,

Bradley equipped units are considered "Heavy"
Stryker equipped units are considered "Medium"

I'm not sure if the "Mechanized" designation is used for the
SBCTs.  

The 9th ID used to be "Motorized" back in the day.

Quoted: Bradley equipped units are considered "Heavy" Stryker equipped units are considered "Medium" I'm not sure if the "Mechanized" designation is used for the SBCTs.   The 9th ID used to be "Motorized" back in the day.

I always hear the bradley guys call themselves "mech" or mechanized is this correct?

Bradleys are mech

I just call the Stryker guys motorized until I hear otherwise

Quoted: Quoted: Bradley equipped units are considered "Heavy" Stryker equipped units are considered "Medium" I'm not sure if the "Mechanized" designation is used for the SBCTs.   The 9th ID used to be "Motorized" back in the day. I always hear the bradley guys call themselves "mech" or mechanized is this correct?

Yep

what are the weaknesses of the stryker? less armor, and why are they wheeled aren't tracks the way to go?

From what I have seen, the Strykers are neither Mech nor light (but both mech and light units have been transformed into SBCTs), they're just called an SBCT (Stryker Brigade Combat Team).

Kharn

Quoted: what are the weaknesses of the stryker? less armor, and why are they wheeled aren't tracks the way to go?

They are relatively light and can be deployed more quickly.

They can also be forward deployed.

They depend on rapid maneuvering, rather than armor. They can be used as blocking forces or can maneuver around heavy forces.

They might not be able to attack an armored unit, but could chew up an attacking armor unit.

Quoted: what are the weaknesses of the stryker? less armor, and why are they wheeled aren't tracks the way to go?

Less armor.  Less weaponry on the standard troop carrier model.

Wheels mean higher mobility in certain environments, just as tracks provide
better mobility in some environments.  Wheels are less expensive and, a HELL
of alot easier to replace.

Myself, I'm a fan of the SBCT concept, but, just like most things, the Army really
assed up the Rand D.

We'd be better off just reviveing the M113 ACAV concept used in vietnam for the environment we're in at the moment, IMO, but, the SBCT concept is a sound one in limited application.

They are officially categorised as mechanised infantry, and the NATO standard icon for them is the Mech Infantry icon of an oval within a square with an 'X'. (With wheels on the oval) Motorised infantry basically means unarmoured trucks. (Recently resurrected by the US Army when it redesignated TWATs and other such troops who had their normal vehicles taken away and turned into infantry in HMMWVs as "Motor Infantry"), re-redesignated as Dragoons. (NATO Icon: "X" in a square, with wheels). FWIW, IFVs such as Bradley have an Oval and X in a square with a vertical line on the left signifying their autocannon, and tracked APCs such as M113 are simply an oval and X in a square.

An old, old term might be 'Armoured Infantry', but that designation didn't last much after WWII.

Strykers are indeed considered medium-weight APCs, although the emergence of a new category of 'Heavy APC' in recent years has led some to consider redefining vehicles such as Bradley and Marder, (technically IFVs), as mediumweight although they are more armoured and heavier than vehicles such as Stryker.

NTM

Quoted: what are the weaknesses of the stryker? less armor, and why are they wheeled aren't tracks the way to go?

Not many weaknesses, if compared to the M113, its closest tracked US equivalent. Main one is that wheels provide less tactical mobility in certain terrain. I guess Stryker can't swim either, though I'm told it's a feature of the M113 which crews prefer not to experiment with. Plenty of advantages vs M113, both tactical and strategic.

Topic has been done to death, here, TankNet, and other places. Generally people tend to dig into their trenches and not move. Kindof like arguing American politics.

NTM

Quoted: Quoted: what are the weaknesses of the stryker? less armor, and why are they wheeled aren't tracks the way to go? Less armor.  Less weaponry on the standard troop carrier model. Wheels mean higher mobility in certain environments, just as tracks provide better mobility in some environments.  Wheels are less expensive and, a HELL of alot easier to replace. Myself, I'm a fan of the SBCT concept, but, just like most things, the Army really assed up the Rand D. We'd be better off just reviveing the M113 ACAV concept used in vietnam for the environment we're in at the moment, IMO, but, the SBCT concept is a sound one in limited application.

The Stryker was developed before the shit we're in now, and it was tested against and beat the M113 varient that was submitted for testing.
113's have shitty armor, and would need another engine upgrade to fully keep up in speed with M1's, M2/M3, or the Stryker.  Tracks are nice, but do suck ass when one is thrown. That vehicle is going to have to be abandoned or destroyed until the mission is complete.  At least the Stryker has run flats, and can still be used with 2 flats on each side.  Of course, those tires will have to be changed sometime, and hopefully there are spares that can be brought to them if they can't get to the spares.  Otherwise a couple of bursts from an AK will eventually get a mobility kill on one.  Maybe an hour or 50 miles later, but still.
They aren't as heavily armored as the Bradley, and only a few have the firepower.  But on smooth surfaces, they will get a squad there faster than anything short of a Blackhawk, and the M2 on top definately adds to the squad/platoon firepower. Not as much as the 25mm on the Brad, but not horrible, and the same as a M113 varient would have, and again it has better armor protection.

It was tested against and beat the M113 varient that was submitted for testing.

There is actually a lot of contention going around as to whether or not the head-to-head testing (at NTC) was rigged in favour of the Stryker. One of the TankNet lads was at the testing, and said that the winner was not declared the winner.

Now, that said, I still maintain that Stryker is overall the better vehicle, having seen both in action in the current low-intensity environment. (Low-intensity is a misnomer: The shooting may be low intensity, but the mileage/usage rates are through the roof)

NTM

They might not be able to attack an armored unit, but could chew up an attacking armor unit.

Why is a Stryker more effective against an armor unit that is attacking than it is against one it attacks?z

There's a Stryker Brigade doing a forcible entry/multiple city seizure at Fort Irwin this month.  I'll try to get some pics of us handing them their asses.

Quoted: They might not be able to attack an armored unit, but could chew up an attacking armor unit. Why is a Stryker more effective against an armor unit that is attacking than it is against one it attacks?z

One supposes that the main guns of tanks would tear apart the Strykers but in an ambush (defensive) they could launch TOWs and direct multi-purpose submunitions onto the attacking force from cover/hull down positions?

G

The Stryker's weapon isn't the .50 cal up top, it's the troops it carries. The anti-armour weapons it has are defensive in nature (TOW, Javelin), not fired from the move. The troops will conduct ambushes against armoured vehicles, but would be daft to try attacking tanks in anything but close terrain such as thick woods or cities. Finally, the defender will usually get the first shots off, and Strykers simply can't take hits from most AT weapons like a tank can.

NTM

Quoted: The anti-armour weapons it has are defensive in nature (TOW, Javelin), not fired from the move.

Got any proof to support that statement?

Kharn