Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/13/2003 8:52:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2003 8:53:49 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
www.komotv.com/stories/28783.htm


TIKRIT, IRAQ - A roadside bomb destroyed a Stryker vehicle with the Fort Lewis Stryker Brigade.

A scout platoon on a reconnaissance mission south of Tikrit ran over what the military calls an improvised explosive device.

The soldiers inside got out safely but the 19 ton vehicle caught fire and burned out of control.

"There was a small explosion, and the engine caught fire. The soldiers inside got out and tried to put the fire out but it got out of control and started setting off the ammunition," said ABC news producer in Iraq, Mike Gudgell.

One soldier in the vehicle was slightly injured, he suffered a small hairline fracture in his leg.

The vehicle burned for several hours as the soldiers set up a perimeter to ward off any further attacks. There were none.

Three Fort Lewis soldiers died in Iraq last week when their Stryker vehicles rolled over and landed in a canal.



Link Posted: 12/13/2003 8:59:43 PM EDT
not sure i consider that particular type of attack a problem. it could have just as easily taken out most vehicles. The Stryker does appear to have a few bugs though. mike
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 9:00:29 PM EDT
Someone posted in the other thread that "survivability" means more than just armor. I guess they were right!
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 9:03:39 PM EDT
I don't like the idea of the Stryker...they are trying to build a force that they can move in 24 hours, not fight. The focus should be on rapid transports like ground effects craft, not uber light vehicles that will get Americans killed. I would much rather have a foot of depleted uranium around me then 8" of aluminum
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 9:07:53 PM EDT
Yep,and aluminum burns.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 9:13:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist: I would much rather have a foot of depleted uranium around me then 8" of aluminum
View Quote
that kinda runs contradictory to our new doctrine of 'light and fast' [;)]
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 9:25:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SNorman: Someone posted in the other thread that "survivability" means more than just armor. I guess they were right!
View Quote
That was me. Now tell me - was anyone seriously hurt? This has happened to hundreds of vehicles in Iraq to date. This is the first NON-FATALITY accident to make the news in the US though. Oh well, believe what you want.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 10:33:56 PM EDT
What disabled the Stryker? a 22 short or 22 long rifle? Oh Roadside bomb... nevermind.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 11:31:34 PM EDT
"19 tons"...jeesh...doesn't an M-113 weigh about 10 tons? Wasn't the point with a switch to wheeled vehicles to "go light"? Welcome to Modern America! Welcome to Babylon! Welcome to 1984! Black is white! War is peace!
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 11:35:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By StormSurge: "19 tons"...jeesh...doesn't an M-113 weigh about 10 tons? Wasn't the point with a switch to wheeled vehicles to "go light"? Welcome to Modern America! Welcome to Babylon! Welcome to 1984! Black is white! War is peace!
View Quote
19 tons IS light. 19 tons has been the "magic" number for all future systems. Sure beats 70 tons. The Stryker outclasses the M113 in every possible category. Go back to your comic books.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 11:40:39 PM EDT
IEDs suck- I've spent the last month having the fear of them instilled in me. One of the few spectacular M1 kills was by an IED- 130lbs of C4 or a similar Iraqi derivative packed in a crate, buried in a roadbed. They detonated it right as the tank rolled overhead, belly armor. Blew the turret several vehicle leignths down the road, killed all but the driver, who isnt expected to live either. Make no mistakes about it, your chances of being recalled from Iraq are higher than catching a bullet, but some kind of IED getting you has a much greater probability.... And trust me, walking through an unlit area at night, even with Nogs, only God can save you from stumbeling upon one of those damned things....
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 11:43:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2003 11:46:06 PM EDT by StormSurge]
Books, not comic books. And good books. Do the math. 19 tons is nearly twice 10 tons. That means only half as many Stryker systems deployed per unit of transport. The whole point of going to wheels was to require less transport. Obviously, a failure, given the intent. More math: mobility: 19 tons on 8 tires, or 10 tons on a pair of tracks. Ground pressure = ? And where did this magic "19 tons is optimal" come from?
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 11:47:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NYPatriot: The soldiers inside got out safely
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 11:49:29 PM EDT
i was talking to a soldier that was in our break room with his wife. he told me that a 5.56 round went clean through a stryker. this happened about 3 months ago. i don't think i'd want to be in one.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 3:22:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NYPatriot: One soldier in the vehicle was slightly injured, he suffered a small hairline fracture in his leg.
View Quote
Is that like being kinda pregnant?
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 5:06:53 AM EDT
Mobilty has it's price. Anyone remember the exact same negative comments made when the bradley came on line. I have spoken with a Capt in the Army and he LOVES his Bradley. He has many years and a few sandbox deployments under his tracks and he said to give the striker it chance. Good enough for me, John the arm chair commando. I think anything smaller than a M1 is too small
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 5:19:30 AM EDT
One the future battlefield where anything you see you can kill, I doubt heavy armor is going to mean much. After researching the M113 vs Stryker thing yesterday, I found out several M113s have been taken out by the exact same type of attack. Their occupants weren't as lucky as the Styker's occupants. Don't the Bradley's use AL armor too?
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 5:39:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dport: One the future battlefield where anything you see you can kill, I doubt heavy armor is going to mean much.
View Quote
Very true. Another five or ten years and nothing will be safe.
After researching the M113 vs Stryker thing yesterday, I found out several M113s have been taken out by the exact same type of attack. Their occupants weren't as lucky as the Styker's occupants.
View Quote
Very true.
Don't the Bradley's use AL armor too?
View Quote
Yes, and that caused a big hub-bub when it became operational, too.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 5:53:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist: I don't like the idea of the Stryker...they are trying to build a force that they can move in 24 hours, not fight. The focus should be on rapid transports like ground effects craft, not uber light vehicles that will get Americans killed. I would much rather have a foot of depleted uranium around me then 8" of aluminum
View Quote
The reasons for lighter fighting vehicles go beyond just deploying them into theater although that having an airmobile vehicle is definitely an asset for rapid reaction. Ability to use existing transportation infrastructure is also important. There are lots of places where roads and bridges will not support a 70 ton M1 or maybe even Bradleys. Also important is to have something that gets better mileage so that the logistics train can be reduced and improve the teeth to tail ratio of forces in theater.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 5:59:30 AM EDT
Say what you want about the Stryker as an armored vehicle but,it sure as hell beats an unarmored vehicle. Had these things been around for Mogadishu things might have been very different.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 6:08:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2003 6:18:33 AM EDT by SJSAMPLE]
Originally Posted By u-baddog: Mobilty has it's price. Anyone remember the exact same negative comments made when the bradley came on line. I have spoken with a Capt in the Army and he LOVES his Bradley. He has many years and a few sandbox deployments under his tracks and he said to give the striker it chance. Good enough for me, John the arm chair commando. I think anything smaller than a M1 is too small
View Quote
In 1984, before the Bradley was even fielded, I wrote a series of papers for my ROTC Military Science classes that extolled the virtues of an Infantry Fighting Vehicle capable of bringing soldiers TO and THROUGH the Eurpoean battlefield. I even went so far as to build the Tamiya model of the M3 bradley as a demo (nearly twenty years later, it's still sitting on top of my monitor as I type). My roommate at the time, a cadet who had just graduated Airborne and Ranger school the summer before, was very weary of the vehicle. He didn't believe it would be survivable. 5 years later, he was transferred to Ft. Hood and commanded a Bradley company. It didn't take him more than a month to call me and finally admit that he LOVED that vehicle. On-demand firepower and unparalleled ground infantry mobility and protection. Anybody that's telling you that the Stryker offers the same protection as the Bradley is grossly wrong. They've given up a lot of air transportability (hah!) and ROAD mobility.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 6:22:05 AM EDT
I don't think anyone is comparing the armor protection of the Bradley's, especially the newer models, to the Stryker. Different vehicles with different jobs. It IS interesting to note the AL armor of the Stryker is conterversial just as the AL armor of the Bradleys was. Look at the conflicts we've been in since Desert Storm: Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Afghanistan and now the end of combat operations in Iraq. A light mobile force that is able to deploy quickly and has a smaller logistics footprint is desireable in every situation. If the Army was using the Stryker to initially invade Iraq then I would agree it would be the wrong choice. However, we aren't fighting heavy armor.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:26:52 AM EDT
References have already been made to previous posts, where it was clearly stated that the Styker offered superior crew protection over the Bradley. Seriously.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:48:04 AM EDT
Similarities? http://home.att.net/~superspy/m-706.htm http://www.gingerb.com/VIETNAM%20I%20FSB%20Moore%20to%20Cai%20Lay.jpg http://www.gingerb.com/VIETNAM%20H%20FSB%20Moore%20to%20Cai%20Lay.jpg rk
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:55:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE: References have already been made to previous posts, where it was clearly stated that the Styker offered superior crew protection over the Bradley. Seriously.
View Quote
That was mine. Survivability is a function of various issues. Speed, stealth, armor, sustainability, smaller logistic footprint (where the REAL vulnerability lies), and numerous other things come into play. Another poster just posted of how a similar bomb killed some M1 tankers. Yet some of the naysayers on this board use a scratched up Joe as evidence that the Stryker was a bad idea. Your zest to see the Stryker fail is no different thant he folks at DUh's zest to see the whole operation fail. You people fucking kill me. I stand by my assessment. American soldiers are better off - and more will likely survive - with the Stryker in the "Sunni Triangle" than a BCT of Bradleys. Oh gee - we caught Saddam today. Maybe the Army DOES know what it's doing?
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:59:55 AM EDT
I do believe the Bradley is a fine, even superior mobile infantry fighting vehicle. Maybe the best in the world. I have forgotten what it weighed, isn't it around 40 ton? That sounds high. I could be wrong. Everyone I have talked to likes the BFV, without exception. The Stryker is *not* the BFV's replacement as the two fill different roles...to a point. I am not very familiar with the Stryker but I think it will prove to be a good design.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 8:00:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Adam_White: Maybe the Army DOES know what it's doing?
View Quote
Operationally yes. Procurements is still largely influenced by contractor lobbyists.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 8:03:23 AM EDT
[img]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front2.jpg[/img] Crew members provide security while a blown tire is removed from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday. [img]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front3.jpg[/img] Cpl. Brian Hartmann changes a blown tire from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 8:04:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
Originally Posted By u-baddog: Mobilty has it's price. Anyone remember the exact same negative comments made when the bradley came on line. I have spoken with a Capt in the Army and he LOVES his Bradley. He has many years and a few sandbox deployments under his tracks and he said to give the striker it chance. Good enough for me, John the arm chair commando. I think anything smaller than a M1 is too small
View Quote
Anybody that's telling you that the Stryker offers the same protection as the Bradley is grossly wrong. They've given up a lot of air transportability (hah!) and ROAD mobility.
View Quote
We never compared the two, he just said, HE is will to give it a chance and would like to see it fielded. He see's a mission it could perform.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 8:11:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2003 8:12:35 AM EDT by u-baddog]
Originally Posted By KA3B: [url]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front2.jpg[/url] Crew members provide security while a blown tire is removed from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday. [url]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front3.jpg[/url] Cpl. Brian Hartmann changes a blown tire from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday.
View Quote
THe picture of the guy changing a tire with a hand tool is disgusting. The vehicle should have a small air compressor on board with at least 135 psi and an 1/2 to air tool for just this purpose. HOW STUPID, use the hand tools for back up. ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP wham bam ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP done.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 8:26:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RebelGray: IEDs suck- I've spent the last month having the fear of them instilled in me. One of the few spectacular M1 kills was by an IED- 130lbs of C4 or a similar Iraqi derivative packed in a crate, buried in a roadbed. They detonated it right as the tank rolled overhead, belly armor. Blew the turret several vehicle leignths down the road, killed all but the driver, who isnt expected to live either. Make no mistakes about it, your chances of being recalled from Iraq are higher than catching a bullet, but some kind of IED getting you has a much greater probability.... And trust me, walking through an unlit area at night, even with Nogs, only God can save you from stumbeling upon one of those damned things....
View Quote
You KEEP YOUR ASS CAREFUL, over there, Reb!!! Come home safe.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 8:54:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KA3B: [url]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front2.jpg[/url] Crew members provide security while a blown tire is removed from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday. [url]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front3.jpg[/url] Cpl. Brian Hartmann changes a blown tire from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday.
View Quote
You're telling me these things GET FLAT TIRES??? WTH??? Flat tires in a firefight?? Can they be shot up??? HUH????
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 9:14:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2003 9:43:19 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By KA3B: [url]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front2.jpg[/url] Crew members provide security while a blown tire is removed from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday. [url]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front3.jpg[/url] Cpl. Brian Hartmann changes a blown tire from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday.
View Quote
You're telling me these things GET FLAT TIRES??? WTH??? Flat tires in a firefight?? Can they be shot up??? HUH????
View Quote
Yep. Shotup, burned up. They are run-flats like on the HMMWV's with central tire pressure control, so they can keep pumping themselves up. But it slows you down, running over flaming barricades is probably not a good idea, cause if more than ONE tire gets it on one side or one end... Adam is ignoring a point. The idea was to build a MORE DEPLOYABLE AFV than the Bradley. The Stryker is not. Because of its height and width, as well as now its weight, you cannot carry more Strykers than M2/M3's in a C-17. BEFORE the modifications for Iraq, the Styker could only fit in a C-130 if it was unloaded. It couldn't roll out into combat from a Herc like the IDF has done with their M-113s, even when wearing 3 tons of extra armor. Now with the rails, and the steel plates added at the last minute to replace the defective ceramic tiles that were supposed to give the Stryker its 14.5mm machine gun protection, it probably weighs closer to 21-22 tons than 19 and cannot be carried in a C-130 at all. Stryker was never designed to be parachuted, M113s can, even with the added armor they don't make it to the 16 ton weight limit. At 28,000 pounds they can also be slung by CH-47D's, which a Stryker cannot. There is going to be a 5 ton diference between the M113 and Stryker simply because of the weight of the 8 wheel drive drive line. A M113 with the same level of protection and electronics suite as a Stryker is going to weigh about 14 tons- base weight is 11- and the difference is entirely the weight of axles, differentials, transmissions, and heavier, larger wheels, which are also taking up more hull volume and raise the minimum height of the vheicle. And neither of them will have the protection of a Bradley. But in the M113's case you get something for the risk, like being able to fit in a Herc, or to fit FIVE in a C17, or to sling load under a Chinook, or to parachute. And without adding the logistics of a whole new family of driveline parts. And both the Stryker and M113 carry the same 11 men plus 2 crew.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 10:35:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Adam_White:
Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE: References have already been made to previous posts, where it was clearly stated that the Styker offered superior crew protection over the Bradley. Seriously.
View Quote
That was mine. Survivability is a function of various issues. Speed, stealth, armor, sustainability, smaller logistic footprint (where the REAL vulnerability lies), and numerous other things come into play. Another poster just posted of how a similar bomb killed some M1 tankers. Yet some of the naysayers on this board use a scratched up Joe as evidence that the Stryker was a bad idea. Your zest to see the Stryker fail is no different thant he folks at DUh's zest to see the whole operation fail. You people fucking kill me. I stand by my assessment. American soldiers are better off - and more will likely survive - with the Stryker in the "Sunni Triangle" than a BCT of Bradleys. Oh gee - we caught Saddam today. Maybe the Army DOES know what it's doing?
View Quote
Please don't distract the argument by questioning motives. That's a non-starter. People who (fairly) question the wisdom of the Stryker, as built, fielded and deployed, are not doing so out of some sick desire to see it fail and prove them right. And I still disagree about the Stryker's survivability. You mention speed. However, it's been proven that the Stryker is heavily dependant upon ROADs, even with it's 8x8 ability. Sticking to known routes of travel is hardly a good tactic. I've pivot-steered the M113 chassis through the ancient, crowded streets of Germany. Good luck doing that with the longer and less agile Stryker. Stealth: In a city, there's no such thing. The engine noise will still precede the vehicle by a good deal. Armor: Come on, already. [;)] Sustainability: The Stryker is already more susceptible to more kills, including mobility, than the Bradley. "Run Flat" on a 19+ ton vehicle is a joke. They [i]shred[/i]. I [i]will[/i] agree on one thing, though; THE ARMY KNOWS ITS FUCKING JOB!!! GO ARMY!! (and every sailor, airman and Marine who put their asses on the line to make this day possible)
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 11:06:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By KA3B: [url]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front2.jpg[/url] Crew members provide security while a blown tire is removed from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday. [url]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front3.jpg[/url] Cpl. Brian Hartmann changes a blown tire from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday.
View Quote
You're telling me these things GET FLAT TIRES??? WTH??? Flat tires in a firefight?? Can they be shot up??? HUH????
View Quote
Yep. Shotup, burned up. They are run-flats like on the HMMWV's with central tire pressure control, so they can keep pumping themselves up. But it slows you down, running over flaming barricades is probably not a good idea, cause if more than ONE tire gets it on one side or one end... Adam is ignoring a point. The idea was to build a MORE DEPLOYABLE AFV than the Bradley. The Stryker is not. Because of its height and width, as well as now its weight, you cannot carry more Strykers than M2/M3's in a C-17. BEFORE the modifications for Iraq, the Styker could only fit in a C-130 if it was unloaded. It couldn't roll out into combat from a Herc like the IDF has done with their M-113s, even when wearing 3 tons of extra armor. Now with the rails, and the steel plates added at the last minute to replace the defective ceramic tiles that were supposed to give the Stryker its 14.5mm machine gun protection, it probably weighs closer to 21-22 tons than 19 and cannot be carried in a C-130 at all. Stryker was never designed to be parachuted, M113s can, even with the added armor they don't make it to the 16 ton weight limit. At 28,000 pounds they can also be slung by CH-47D's, which a Stryker cannot. There is going to be a 5 ton diference between the M113 and Stryker simply because of the weight of the 8 wheel drive drive line. A M113 with the same level of protection and electronics suite as a Stryker is going to weigh about 14 tons- base weight is 11- and the difference is entirely the weight of axles, differentials, transmissions, and heavier, larger wheels, which are also taking up more hull volume and raise the minimum height of the vheicle. And neither of them will have the protection of a Bradley. But in the M113's case you get something for the risk, like being able to fit in a Herc, or to fit FIVE in a C17, or to sling load under a Chinook, or to parachute. And without adding the logistics of a whole new family of driveline parts. And both the Stryker and M113 carry the same 11 men plus 2 crew.
View Quote
I realize, highly paid/qualified engineers and military experts designed these vehicles...[BD] Am I a Moron for questioning the use of a Flammable, and DE-flatable means of motivation??? I don't understand....[%|]
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 11:24:42 AM EDT
One more point about survivability: wheeled vehicles are able to withstand landminds better than tracked vehicles. Oh and the Isreali use of M113s is getting alot of play on this board. Did you know the Isrealis are buying LAV-IIIs to replace their aging M113 fleet?
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 11:25:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Adam_White:
Originally Posted By SNorman: Someone posted in the other thread that "survivability" means more than just armor. I guess they were right!
View Quote
That was me. Now tell me - was anyone seriously hurt? This has happened to hundreds of vehicles in Iraq to date. This is the first NON-FATALITY accident to make the news in the US though. Oh well, believe what you want.
View Quote
The vehicle caught fire, burned out of control, and all the ammo inside cooked off (so the vehicle itself did not "survive" [:)]). I'm glad the soldiers are OK.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 11:26:58 AM EDT
I think the M113A3 or MTLV (IIRC) are better vehicles than Strykers for several reasons. More easily deployable, more M113's can move in any plane that can carry Strykers. They are helicopter "movable", and apparenlty light enough to be air dropped. 113's have simple power pack/drivetrains comparitavely. They may not be "maximized" like newer engines etc. But they are SIMPLE and RELIABLE. The M113's flat shape, which isn't partricularly good for defleecting rounds, is great for "modding" by adding flat sheets of armor or some of the complicated Rafael designed armor kits. The flat top of the vehicle allow for a lot of gear or ammo stowage. There are several fully developed M113 "mods" mortar, command, ITV, FIST, and "Cav" versions. A 4 gun "Cav" M113A3 wouldn't be a bad little mobile strong point. The Stryker is a 19 ton, large silohuette, vehicle armed with 1 .50 cal that is 2 feet above the body of the vehicle. The body is shaped so that adding stowage, or extra armor is difficult. I won't get into the overly complicated suspension that is required by the Army to make the Stryker "lower" itself enough to fit inside airplanes. I think US Army heavy divisions should stay that way. But the light divisions could use some heavier equipment. I'm not sure a 19 ton, 1 MG vehicle is what I want US Soldiers sent halfway around the world, with orders to hold for 2 weeks until real armor arrives. Does that mean I think that no armored wheeled vehicles can be developed to do that job? NO, but I don't think Stryker is that vehicle.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 1:09:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dport: One more point about survivability: wheeled vehicles are able to withstand landminds better than tracked vehicles. Oh and the Isreali use of M113s is getting alot of play on this board. Did you know the Isrealis are buying LAV-IIIs to replace their aging M113 fleet?
View Quote
You are going to have to come up with a quote before I beleve that. The IDF thinks wheeled vehicles are a joke, because they have so much experience destroying BTRs. They have never been entirely happy with the M113's- but a lot of the IDFs M113s are NEWER than those in US service, being built after we stopped taking delivery in favor of the Bradleys in the 1980's. Now the Israeli Border Police may be interested, they have no fully armored vheicles and are still seen patrolling with WWII era M3 half tracks. For them the LAV-III would be a improvement. The IDF uses the M113 cause its cheep, easy to maintain and service, provides useful protection. But when anything serious happens they go to the Achzarit[img]http://idf-sp.tripod.com/images/meangirl.jpg[/img] or Puma [img]http://idf-sp.tripod.com/images/wwwm3390.jpg[/img] The Achzarit is a converted Soviet T-55 MBT, and the Puma is a old Centurion MBT converted to APC. The Achzarit weighs in at a awsome-for a APC- 45 tons. and the Puma is over 50 tons. Both offer fine protection- but do not meet US deployability requirements. Given that the IDF consdiders these vheicles to be the only really satisfactory APCs in service the likelyhood of them buying a LAV-III for the ARMY is not high, maybe the police, but not the Army.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 2:43:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By u-baddog:
Originally Posted By KA3B: [url]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front2.jpg[/url] Crew members provide security while a blown tire is removed from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday. [url]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front3.jpg[/url] Cpl. Brian Hartmann changes a blown tire from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday.
View Quote
THe picture of the guy changing a tire with a hand tool is disgusting. The vehicle should have a small air compressor on board with at least 135 psi and an 1/2 to air tool for just this purpose. HOW STUPID, use the hand tools for back up. ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP wham bam ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP done.
View Quote
It already has a compressor on board, used to run the CTIS and the brakes, etc. just like that on a 5-ton. The only reason not to use them is cost. They cost alot more than hand tools, they take up more space, weigh more, and require their own maintenance. They also wear out faster than a hand tool. Odd to talk about cost on a $14 million vehicle. I mean I would have air tools on my $14,000 vehicle (my current 4x4 is $1,400). But that's the way of financing. Ross
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 2:48:22 PM EDT
Everyone who wishes the M113AX will make a comeback might as well give up now. The Army will NEVER buy any version of the M113 to use as a primary combat vehicle. It had to sell Congress on the idea that the Bradley was so much better than upgrading the M113. Therefore if the Army now buys the M113AX, Congress would justifiably wonder, "Why did we buy the Bradley if the M113AX does all and is even more deployable?" For this political reason alone, the Army [b]will NEVER[/b] buy M113's for this job. They may buy something that will do the exact same thing, even look similar, even cost more, but the M113 variant will never be considered for purchase. It's that simple. Ross
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 2:56:50 PM EDT
Stryker = Soviet BRDM reborn.... Wheels... Poor Armor... If they want 'light & fast', why not just build a smaller Bradley with more armor, a large-bore slow-fire gun (75-105mm) and no troop carrying space?? Use the M1A1-style armor, not as thick, but thick enough to stop small-caliber (30mm and below) ammo...
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 3:04:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ross: Everyone who wishes the M113AX will make a comeback might as well give up now. The Army will NEVER buy any version of the M113 to use as a primary combat vehicle. It had to sell Congress on the idea that the Bradley was so much better than upgrading the M113. Therefore if the Army now buys the M113AX, Congress would justifiably wonder, "Why did we buy the Bradley if the M113AX does all and is even more deployable?" For this political reason alone, the Army [b]will NEVER[/b] buy M113's for this job. They may buy something that will do the exact same thing, even look similar, even cost more, but the M113 variant will never be considered for purchase. It's that simple. Ross
View Quote
They bought the Bradley to counter the Soviet BMP (which was (and now, with it's 105mm gun & such, has) basically turned into more of a 'Tanklet' than an APC... This is what the 25mm 'Bushmaster' cannon was designed for, etc...
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 3:36:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By Ross: Everyone who wishes the M113AX will make a comeback might as well give up now. The Army will NEVER buy any version of the M113 to use as a primary combat vehicle. It had to sell Congress on the idea that the Bradley was so much better than upgrading the M113. Therefore if the Army now buys the M113AX, Congress would justifiably wonder, "Why did we buy the Bradley if the M113AX does all and is even more deployable?" For this political reason alone, the Army [b]will NEVER[/b] buy M113's for this job. They may buy something that will do the exact same thing, even look similar, even cost more, but the M113 variant will never be considered for purchase. It's that simple. Ross
View Quote
They bought the Bradley to counter the Soviet BMP (which was (and now, with it's 105mm gun & such, has) basically turned into more of a 'Tanklet' than an APC... This is what the 25mm 'Bushmaster' cannon was designed for, etc...
View Quote
And that operational reality has NOTHING whatsoever to do with political reality. I don't know where you got the idea that the BMP has a 105mm. The Brad was a result of a botched, long, drawn-out, overrun ridden program that originally started as the MICV program in the 60's to indeed counter the appearance of the BMP. All sorts of stuff was tried, and in the end we wound up with a good vehicle. But all throughout that program, the one thing that was obvious was that the M113A1 had to be replaced by something that was faster, had more protection, and had more punch. Even the original requirment of the Infantry being able to fire from inside has been dropped off of the later variants of the Brad. The problems with the M113A1 were that it only stopped .30cal AP. 12.7mm and larger MG fire zips right through. High velocity mortar fragments zip through. RPG's will burn right through in a split second. Mines will kill most people inside. This was the "A1" mind you and not improved current "A whatever". And that's exactly why the new one will never be purchased. To admit that an upgraded version of something you replaced can do a job better than that high-dollar program you sold Congress on isn't going to happen. You can invent a whole new program, and develop a vehicle that can do the exact same thing for more money, and buy it, but politically the Army will NEVER buy new M113Ax's. The M113Ax was in the competition, and I have no doubt it performs well, but it was dead before it first started it's engine in the trials. It'd be like the Army saying they were worng to buy the M9 and go back to the M1911A1. It'd sure be fun to watch, but it ain't gonna happen. Ross
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 4:01:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2003 4:04:51 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Originally Posted By Ross:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By Ross: Everyone who wishes the M113AX will make a comeback might as well give up now. The Army will NEVER buy any version of the M113 to use as a primary combat vehicle. It had to sell Congress on the idea that the Bradley was so much better than upgrading the M113. Therefore if the Army now buys the M113AX, Congress would justifiably wonder, "Why did we buy the Bradley if the M113AX does all and is even more deployable?" For this political reason alone, the Army [b]will NEVER[/b] buy M113's for this job. They may buy something that will do the exact same thing, even look similar, even cost more, but the M113 variant will never be considered for purchase. It's that simple. Ross
View Quote
They bought the Bradley to counter the Soviet BMP (which was (and now, with it's 105mm gun & such, has) basically turned into more of a 'Tanklet' than an APC... This is what the 25mm 'Bushmaster' cannon was designed for, etc...
View Quote
And that operational reality has NOTHING whatsoever to do with political reality. I don't know where you got the idea that the BMP has a 105mm. The Brad was a result of a botched, long, drawn-out, overrun ridden program that originally started as the MICV program in the 60's to indeed counter the appearance of the BMP. All sorts of stuff was tried, and in the end we wound up with a good vehicle. But all throughout that program, the one thing that was obvious was that the M113A1 had to be replaced by something that was faster, had more protection, and had more punch. Even the original requirment of the Infantry being able to fire from inside has been dropped off of the later variants of the Brad. The problems with the M113A1 were that it only stopped .30cal AP. 12.7mm and larger MG fire zips right through. High velocity mortar fragments zip through. RPG's will burn right through in a split second. Mines will kill most people inside. This was the "A1" mind you and not improved current "A whatever". And that's exactly why the new one will never be purchased. To admit that an upgraded version of something you replaced can do a job better than that high-dollar program you sold Congress on isn't going to happen. You can invent a whole new program, and develop a vehicle that can do the exact same thing for more money, and buy it, but politically the Army will NEVER buy new M113Ax's. The M113Ax was in the competition, and I have no doubt it performs well, but it was dead before it first started it's engine in the trials. It'd be like the Army saying they were worng to buy the M9 and go back to the M1911A1. It'd sure be fun to watch, but it ain't gonna happen. Ross
View Quote
He is right Ross, the BMP-3 has a 100mm low velocity gun, which shoots a laser guided missile as well as shells, AND a 30mm automatic cannon. Its also a lot heavier than the Bradley now. As crowded with explosives and flamables as they are I imagine they burn really well when hit. [img]http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmp-3/images/bmp-3_1.jpg[/img] For a botched project the Brad works really well now. Though not as good as the Marines AAAV will be when they arrive in 05. Considering supposedly how "well" bullets and mortar fragments penetrated the original M113A1's the ACAVs and the Austrailian turreted models kicked some serious ass in Vietnam. Casualties were always lower on ops the M113s conducted than when the legs operated alone or were just plopped in by helicopter. [url]http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietnam/mounted/index.htm[/url] Again, the M113 won't ever be turned into a Brad, but again you get portability for that and it is far better than no armor at all.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 4:31:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2003 5:04:29 PM EDT by Ross]
Sorry, DAVE A was worng. The gun is a 100mm not a 105mm as stated by Dave A. You're saying he was right, then prove he was incorrect by showing it's a 100mm and not a 105, as stated. As for threat vehicle capabilities, I've had the class, same as you, and the BMP does not have a 105mm gun standard, as you show in your reply. Thanks for proving my point on the lack of the 105mm on the BMP. The Brad is a good vehicle, as I sated in my post. It's just the project that was botched. And botched projects are generally because of politics. And politics is what gets things bought and fielded. And politics have nothing to do with how good something is. Applying common sense and operational reality doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the M113Ax is the best thing since sliced bread. For purely political reasons, [b]it will NEVER be bought by the Army[/b]. If FMC/BMY (or whatever their name is now) repackaged it as a Bradley variant and made it look more like a Brad, then they'd find it easier to sell. The company marketed it as a cheaper alternative to the Brad, and as an upgraded M113 (to help with overseas sales). The Army doesn't want an alternative to the Brad, nor does it want an upgraded M113. it doesn't matter how much sense an M113A4 makes (and it makes great sense to me). It will never be bought. That's the bottom line. Just as the Army did with 99% of it's other programs, it will pour money and modify it (the Stryker) until it actually becomes useful. The Stryker's here to stay for now. It may never have a future replacement. It may have a fairly quick replacement. It may never be replaced for decades. One thing that will NEVER happen though is that the Stryker will be dropped and replaced by the M113Ax. Then the Army would have to explain why it was buying an upgraded vehicle it passed on twenty years ago, to replace a new vehicle it just bought over the M113Ax in the first place, and fought hard to convince everyone it the Stryker was better. The M113Ax is DOA. As for Vietnam and there being less casualties with M113s, yes that's just as true when there was any supporting vehicle though. Casualties were far less with M48s supporting the infantry. Mainly because the infantry is dismounted and the tank is a bullet magnet and also has a big gun. Go back to Vietnam and look at pictures of M113's. You'll see every situation that people here are bitching about the Stryker. Stuck in the mud and having to be hauled out. Several of them stuck trying to tow each other out. BIG ASS holes in the side from RPGs. Fencing around a APC to protect it from RPGs. Sure the new one has all this armor, blah, blah, blah. But that's coming from a source that's trying to sell the vehicle. Even that super-dooper paratrooper's site is just verbatim regurgitation of FMC/BMY sales literature. If you can beleive that stuff as gospel, you can beleive that the Styrker is really going to be C-130 compatible, and that the M2 Brad is transportable in the C-141. I'm no fan of the Styker, and I'm not dead set against the M113A4 (heck my dad built the A1 at FMC and I first rode in an M113 when I was four). But the reality is the Stryker is here to stay for now. Ross
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 6:50:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By dport: One more point about survivability: wheeled vehicles are able to withstand landminds better than tracked vehicles. Oh and the Isreali use of M113s is getting alot of play on this board. Did you know the Isrealis are buying LAV-IIIs to replace their aging M113 fleet?
View Quote
You are going to have to come up with a quote before I beleve that. The IDF thinks wheeled vehicles are a joke, because they have so much experience destroying BTRs. They have never been entirely happy with the M113's- but a lot of the IDFs M113s are NEWER than those in US service, being built after we stopped taking delivery in favor of the Bradleys in the 1980's.
View Quote
Are you ready to believe? I found this while researching the Stryker yesterday. I also posted this before in one of the many other Stryker threads.
Israel looks to upgrade armored vehicles ( 2003-08-14 10:20) To boost the maneuverability of its army, particularly in the urbanized West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Israeli military plans to equip its troops with armored vehicles that use wheels instead of tracks, Israeli officials said. The military will buy 500 American-made Stryker LAV-3 armored personnel carriers for its soldiers, the Haaretz daily newspaper said. The $750 million purchase of the Strykers will be funded by America's annual defense aid to Israel, Haaretz said. The Strykers, expected to be in use within seven years, would replace the old M-113 APCs the army has been using since the early 1970s. An Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the army also was set to receive and equip its special forces with an armored version of the U.S.-made Humvee fighting vehicle in the coming weeks. The army also is considering buying a German-made APC, called the Dingo, for use in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, another Israeli source said. Such a move would be controversial in Germany, which has refused similar requests in the past. The German defense ministry could not comment but noted that such a sale would require government approval. The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv declined comment. The Israeli military spokesman's office said final decisions had not yet been made. The Humvee, the Stryker and the Dingo all have wheels while the older APCs run on tracks. In the past, the army needed tracked vehicles to reach the battleground over harsh terrain. But the tracked vehicles cannot use today's network of roads for rapid deployment, needing the help of tank carriers. The Stryker, with a maximum speed of 65 mph, also fits the military's combat doctrine that calls for an integration of infantry and armored forces. The old M-113 proved itself slow in keeping up with Israel's modern tanks. The change in focus is a result of both the U.S. army's conclusions from the two Gulf wars and Israel's own experiences during the 33 months of bitter fighting with the Palestinians that often saw cumbersome APCs operating in the narrow alleyways of the West Bank and Gaza. According to the Israeli source, the army also is considering attempting to purchase the German-made Dingo APC for its mechanized infantry units that operate exclusively in the West Bank and Gaza. The Dingo is said to offer its crew unparalleled protection from mines and roadside bombs for its class of armored vehicle. A similar Israeli request in September caused an outcry in Germany, which has strict guidelines for exporting armaments to conflict areas. The company that makes the Dingos, Krauss-Maffel Wegmann, said they have no knowledge of Israeli interest in the vehicles.
View Quote
[url]http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-08/14/content_254777.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 8:11:37 PM EDT
[url]http://www.navytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front3.jpg[/url] Cpl. Brian Hartmann changes a blown tire from a Stryker vehicle with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd ID, north of Baghdad on Monday.
View Quote
THe picture of the guy changing a tire with a hand tool is disgusting. The vehicle should have a small air compressor on board with at least 135 psi and an 1/2 to air tool for just this purpose. HOW STUPID, use the hand tools for back up. ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP wham bam ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP done.
View Quote
Hmmm, I'm guessing that it's a torque wrench. Note what looks like a pneumatic hose to the left of the frame. With an onboard air compressor for the automatic tire pressure system I'm pretty sure that no one is one the side of the road with a big-ass tire wrench... There a few people who are experts on the viability or vulnerabilities of the Stryker but they don't know how to change the tire. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 8:52:33 PM EDT
On a lighter note:I DO have a compressor and air tools on my Jeep Wrangler but if Uncle Sam started surplusing Brad's I'd be on that like tiger on Roy!.......UNDERDOG
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 12:52:05 AM EDT
An M113 does not have enough armor. Maybe if it was angled significantly. Q:"Is it true that bullets go right through these things?" A:"No sir, they go in one side and bounce around a lot!"
Top Top