User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:05:33 PM EDT
[#1]
Dupe.. The movie pentagon wars already did this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:06:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dupe.. The movie pentagon wars already did this. what use is a bigger gun without more armor...lets add another 10 tons to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:13:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you are just jealous that strykers are more comfortable to ride in...and have a water heater 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. you are just jealous that strykers are more comfortable to ride in...and have a water heater We rigged up a coffee machine in ours and had a stereo system that automatically cut off whenever comms were used. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:24:39 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Leave the Strykers alone and replace the Bradley with 40mm Bofors equipped CV90's with progammable ammunition. 
I know fuck all about this stuff, but do recall reading somewhere that most modern IFV's or whatever are being designed with sufficient armor to protect against 30mm. With that in mind it seems like 40mm would make a lot of sense, especially since it already has the programmable munitions available. Plus the cv 90 is a sexy beast. But that doesn't feed the contractors from congressman whatsits district. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:27:48 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:I'm just providing links to the stories about those who are. What you are really saying is the Army sucks at Army stuff. LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:32:48 PM EDT
[#6]
They better make it a Mk44 Bushmaster II, aka Chain gun
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:33:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not only more penetration but the ability to shoot a programmable air bursting munition. 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. Not only more penetration but the ability to shoot a programmable air bursting munition. I fricking love the 30mm implementation the USN has on LPD-17 and the LCS SUW module. Mk 38 Mod 2 is a good gun. Mk 46/Mk 50 is better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:33:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Programmable HE is a huge multiplier, and that requires at least a 30mm if you want it to have a decent kill radius.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:34:32 PM EDT
[#9]
I thought the Strykers were already way overweight? If I recall, a stryker weighs more than a Marine LAV-25.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:36:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:37:45 PM EDT
[#11]
I work with Bradley crewmen (among others). They were talking yesterday of the Brad's 25mm being upgraded to 30mm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:52:09 PM EDT
[#12]
Sea story time...I've actually seen a MK38 Mod 1 employed against a threat (I won't say combat, it was a boat full of somalians with AK's and RPG-7's) first hand. When the incendiary round hit the 55gal drum of gas in the middle of their skiff, it was glorious (particularly while watching on FLIR). I always though fire control was the biggest flaw for the MK38, not lethality. Hopefully the Mod 2 fixed that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 1:59:26 PM EDT
[#13]
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. There is an upgrade to the CROWS to put a Javelin on one side. Kharn Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:00:49 PM EDT
[#14]
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. That's it, right there. The Strykers get their ass kicked out at NTC on a regular basis in every vehicle on vehicle engagement. Personally, I blame the leadership for drinking the kool-aid that the Stryker could out perform any other vehicle in the Army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:04:25 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We rigged up a coffee machine in ours and had a stereo system that automatically cut off whenever comms were used. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. you are just jealous that strykers are more comfortable to ride in...and have a water heater We rigged up a coffee machine in ours and had a stereo system that automatically cut off whenever comms were used. Shit, who hasn't? My Bradley in Korea was tricked out like that, and had bucket seats installed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:04:37 PM EDT
[#16]
I think it was the canadians that had a 20mm version of the stryker in 09-10.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:05:11 PM EDT
[#17]
The Stryker is a personnel carrier, and I'm told a pretty decent one. Big Army of course has always wanted to turn it into something else. Just like when they up-gunned and armored Hummers.
I always was impressed by the Bushmaster 25mm, the only issue I see with the 30mm programmable munitions is that a fucked-up ROE will more than likely never allow it to be used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:05:44 PM EDT
[#18]
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. 2nd ACR is trying to do the best they can with the shit they have. That doesn't in any way mean it's the best for the mission. We need real Cav regiments back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:09:00 PM EDT
[#19]
Its not just about fighting armor, the 30mm is significantly more capable against troops in open and in fortifications. The 30mm round not only have an airburst and point detonating mode, it has a delay mode than allows it to penetrate several feet of earthen fornication prior to functioning, and since it is fired from a relatively stable mount it can take advantage of multiple close in hits to destroy defensive structures.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:09:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it was the canadians that had a 20mm version of the stryker in 09-10. Same 25mm Bushmaster as the Marines use on theirs and used on the Army Bradley. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:10:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
2nd ACR is trying to do the best they can with the shit they have. That doesn't in any way mean it's the best for the mission. We need real Cav regiments back. I would imagine up gunning Strykers with a 30mm is orders of magnitude less expensive than trying to buy Bradleys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:11:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shit, who hasn't? My Bradley in Korea was tricked out like that, and had bucket seats installed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 We rigged up a coffee machine in ours and had a stereo system that automatically cut off whenever comms were used. Shit, who hasn't? My Bradley in Korea was tricked out like that, and had bucket seats installed. By 2007, not many Bradley's rolling around Iraq or Afghanistan. Lots of Strykers though. How many dismounts did the Bradley carry? Enough to perform platoon dismounted operations? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:12:24 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would imagine up gunning Strykers with a 30mm is orders of magnitude less expensive than trying to buy Bradleys. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
2nd ACR is trying to do the best they can with the shit they have. That doesn't in any way mean it's the best for the mission. We need real Cav regiments back. I would imagine up gunning Strykers with a 30mm is orders of magnitude less expensive than trying to buy Bradleys. Already have them if they want them. Run Bradley's thru an upgrade/re-furb program and call it good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:13:26 PM EDT
[#24]
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. Are they polishing those turds with their Shinseki-mandated berets? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:14:24 PM EDT
[#25]
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. Wrong, see the ABV as an example of this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:16:55 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By 2007, not many Bradley's rolling around Iraq or Afghanistan. Lots of Strykers though. How many dismounts did the Bradley carry? Enough to perform platoon dismounted operations? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Shit, who hasn't? My Bradley in Korea was tricked out like that, and had bucket seats installed. By 2007, not many Bradley's rolling around Iraq or Afghanistan. Lots of Strykers though. How many dismounts did the Bradley carry? Enough to perform platoon dismounted operations? We were a fighting platoon. not battle taxi service.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:18:33 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they polishing those turds with their Shinseki-mandated berets?
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. Are they polishing those turds with their Shinseki-mandated berets?
The berets have been gone for a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:26:36 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The berets have been gone for a while. 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. Are they polishing those turds with their Shinseki-mandated berets?
The berets have been gone for a while. Really? Back to patrol caps? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:27:26 PM EDT
[#29]
What they should do is surplus them to all of us and buy new shit
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:29:15 PM EDT
[#30]
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/ 
I maintain he deserves a eulogy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:30:54 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The berets have been gone for a while. 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. Are they polishing those turds with their Shinseki-mandated berets?
The berets have been gone for a while. Glad to hear that... IMHO, the Army did a huge disservice to all the guys in units that actually earned the right to wear a beret by wanting to make every fucking E1 feel like a special fucking snowflake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:31:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What they should do is surplus them to all of us and buy new shit Heck yeah!. Commute to work in a Stryker! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:32:29 PM EDT
[#33]
I did a couple deployments in a Stryker brigade. I think upgrading the M2/Mk19 weapons on the Stryker is not advisable. Everyone has noted the expense, logistics, training, and weight issues. Those are all valid. The upside is what? Firepower? The Stryker doesn't really use firepower and doesn't really need it. Its a pax carrier, not an MBT. 30mm is good against dismounts in the open. Yeah, so is the Mk19.
I can understand up-gunning one truck per platoon or so, like they did with the MGS, but I don't think this will take off. We need to think realistically about the Stryker's role in today's realistic missions. I think we're seeing the "ARFCOM standard" at work in this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:32:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? Back to patrol caps? 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. Are they polishing those turds with their Shinseki-mandated berets?
The berets have been gone for a while. Really? Back to patrol caps? I hate to quote CNN, but this is a decent write up about it. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/13/army.beret/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:33:47 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M320 and mount weigh about 1000 lbs total. M151 RWS and .50 cal weigh about 400 lbs. Ammo weight is also absurdly different. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. I just think its a much more manageable modification than putting a 30mm Bushmaster II on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:34:43 PM EDT
[#36]
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. This made me laugh out loud, and when I said it out loud to my office mates everyone had a good laugh at the truth of it. I agree with the notion of putting an actual heavy division (or brigade) back in Germany (or Poland!) to even things out again. Road bump? Sure. Just like Fulda Gap again, except that instead of Strykers, they're in M1s and Brads and might do enough damage to the adversary that the follow on forces can succeed, rather than just ceding all of central Europe to the first group to run amok in heavies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:38:12 PM EDT
[#37]
I've been saying it for years... The Army is fundamentally fucked in the head when it comes to the whole way it does mech warfare.
Sure, go ahead, put a goddamn 30mm on top of the Stryker. You've just reinvented the damn Bradley, which is so stupid that it's not even funny. The problem that you have with the entire IFV concept is that the multi-purpose nature of the vehicles is completely antiethical to how we fight. You know how many times I saw a situation where a good support-by-fire position for the vehicles weapons was co-located with where the grunts needed to be dropped? About fucking zero. So, you either have to move your firepower up to where the troops get dropped off, or you make them debark at the good support-by-fire position and walk up exposed, so they arrive tired and already attrited. We've given the Infantry guys a choice between "Bad option A" or "Bad option B". Firepower and troop carrying need to be on separate vehicles. Period. Instead of putting the guns on the vehicles with the troops, they need to have dedicated fire support vehicles like the Russians have been experimenting with, and troop carriers that can self-defend, but no more. That way, the two can go to where they're most effective on the battlefield, and we're not wasting assets. As we do it, it just doesn't work--And, on top of that, the troop-carrying capacity on these multi-purpose vehicles is cut down to about half or a third what it should be, because we're trying to cram weapons loads in on top of the troops. Sheerest 'effing stupidity--You can't build a deployable vehicle big enough to carry all the troops and crap that we want to include, and make it work. It ain't physically possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:39:35 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
30mm is good against dismounts in the open. Yeah, so is the Mk19. The gun is significantly more capable than the Mk19, the 3P round it would use not only could kill thinner skinned armor, it could kill troops in the open, behind cover and in fighting positions . The Marines intended as the armament for the EFV, replacing the capability of the coaxial M2 and Mk19 on the AAV This 30mm round really is what the PGU-13/b round on the GAU-8 should have been. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:45:57 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 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? 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 We could only roll with the M2 and 240. The MK19 was also deemed too destructive and I'll quote, "No one qualified to operate it". Not shitting you. I was one of two trusted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:53:14 PM EDT
[#40]
The South Africans have a 30x173mm cannon on their Patria AMVs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 3:00:09 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate to quote CNN, but this is a decent write up about it. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/13/army.beret/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Are they polishing those turds with their Shinseki-mandated berets?
The berets have been gone for a while. Really? Back to patrol caps? I hate to quote CNN, but this is a decent write up about it. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/13/army.beret/ Thanks! Also, good for the Army! The cap is a better piece of headgear and more practical. Leave the berets for the elite units. Now they can go back to 'Ranger Roll' vs no ranger roll on the caps.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 3:02:25 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I maintain he deserves a eulogy. 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/
I maintain he deserves a eulogy. "Here lies my beloved shoeh8ter, my autumn flower, somewhat less attractive now that he's all corpsified and gross." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 3:10:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just think its a much more manageable modification than putting a 30mm Bushmaster II on it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. I just think its a much more manageable modification than putting a 30mm Bushmaster II on it. In some ways, but I don't see why it needs a 30mm cannon. As I and others who've served in Stryker Brigades have said, it doesn't need the firepower, its a taxi, not fighting platform. Think of Stryker brigades as dragoons. We ride to the battlefield, fast and light, in Stykers, and then dismount to fight. But the trucks don't support us the same way a mech platoon with Bradley's do it. In a hard fight, our trucks hang back and we just use dismounts to fight. It doesn't have enough armor to fight properly and the doctrine isn't there to use it to assault objectives. That's the dismount's job. The scout variant sucks in firepower (manned .50 cal or Mk19, no RWS), but it has the LRAS, which is what makes that vehicle a scout. That thing can pick up heat signatures from miles away and lase it to get a distance/direction/grid. If actual Cav units aren't happy with the Stryker ICV or the Scout variants, then they need to either look at how they are using the vehicles or think about getting reequipped with another vehicle. Just like the Bradley can't do everything the Stryker can, the Stryker can't do everything the Bradley (or other vehicles) can. It was never designed to go head to head with mechanized units. Its forte is low intensity urban conflicts, where it excels more than any other vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 3:15:59 PM EDT
[#44]
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. So can you really blame the vehicle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 3:22:41 PM EDT
[#45]
They should just put a 75mm low pressure gun on it in a nice armored turret, and then replace the wheels with tracks and call it an infantry support vehicle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 3:28:52 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Here lies my beloved shoeh8ter, my autumn flower, somewhat less attractive now that he's all corpsified and gross." 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/
I maintain he deserves a eulogy. "Here lies my beloved shoeh8ter, my autumn flower, somewhat less attractive now that he's all corpsified and gross." Maybe Shoe did a blue-to-green conversion |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 3:30:15 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought the Strykers were already way overweight? If I recall, a stryker weighs more than a Marine LAV-25. close to 30 tons with slat armor and fully equipped |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 3:31:22 PM EDT
[#48]
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/ Popped wood at 25mm Chain gun! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 3:31:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's it, right there. The Strykers get their ass kicked out at NTC on a regular basis in every vehicle on vehicle engagement. Personally, I blame the leadership for drinking the kool-aid that the Stryker could out perform any other vehicle in the Army. 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? 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. That's it, right there. The Strykers get their ass kicked out at NTC on a regular basis in every vehicle on vehicle engagement. Personally, I blame the leadership for drinking the kool-aid that the Stryker could out perform any other vehicle in the Army. Imagine that a non fighting personnel carrier gets beat by heavily armored fighting vehicles. Whoda thunk it. derrrrrrrrrp |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 3:33:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They should just put a 75mm low pressure gun on it in a nice armored turret, and then replace the wheels with tracks and call it an infantry support vehicle. That's what the MGS variant of the Stryker, which was supposed to be an infantry fire support vehicle. But being the Army, they probably said "Why stop at a 75mm? If we are going to put a turret on it, why not go 105mm?" Especially since the barrels were the actual original M1 barrels, so they could reuse them. I would have loved a simple recoiless rocket system, like the old 75mm or even the newer Carl Gustav. Put it on a pintle mount for the SL to fire. That would do any demo work necessary. |
|
|
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.
