it would be logistically smarter to simply roll with the Bushmaster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:03:37 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't the Marines already have LAVs with the 25 on them? What's the big deal about putting a 30mm on the Stryker? Money and mission tempo My first tour had us gunning tow missiles, 20mm and 50 through Houses occupied by insurgents . Second tour only authorized 240's to be mounted on the vehicles during city patrols .. Anything more was "too" destructive for operation New Obama Dawn Good luck getting a 30mm chain gun |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:05:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed. Seems like it would be logistically smarter to simply roll with the Bushmaster. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't the Marines already have LAVs with the 25 on them? What's the big deal about putting a 30mm on the Stryker? Indeed. Seems like it would be logistically smarter to simply roll with the Bushmaster. We all know the army won't do anything that Marines already do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:05:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<SNIP>.. Anything more was "too" destructive for operation New Obama Dawn <SNIP> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't the Marines already have LAVs with the 25 on them? What's the big deal about putting a 30mm on the Stryker? <SNIP>.. Anything more was "too" destructive for operation New Obama Dawn <SNIP> L.O.L. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:08:06 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always thought they had a cannon. I had no idea they only had a .50 on them. Yeah, I thought they already had the 25 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:09:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We all know the army won't do anything that Marines already do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't the Marines already have LAVs with the 25 on them? What's the big deal about putting a 30mm on the Stryker? Indeed. Seems like it would be logistically smarter to simply roll with the Bushmaster. We all know the army won't do anything that Marines already do. well the Marines adopted the vehicle first, the army eventually got around to it |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:10:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't the Stryker supposed to be basically a weapons platform any way? As in it can be fitted for whatever specific mission the troops are conducting? No. There are different variants of the Stryker, each differently designed. The most common is the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, which is armed with either a M2. .50 Cal or a Mk-19 on a Remote Weapon System (RWS), similar to the CROW system. But the ICV is predominately a personnel carrier. It holds a full 9 man squad of dismounts (can actually hold many more than that), besides a driver and a vehicle commander, with three dismounts standing up, partially outside the vehicle (Squad Leaders Hatch and two Air Guard positions in rear), allowing the infantry to also engage threats with crew served and small arms. There is also a TOW variant, a Scout variant, and a Mobile Gun System variant, all of which hold different amounts of personnel and have different weapon systems. If the Cav guys want a 30mm, just buy the LAV-25. There is no point trying to throw a turreted 30mm cannon onto the Stryker when it already exists and is in service by the US military. That's not what the Stryker is designed to do. Its supposed to haul infantry right quickly and then support them, its not supposed to be a tank or APC. Talk about a colossal waste of money that would be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:12:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Why not just automate this and give 120mm love from above
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:13:34 PM EDT
[#13]
mount a gau-8 with a 450-500 rpm mode and have a "holy shit" 4200 RPM mode
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:15:03 PM EDT
[#14]
Needs more Bushmaster III.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:19:04 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. There are different variants of the Stryker, each differently designed. The most common is the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, which is armed with either a M2. .50 Cal or a Mk-19 on a Remote Weapon System (RWS), similar to the CROW system. But the ICV is predominately a personnel carrier. It holds a full 9 man squad of dismounts (can actually hold many more than that), besides a driver and a vehicle commander, with three dismounts standing up, partially outside the vehicle (Squad Leaders Hatch and two Air Guard positions in rear), allowing the infantry to also engage threats with crew served and small arms. There is also a TOW variant, a Scout variant, and a Mobile Gun System variant, all of which hold different amounts of personnel and have different weapon systems. If the Cav guys want a 30mm, just buy the LAV-25. There is no point trying to throw a turreted 30mm cannon onto the Stryker when it already exists and is in service by the US military. That's not what the Stryker is designed to do. Its supposed to haul infantry right quickly and then support them, its not supposed to be a tank or APC. Talk about a colossal waste of money that would be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Isn't the Stryker supposed to be basically a weapons platform any way? As in it can be fitted for whatever specific mission the troops are conducting? No. There are different variants of the Stryker, each differently designed. The most common is the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, which is armed with either a M2. .50 Cal or a Mk-19 on a Remote Weapon System (RWS), similar to the CROW system. But the ICV is predominately a personnel carrier. It holds a full 9 man squad of dismounts (can actually hold many more than that), besides a driver and a vehicle commander, with three dismounts standing up, partially outside the vehicle (Squad Leaders Hatch and two Air Guard positions in rear), allowing the infantry to also engage threats with crew served and small arms. There is also a TOW variant, a Scout variant, and a Mobile Gun System variant, all of which hold different amounts of personnel and have different weapon systems. If the Cav guys want a 30mm, just buy the LAV-25. There is no point trying to throw a turreted 30mm cannon onto the Stryker when it already exists and is in service by the US military. That's not what the Stryker is designed to do. Its supposed to haul infantry right quickly and then support them, its not supposed to be a tank or APC. Talk about a colossal waste of money that would be. The 30mm would be added by incorporating a larger RWS. It will not affect how many troops the ICV can carry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:19:45 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't the Marines already have LAVs with the 25 on them? What's the big deal about putting a 30mm on the Stryker? dport is about to tell you that the 30mm is vastly superior to the 25mm in lethality due to varying types of ammunition. What dport will not tell you is that he has never operated or used bradleys, LAVs, or strykers in combat and so his arguments are pure conjecture. 81 strykers is going to translate into roughly one platoon from each troop/company having an up-gunned truck, or one entire troop/company with them. Maybe even one truck with 30mm per platoon throughout the squadron.I am curious as to how they this will affect the load plan of the trucks considering Infantry platoons cram like nine to eleven dudes into each one as it is. I guess you could up-gun the scout trucks but then you would lose the LRAS3 and general awareness. The reasoning behind up-arming is suspect at best. If the Army truly cared about fighting other armored vehicles why has it been drawing down the foot-print of heavy armor in Europe and pulling out AH-64s? Why don't they change it back to 2nd ACR and at least integrate some air and heavy armor into the regiment? Anyone who ever served in a stryker unit will tell you that the biggest advantage of the stryker in combat is it's speed, silence, and ability to shit out dismounts at an alarming rate. Almost all of those will have little to no bearing against a conventional threat from say...Russia. For that we will need some brawlers and strykers just can't brawl. The most 2CR could hope for is to road march faster than the advancing russian armor and set a delaying actions in urban areas until the Germans can get their armored units in play. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:19:51 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not just automate this and give 120mm love from above http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Stryker_MCV-B.jpg/300px-Stryker_MCV-B.jpg Because you can't fit 9 dismounts and a 120mm |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:21:16 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't the Marines already have LAVs with the 25 on them? What's the big deal about putting a 30mm on the Stryker? more Bada Boom! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:22:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
dport is about to tell you that the 30mm is vastly superior to the 25mm in lethality due to varying types of ammunition. What dport will not tell you is that he has never operated or used bradleys, LAVs, or strykers in combat and so his arguments are pure conjecture. Not in combat, but I have operated both manual and remote 25mm mounts. I've also had access to lethality data for the 25mm and 30mm. 30mm is better. 
ETA: Looks like the Army and the 2nd ACR agree with me. 
I know the Marine Corps did. That's why they were putting the 30mm on the EFV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:22:14 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
That shoeh8tr guy was a friggen genius. In brief, the 2nd Cavalry wants some 81 of its eight-wheel-drive Stryker infantry carrier vehicles fitted with 30 millimeter automatic cannon. 30 mm is more than twice the caliber of the 12.7 mm machineguns those Strykers currently mount. It’s actually a bigger weapon than the notoriously destructive 25 mm chaingun on the much heavier M2 Bradley infantry carrier. http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/the-30-millimeter-solution-army-upgunning-strykers-vs-russia/ smart idea to bring back up the troll account you created
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:23:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
smart idea to bring back up the troll account you created
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That shoeh8tr guy was a friggen genius. In brief, the 2nd Cavalry wants some 81 of its eight-wheel-drive Stryker infantry carrier vehicles fitted with 30 millimeter automatic cannon. 30 mm is more than twice the caliber of the 12.7 mm machineguns those Strykers currently mount. It’s actually a bigger weapon than the notoriously destructive 25 mm chaingun on the much heavier M2 Bradley infantry carrier. http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/the-30-millimeter-solution-army-upgunning-strykers-vs-russia/ smart idea to bring back up the troll account you created
I'm sorry. I thought we were adults here. Are your feelings still hurt? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:27:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sorry. I thought we were adults here. Are your feelings still hurt? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That shoeh8tr guy was a friggen genius. In brief, the 2nd Cavalry wants some 81 of its eight-wheel-drive Stryker infantry carrier vehicles fitted with 30 millimeter automatic cannon. 30 mm is more than twice the caliber of the 12.7 mm machineguns those Strykers currently mount. It’s actually a bigger weapon than the notoriously destructive 25 mm chaingun on the much heavier M2 Bradley infantry carrier. http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/the-30-millimeter-solution-army-upgunning-strykers-vs-russia/ smart idea to bring back up the troll account you created
I'm sorry. I thought we were adults here. Are your feelings still hurt? A little hurt. You must be a certain type of special to rub your troll account (that you were lucky you didn't get a ban for) in peoples faces.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:28:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little hurt. You must be a certain type of special to rub your troll account (that you were lucky you didn't get a ban for) in peoples faces.... Maybe you should spend some time on getting a sense of humor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:28:58 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 30mm would be added by incorporating a larger RWS. It will not affect how many troops the ICV can carry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't the Stryker supposed to be basically a weapons platform any way? As in it can be fitted for whatever specific mission the troops are conducting? No. There are different variants of the Stryker, each differently designed. The most common is the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, which is armed with either a M2. .50 Cal or a Mk-19 on a Remote Weapon System (RWS), similar to the CROW system. But the ICV is predominately a personnel carrier. It holds a full 9 man squad of dismounts (can actually hold many more than that), besides a driver and a vehicle commander, with three dismounts standing up, partially outside the vehicle (Squad Leaders Hatch and two Air Guard positions in rear), allowing the infantry to also engage threats with crew served and small arms. There is also a TOW variant, a Scout variant, and a Mobile Gun System variant, all of which hold different amounts of personnel and have different weapon systems. If the Cav guys want a 30mm, just buy the LAV-25. There is no point trying to throw a turreted 30mm cannon onto the Stryker when it already exists and is in service by the US military. That's not what the Stryker is designed to do. Its supposed to haul infantry right quickly and then support them, its not supposed to be a tank or APC. Talk about a colossal waste of money that would be. The 30mm would be added by incorporating a larger RWS. It will not affect how many troops the ICV can carry. You can't expect to add a massive gun system like a 30mm cannon and have it take up the same room as a .50 cal. The guns are bigger and weigh more, the mounts weigh more, the ammo weighs more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:29:48 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
dport is about to tell you that the 30mm is vastly superior to the 25mm in lethality due to varying types of ammunition. What dport will not tell you is that he has never operated or used bradleys, LAVs, or strykers in combat and so his arguments are pure conjecture. 81 strykers is going to translate into roughly one platoon from each troop/company having an up-gunned truck, or one entire troop/company with them. Maybe even one truck with 30mm per platoon throughout the squadron.I am curious as to how they this will affect the load plan of the trucks considering Infantry platoons cram like nine to eleven dudes into each one as it is. I guess you could up-gun the scout trucks but then you would lose the LRAS3 and general awareness. The reasoning behind up-arming is suspect at best. If the Army truly cared about fighting other armored vehicles why has it been drawing down the foot-print of heavy armor in Europe and pulling out AH-64s? Why don't they change it back to 2nd ACR and at least integrate some air and heavy armor into the regiment? Anyone who ever served in a stryker unit will tell you that the biggest advantage of the stryker in combat is it's speed, silence, and ability to shit out dismounts at an alarming rate. Almost all of those will have little to no bearing against a conventional threat from say...Russia. For that we will need some brawlers and strykers just can't brawl. The most 2CR could hope for is to road march faster than the advancing russian armor and set a delaying actions in urban areas until the Germans can get their armored units in play. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't the Marines already have LAVs with the 25 on them? What's the big deal about putting a 30mm on the Stryker? dport is about to tell you that the 30mm is vastly superior to the 25mm in lethality due to varying types of ammunition. What dport will not tell you is that he has never operated or used bradleys, LAVs, or strykers in combat and so his arguments are pure conjecture. 81 strykers is going to translate into roughly one platoon from each troop/company having an up-gunned truck, or one entire troop/company with them. Maybe even one truck with 30mm per platoon throughout the squadron.I am curious as to how they this will affect the load plan of the trucks considering Infantry platoons cram like nine to eleven dudes into each one as it is. I guess you could up-gun the scout trucks but then you would lose the LRAS3 and general awareness. The reasoning behind up-arming is suspect at best. If the Army truly cared about fighting other armored vehicles why has it been drawing down the foot-print of heavy armor in Europe and pulling out AH-64s? Why don't they change it back to 2nd ACR and at least integrate some air and heavy armor into the regiment? Anyone who ever served in a stryker unit will tell you that the biggest advantage of the stryker in combat is it's speed, silence, and ability to shit out dismounts at an alarming rate. Almost all of those will have little to no bearing against a conventional threat from say...Russia. For that we will need some brawlers and strykers just can't brawl. The most 2CR could hope for is to road march faster than the advancing russian armor and set a delaying actions in urban areas until the Germans can get their armored units in play. YEP |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:33:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't expect to add a massive gun system like a 30mm cannon and have it take up the same room as a .50 cal. The guns are bigger and weigh more, the mounts weigh more, the ammo weighs more. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't the Stryker supposed to be basically a weapons platform any way? As in it can be fitted for whatever specific mission the troops are conducting? No. There are different variants of the Stryker, each differently designed. The most common is the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, which is armed with either a M2. .50 Cal or a Mk-19 on a Remote Weapon System (RWS), similar to the CROW system. But the ICV is predominately a personnel carrier. It holds a full 9 man squad of dismounts (can actually hold many more than that), besides a driver and a vehicle commander, with three dismounts standing up, partially outside the vehicle (Squad Leaders Hatch and two Air Guard positions in rear), allowing the infantry to also engage threats with crew served and small arms. There is also a TOW variant, a Scout variant, and a Mobile Gun System variant, all of which hold different amounts of personnel and have different weapon systems. If the Cav guys want a 30mm, just buy the LAV-25. There is no point trying to throw a turreted 30mm cannon onto the Stryker when it already exists and is in service by the US military. That's not what the Stryker is designed to do. Its supposed to haul infantry right quickly and then support them, its not supposed to be a tank or APC. Talk about a colossal waste of money that would be. The 30mm would be added by incorporating a larger RWS. It will not affect how many troops the ICV can carry. You can't expect to add a massive gun system like a 30mm cannon and have it take up the same room as a .50 cal. The guns are bigger and weigh more, the mounts weigh more, the ammo weighs more. http://scoutcommsusa.com/2013/10/23/ausa-extra-kongsberg-set-to-fire-30-mm-medium-caliber-rws-for-stryker/ http://defensetech.org/2013/10/21/army-to-test-kongsbergs-new-gun-on-stryker/ There was some defense show not too long ago that showed a Navy Mk38 Mod 2 mount on an armored vehicle. The Mk38 can mount either a 25mm or a 30mm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:34:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sorry. I thought we were adults here. Are your feelings still hurt? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That shoeh8tr guy was a friggen genius. In brief, the 2nd Cavalry wants some 81 of its eight-wheel-drive Stryker infantry carrier vehicles fitted with 30 millimeter automatic cannon. 30 mm is more than twice the caliber of the 12.7 mm machineguns those Strykers currently mount. It’s actually a bigger weapon than the notoriously destructive 25 mm chaingun on the much heavier M2 Bradley infantry carrier. http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/the-30-millimeter-solution-army-upgunning-strykers-vs-russia/ smart idea to bring back up the troll account you created
I'm sorry. I thought we were adults here. Are your feelings still hurt? Internet is srs biznus bro. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:36:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not in combat, but I have operated both manual and remote 25mm mounts. I've also had access to lethality data for the 25mm and 30mm. 30mm is better.
ETA: Looks like the Army and the 2nd ACR agree with me.
I know the Marine Corps did. That's why they were putting the 30mm on the EFV. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
dport is about to tell you that the 30mm is vastly superior to the 25mm in lethality due to varying types of ammunition. What dport will not tell you is that he has never operated or used bradleys, LAVs, or strykers in combat and so his arguments are pure conjecture. Not in combat, but I have operated both manual and remote 25mm mounts. I've also had access to lethality data for the 25mm and 30mm. 30mm is better.
ETA: Looks like the Army and the 2nd ACR agree with me.
I know the Marine Corps did. That's why they were putting the 30mm on the EFV. It isn't an ACR anymore. I am sure 30mm works great....but please tell me how a stryker...where the armor can barely stop a a 14.5mm... is going to have a snowballs chance in hell in a real conventional fight. Basically what I am asking is in the that Strykers fight (taking into account that they are fast, quiet, and can hold a lot of dismounts), which is more of a supporting role after dropping dismounts...is the 30mm really going to help it kill the armored threat which was cited as the reason for uparming them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:40:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It isn't an ACR anymore. I am sure 30mm works great....but please tell me how a stryker...where the armor can barely stop a a 14.5mm... is going to have a snowballs chance in hell in a real conventional fight. Basically what I am asking is in the that Strykers fight (taking into account that they are fast, quiet, and can hold a lot of dismounts), which is more of a supporting role after dropping dismounts...is the 30mm really going to help it kill the armored threat which was cited as the reason for uparming them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
dport is about to tell you that the 30mm is vastly superior to the 25mm in lethality due to varying types of ammunition. What dport will not tell you is that he has never operated or used bradleys, LAVs, or strykers in combat and so his arguments are pure conjecture. Not in combat, but I have operated both manual and remote 25mm mounts. I've also had access to lethality data for the 25mm and 30mm. 30mm is better.
ETA: Looks like the Army and the 2nd ACR agree with me.
I know the Marine Corps did. That's why they were putting the 30mm on the EFV. It isn't an ACR anymore. I am sure 30mm works great....but please tell me how a stryker...where the armor can barely stop a a 14.5mm... is going to have a snowballs chance in hell in a real conventional fight. Basically what I am asking is in the that Strykers fight (taking into account that they are fast, quiet, and can hold a lot of dismounts), which is more of a supporting role after dropping dismounts...is the 30mm really going to help it kill the armored threat which was cited as the reason for uparming them? If they really want to fight armor then why not just add a TOW to it. Although I did read something about wanting to up gun the Bradley as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:42:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Or get a proper armored vehicle and not a tarted up BTR-80 designed to bring 2nd echelon draftees to occupy after the real combat is over.
It was designed and procured to do Bosnia rotations over and over again. Not fight. We have polished this turd for 15 years and all we have is a giant smear of shit everywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:43:07 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://scoutcommsusa.com/2013/10/23/ausa-extra-kongsberg-set-to-fire-30-mm-medium-caliber-rws-for-stryker/ http://defensetech.org/2013/10/21/army-to-test-kongsbergs-new-gun-on-stryker/ There was some defense show not too long ago that showed a Navy Mk38 Mod 2 mount on an armored vehicle. The Mk38 can mount either a 25mm or a 30mm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't the Stryker supposed to be basically a weapons platform any way? As in it can be fitted for whatever specific mission the troops are conducting? No. There are different variants of the Stryker, each differently designed. The most common is the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, which is armed with either a M2. .50 Cal or a Mk-19 on a Remote Weapon System (RWS), similar to the CROW system. But the ICV is predominately a personnel carrier. It holds a full 9 man squad of dismounts (can actually hold many more than that), besides a driver and a vehicle commander, with three dismounts standing up, partially outside the vehicle (Squad Leaders Hatch and two Air Guard positions in rear), allowing the infantry to also engage threats with crew served and small arms. There is also a TOW variant, a Scout variant, and a Mobile Gun System variant, all of which hold different amounts of personnel and have different weapon systems. If the Cav guys want a 30mm, just buy the LAV-25. There is no point trying to throw a turreted 30mm cannon onto the Stryker when it already exists and is in service by the US military. That's not what the Stryker is designed to do. Its supposed to haul infantry right quickly and then support them, its not supposed to be a tank or APC. Talk about a colossal waste of money that would be. The 30mm would be added by incorporating a larger RWS. It will not affect how many troops the ICV can carry. You can't expect to add a massive gun system like a 30mm cannon and have it take up the same room as a .50 cal. The guns are bigger and weigh more, the mounts weigh more, the ammo weighs more. http://scoutcommsusa.com/2013/10/23/ausa-extra-kongsberg-set-to-fire-30-mm-medium-caliber-rws-for-stryker/ http://defensetech.org/2013/10/21/army-to-test-kongsbergs-new-gun-on-stryker/ There was some defense show not too long ago that showed a Navy Mk38 Mod 2 mount on an armored vehicle. The Mk38 can mount either a 25mm or a 30mm. So they added a turret and lost the squad leader's hatch, which allowed the ultimate commander of not only the truck but also the dismounts to lose situational awareness, just to gain a little bit in firepower, which isn't even the role of the Stryker anyway. Stick to Navy things, you kind of suck at Army stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:45:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It isn't an ACR anymore. I am sure 30mm works great....but please tell me how a stryker...where the armor can barely stop a a 14.5mm... is going to have a snowballs chance in hell in a real conventional fight. Basically what I am asking is in the that Strykers fight (taking into account that they are fast, quiet, and can hold a lot of dismounts), which is more of a supporting role after dropping dismounts...is the 30mm really going to help it kill the armored threat which was cited as the reason for uparming them? Good point. They call it the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. I guess they ditched their armor for Strykers? I have never portrayed myself as some sort of expert on ground tactics. I have, on occasion lampooned those who pretend to be experts in areas they are not. Given that there was an Operational Needs Statement from the 2CR, routed through USAREUR, and validated by the Army Staff's G-3/5/7, I'd say they have an idea on how they would use those capabilities they are requesting and validating. The G-3/5/7 went one further and said they will task TRADOC with refining concepts for operational employment. You may not have confidence that the 2CR, USAREUR, the Army Staff, and TRADOC knows what they're doing. You may be correct. I simply don't know. I do think it was funny for all the shit you guys gave me/shoeh8ter for suggesting that 30mm would be better than a 25mm, here we have people in the Army, presumably some of them combat veterans, asking for a 30mm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:46:06 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't expect to add a massive gun system like a 30mm cannon and have it take up the same room as a .50 cal. The guns are bigger and weigh more, the mounts weigh more, the ammo weighs more. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't the Stryker supposed to be basically a weapons platform any way? As in it can be fitted for whatever specific mission the troops are conducting? No. There are different variants of the Stryker, each differently designed. The most common is the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, which is armed with either a M2. .50 Cal or a Mk-19 on a Remote Weapon System (RWS), similar to the CROW system. But the ICV is predominately a personnel carrier. It holds a full 9 man squad of dismounts (can actually hold many more than that), besides a driver and a vehicle commander, with three dismounts standing up, partially outside the vehicle (Squad Leaders Hatch and two Air Guard positions in rear), allowing the infantry to also engage threats with crew served and small arms. There is also a TOW variant, a Scout variant, and a Mobile Gun System variant, all of which hold different amounts of personnel and have different weapon systems. If the Cav guys want a 30mm, just buy the LAV-25. There is no point trying to throw a turreted 30mm cannon onto the Stryker when it already exists and is in service by the US military. That's not what the Stryker is designed to do. Its supposed to haul infantry right quickly and then support them, its not supposed to be a tank or APC. Talk about a colossal waste of money that would be. The 30mm would be added by incorporating a larger RWS. It will not affect how many troops the ICV can carry. You can't expect to add a massive gun system like a 30mm cannon and have it take up the same room as a .50 cal. The guns are bigger and weigh more, the mounts weigh more, the ammo weighs more. M230 CROWS 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:46:19 PM EDT
[#34]
That's a really nice BTR-60.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:46:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or get a proper armored vehicle and not a tarted up BTR-80 designed to bring 2nd echelon draftees to occupy after the real combat is over. It was designed and procured to do Bosnia rotations over and over again. Not fight. We have polished this turd for 15 years and all we have is a giant smear of shit everywhere. Bullshit. It was probably the best vehicle used in Iraq. It wasn't designed to be used in a high intensity conflict but it sure beat out driving around in Humvees like nearly every other unit in Iraq did, or MRAPs. MNF-I insisted that there be at least one Stryker BCTs in Iraq at any given time, and they were used as "fire brigades", quickly picking up and moving to whatever cities needed additional manpower. No other unit could do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:46:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't expect to add a massive gun system like a 30mm cannon and have it take up the same room as a .50 cal. The guns are bigger and weigh more, the mounts weigh more, the ammo weighs more. It is remote operated and added to the outside of the hull, it will take up zero internal space.. No turret basket like a Bradley. Sure it will add a few pounds, but not enough to affect overland speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:46:56 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always thought they had a cannon. I had no idea they only had a .50 on them. Depends which package you add onto it... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:48:05 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So they added a turret and lost the squad leader's hatch, which allowed the ultimate commander of not only the truck but also the dismounts to lose situational awareness, just to gain a little bit in firepower, which isn't even the role of the Stryker anyway. Stick to Navy things, you kind of suck at Army stuff. Quote HistoryQuoted:
So they added a turret and lost the squad leader's hatch, which allowed the ultimate commander of not only the truck but also the dismounts to lose situational awareness, just to gain a little bit in firepower, which isn't even the role of the Stryker anyway. Stick to Navy things, you kind of suck at Army stuff. I'm not the one asking Kongsberg to develop a remote turret for a 30mm that can fit on the Stryker. I'm not the person who wrote the Operational Needs Statement for a 30mm. I'm just providing links to the stories about those who are. What you are really saying is the Army sucks at Army stuff. The Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence asked for it, and Kongsberg’s got it: a medium caliber remote weapon station (MCRWS) that will close a lethality gap for Stryker formations. http://scoutcommsusa.com/2013/10/23/ausa-extra-kongsberg-set-to-fire-30-mm-medium-caliber-rws-for-stryker/ I could care less if they put a 30mm on a Stryker. I'd love a 30mm on the Navy's Mk38 mounts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:48:16 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they really want to fight armor then why not just add a TOW to it. Although I did read something about wanting to up gun the Bradley as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
dport is about to tell you that the 30mm is vastly superior to the 25mm in lethality due to varying types of ammunition. What dport will not tell you is that he has never operated or used bradleys, LAVs, or strykers in combat and so his arguments are pure conjecture. Not in combat, but I have operated both manual and remote 25mm mounts. I've also had access to lethality data for the 25mm and 30mm. 30mm is better.
ETA: Looks like the Army and the 2nd ACR agree with me.
I know the Marine Corps did. That's why they were putting the 30mm on the EFV. It isn't an ACR anymore. I am sure 30mm works great....but please tell me how a stryker...where the armor can barely stop a a 14.5mm... is going to have a snowballs chance in hell in a real conventional fight. Basically what I am asking is in the that Strykers fight (taking into account that they are fast, quiet, and can hold a lot of dismounts), which is more of a supporting role after dropping dismounts...is the 30mm really going to help it kill the armored threat which was cited as the reason for uparming them? If they really want to fight armor then why not just add a TOW to it. Although I did read something about wanting to up gun the Bradley as well. they have the ATGM stryker variant already. Adding a 30mm and arguing that it will be able to fight light russian armor is retarded. Stryker armor isn't strong enough for it. That 1000 mile road march was a good demonstration of what makes the stryker a good truck. They are fast and easy to maintain (and they don't burn as much fuel as tracked vehicles) and they don't need a huge logistical chain to support them. The future of the stryker in Europe is as an urban exploitation type vehicle and for getting a lot of infantry somewhere quick. This whole 30mm thing seems like more of a gimmick than anything and the 2CR command that made the decision can't possibly think it is going to add much to a real fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:49:58 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit. It was probably the best vehicle used in Iraq. It wasn't designed to be used in a high intensity conflict but it sure beat out driving around in Humvees like nearly every other unit in Iraq did, or MRAPs. MNF-I insisted that there be at least one Stryker BCTs in Iraq at any given time, and they were used as "fire brigades", quickly picking up and moving to whatever cities needed additional manpower. No other unit could do that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or get a proper armored vehicle and not a tarted up BTR-80 designed to bring 2nd echelon draftees to occupy after the real combat is over. It was designed and procured to do Bosnia rotations over and over again. Not fight. We have polished this turd for 15 years and all we have is a giant smear of shit everywhere. Bullshit. It was probably the best vehicle used in Iraq. It wasn't designed to be used in a high intensity conflict but it sure beat out driving around in Humvees like nearly every other unit in Iraq did, or MRAPs. MNF-I insisted that there be at least one Stryker BCTs in Iraq at any given time, and they were used as "fire brigades", quickly picking up and moving to whatever cities needed additional manpower. No other unit could do that. It was sooooooooooooo good in Iraq we bought 30 billion dollars worth of MRAPs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:52:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was sooooooooooooo good in Iraq we bought 30 billion dollars worth of MRAPs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or get a proper armored vehicle and not a tarted up BTR-80 designed to bring 2nd echelon draftees to occupy after the real combat is over. It was designed and procured to do Bosnia rotations over and over again. Not fight. We have polished this turd for 15 years and all we have is a giant smear of shit everywhere. Bullshit. It was probably the best vehicle used in Iraq. It wasn't designed to be used in a high intensity conflict but it sure beat out driving around in Humvees like nearly every other unit in Iraq did, or MRAPs. MNF-I insisted that there be at least one Stryker BCTs in Iraq at any given time, and they were used as "fire brigades", quickly picking up and moving to whatever cities needed additional manpower. No other unit could do that. It was sooooooooooooo good in Iraq we bought 30 billion dollars worth of MRAPs. Can we put a 30mm on an MRAP? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:52:38 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't the Stryker supposed to be basically a weapons platform any way? As in it can be fitted for whatever specific mission the troops are conducting? No. There are different variants of the Stryker, each differently designed. The most common is the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, which is armed with either a M2. .50 Cal or a Mk-19 on a Remote Weapon System (RWS), similar to the CROW system. But the ICV is predominately a personnel carrier. It holds a full 9 man squad of dismounts (can actually hold many more than that), besides a driver and a vehicle commander, with three dismounts standing up, partially outside the vehicle (Squad Leaders Hatch and two Air Guard positions in rear), allowing the infantry to also engage threats with crew served and small arms. There is also a TOW variant, a Scout variant, and a Mobile Gun System variant, all of which hold different amounts of personnel and have different weapon systems. If the Cav guys want a 30mm, just buy the LAV-25. There is no point trying to throw a turreted 30mm cannon onto the Stryker when it already exists and is in service by the US military. That's not what the Stryker is designed to do. Its supposed to haul infantry right quickly and then support them, its not supposed to be a tank or APC. Talk about a colossal waste of money that would be. The 30mm would be added by incorporating a larger RWS. It will not affect how many troops the ICV can carry. You can't expect to add a massive gun system like a 30mm cannon and have it take up the same room as a .50 cal. The guns are bigger and weigh more, the mounts weigh more, the ammo weighs more. M230 CROWS http://www.defensereview.com/stories/ausawintersymposium2007/Recon%20Optical%20Raven%20RWS_8/DSC02607.JPG M320 and mount weigh about 1000 lbs total. M151 RWS and .50 cal weigh about 400 lbs. Ammo weight is also absurdly different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:53:19 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not in combat, but I have operated both manual and remote 25mm mounts. I've also had access to lethality data for the 25mm and 30mm. 30mm is better.
ETA: Looks like the Army and the 2nd ACR agree with me.
I know the Marine Corps did. That's why they were putting the 30mm on the EFV. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
dport is about to tell you that the 30mm is vastly superior to the 25mm in lethality due to varying types of ammunition. What dport will not tell you is that he has never operated or used bradleys, LAVs, or strykers in combat and so his arguments are pure conjecture. Not in combat, but I have operated both manual and remote 25mm mounts. I've also had access to lethality data for the 25mm and 30mm. 30mm is better.
ETA: Looks like the Army and the 2nd ACR agree with me.
I know the Marine Corps did. That's why they were putting the 30mm on the EFV. Not only more penetration but the ability to shoot a programmable air bursting munition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:54:02 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can we put a 30mm on an MRAP? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or get a proper armored vehicle and not a tarted up BTR-80 designed to bring 2nd echelon draftees to occupy after the real combat is over. It was designed and procured to do Bosnia rotations over and over again. Not fight. We have polished this turd for 15 years and all we have is a giant smear of shit everywhere. Bullshit. It was probably the best vehicle used in Iraq. It wasn't designed to be used in a high intensity conflict but it sure beat out driving around in Humvees like nearly every other unit in Iraq did, or MRAPs. MNF-I insisted that there be at least one Stryker BCTs in Iraq at any given time, and they were used as "fire brigades", quickly picking up and moving to whatever cities needed additional manpower. No other unit could do that. It was sooooooooooooo good in Iraq we bought 30 billion dollars worth of MRAPs. Can we put a 30mm on an MRAP? No. you put a 120 on a fucking tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:57:37 PM EDT
[#45]
Leave the Strykers alone and replace the Bradley with 40mm Bofors equipped CV90's with progammable ammunition.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:58:03 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was sooooooooooooo good in Iraq we bought 30 billion dollars worth of MRAPs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or get a proper armored vehicle and not a tarted up BTR-80 designed to bring 2nd echelon draftees to occupy after the real combat is over. It was designed and procured to do Bosnia rotations over and over again. Not fight. We have polished this turd for 15 years and all we have is a giant smear of shit everywhere. Bullshit. It was probably the best vehicle used in Iraq. It wasn't designed to be used in a high intensity conflict but it sure beat out driving around in Humvees like nearly every other unit in Iraq did, or MRAPs. MNF-I insisted that there be at least one Stryker BCTs in Iraq at any given time, and they were used as "fire brigades", quickly picking up and moving to whatever cities needed additional manpower. No other unit could do that. It was sooooooooooooo good in Iraq we bought 30 billion dollars worth of MRAPs. The MRAPs were to replace humvees, not Strykers. You are 82nd, 1st ID, 1st AD, 101st, didn't matter, your ass was either driving in a Humvee death trap or a MRAP that could barely turn without flipping over and couldn't do dirt roads. Strykers were never designed for the whole Army to use, they had very specific MTOE, trained soldiers (Stryker Net certified), technicians, mechanics, etc. We were running RWS/CROW systems,Blue Force Trackers, and FBCB2 in every truck while the rest of the Army was fucking around with one turret gunner and printed maps. We had the combat power, speed, and maneuverability to handle pretty much all terrain. I've done cities, farms, deserts. Don't be jealous because you never got to serve with Strykers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 12:59:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good point. They call it the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. I guess they ditched their armor for Strykers? I have never portrayed myself as some sort of expert on ground tactics. I have, on occasion lampooned those who pretend to be experts in areas they are not. Given that there was an Operational Needs Statement from the 2CR, routed through USAREUR, and validated by the Army Staff's G-3/5/7, I'd say they have an idea on how they would use those capabilities they are requesting and validating. The G-3/5/7 went one further and said they will task TRADOC with refining concepts for operational employment. You may not have confidence that the 2CR, USAREUR, the Army Staff, and TRADOC knows what they're doing. You may be correct. I simply don't know. I do think it was funny for all the shit you guys gave me/shoeh8ter for suggesting that 30mm would be better than a 25mm, here we have people in the Army, presumably some of them combat veterans, asking for a 30mm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It isn't an ACR anymore. I am sure 30mm works great....but please tell me how a stryker...where the armor can barely stop a a 14.5mm... is going to have a snowballs chance in hell in a real conventional fight. Basically what I am asking is in the that Strykers fight (taking into account that they are fast, quiet, and can hold a lot of dismounts), which is more of a supporting role after dropping dismounts...is the 30mm really going to help it kill the armored threat which was cited as the reason for uparming them? Good point. They call it the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. I guess they ditched their armor for Strykers? I have never portrayed myself as some sort of expert on ground tactics. I have, on occasion lampooned those who pretend to be experts in areas they are not. Given that there was an Operational Needs Statement from the 2CR, routed through USAREUR, and validated by the Army Staff's G-3/5/7, I'd say they have an idea on how they would use those capabilities they are requesting and validating. The G-3/5/7 went one further and said they will task TRADOC with refining concepts for operational employment. You may not have confidence that the 2CR, USAREUR, the Army Staff, and TRADOC knows what they're doing. You may be correct. I simply don't know. I do think it was funny for all the shit you guys gave me/shoeh8ter for suggesting that 30mm would be better than a 25mm, here we have people in the Army, presumably some of them combat veterans, asking for a 30mm. fair enough. They changed from an ACR back in 2006 when I joined the unit. Even though Sylvan has a raging hate boner for strykers he is right that the 2CR in its current format has NO purpose being in Europe if the Army is seriously concerned with armored threats from Russia. It is a glorified battle-taxi. Comfortable for long road marches, patrols, and urban movement in Iraq....but even me, who absolutely loves the stryker, isn't going to pretend that the job should be done by an ACR or heavy mech unit. Although I do think the scout squadron still has a purpose.... What the stryker will be able to do is act as the eyes and ears of USAREUR during those critical few days after hostilities begin. Strykers are great for setting screen lines because of how quickly they can move to and from hides. So my idea of a Russian invasion would be sending 4th squadron 2nd cav out on screen, and have the infantry squadrons set delaying actions in cities along the Russian route of advance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:01:10 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was some defense show not too long ago that showed a Navy Mk38 Mod 2 mount on an armored vehicle. The Mk38 can mount either a 25mm or a 30mm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was some defense show not too long ago that showed a Navy Mk38 Mod 2 mount on an armored vehicle. The Mk38 can mount either a 25mm or a 30mm. http://aviationweek.com/ausa-2014/floor-ausa-part-1#slide-6-field_images-1204071 Image 7 of 14, for those who are interested. Looks like they didn't even bother to paint the mount. It is probably waiting to be delivered to the Navy. And here's the story that goes with it: http://aviationweek.com/ausa-2014/bae-systems-amps-directed-energy-work Armament on the FTD includes a remotely operated weapons station based on the Navy Mk38 mount, and carrying a 30-mm ATK cannon and a prototype laser weapon. "Laser" |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:01:21 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was sooooooooooooo good in Iraq we bought 30 billion dollars worth of MRAPs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or get a proper armored vehicle and not a tarted up BTR-80 designed to bring 2nd echelon draftees to occupy after the real combat is over. It was designed and procured to do Bosnia rotations over and over again. Not fight. We have polished this turd for 15 years and all we have is a giant smear of shit everywhere. Bullshit. It was probably the best vehicle used in Iraq. It wasn't designed to be used in a high intensity conflict but it sure beat out driving around in Humvees like nearly every other unit in Iraq did, or MRAPs. MNF-I insisted that there be at least one Stryker BCTs in Iraq at any given time, and they were used as "fire brigades", quickly picking up and moving to whatever cities needed additional manpower. No other unit could do that. It was sooooooooooooo good in Iraq we bought 30 billion dollars worth of MRAPs. you are just jealous that strykers are more comfortable to ride in...and have a water heater |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:02:59 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not the one asking Kongsberg to develop a remote turret for a 30mm that can fit on the Stryker. I'm not the person who wrote the Operational Needs Statement for a 30mm. I'm just providing links to the stories about those who are. What you are really saying is the Army sucks at Army stuff. I could care less if they put a 30mm on a Stryker. I'd love a 30mm on the Navy's Mk38 mounts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So they added a turret and lost the squad leader's hatch, which allowed the ultimate commander of not only the truck but also the dismounts to lose situational awareness, just to gain a little bit in firepower, which isn't even the role of the Stryker anyway. Stick to Navy things, you kind of suck at Army stuff. I'm not the one asking Kongsberg to develop a remote turret for a 30mm that can fit on the Stryker. I'm not the person who wrote the Operational Needs Statement for a 30mm. I'm just providing links to the stories about those who are. What you are really saying is the Army sucks at Army stuff. I could care less if they put a 30mm on a Stryker. I'd love a 30mm on the Navy's Mk38 mounts. Maybe I should get the Navy to write a SBIR topic to put a GAU/8 on an LCAC. You'd never know the gun was firing over the sound of the ACV.  |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
