The Stryker Argument

[Sayeret]

I have read a lot of stuff about it and since hearing about all the ones destroyed in Iraq I'm thinking it was a waste of money. If I am not wrong around seven Strykers have been destroyed since they were introduced to Iraq not to long ago. Luckily none of the crews died but still that doesn't make it a good vehicle. I've read a lot of things about how its such a big target and how its .50 caliber or Mk 19 grenade laucneher can't be fired on the move. The cage that is supposed to protect it from RPGs hasn't always protected it and about two weeks ago one with a cage that was hit by an RPG still substained heavy damage.

I really don't like Donald Rumsfeld and this vehicle he has supported so much. He has some kind of weird view that most of the United States' enemies will be armed with only small arms in the future and not RPGs and that we will need to rush to every warzone right away with this new light weight vehicles such as the Strykers. I really don't like the man for varioius reasons but the Stryker is one of them.

A light armored vehicle like the Stryker is a good a idea but the Stryker was a waste of money. The LAV-25s and BTR-80As are good wheeled armored personnel carriers.

What is everyone else's opinoins on this vehicle?

[Truthsayer]

Low-profile (altought low numbers of soldiers can be transported, ~7soldiers, fully equiped, along with AT-4s and so on) cv9030 (using 30mm Bushmaster gun) maybe should be purshased? ;)

Btw, anyone got realiable data on the Stryker so it can be compared to the PTB-203A or XA-180 SISU?

(Or if anyone has any on-location experience from both, that would be great.)

[Hullebullen]

A light armored vehicle like the Stryker is a good a idea but the Stryker was a waste of money. The LAV-25s and BTR-80As are good wheeled armored personnel carriers.

What is everyone else's opinoins on this vehicle?


The LAV-25 and the Stryker is basically the same vehicle, no? (give or take a few differences)...

[AFG]

hey so far it works right?

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

As far as it goes I think not losing any crews in the stryker is good enough. If it's keeping troops alive, I think it's doing fine.

[wholagun]

They should've gone with something newer like AMV or Boxer. Modularity is the new way.

[Operation Ivy]

I like the M113A3 woot

[Yard Ape]

The LAV-25 and the Stryker is basically the same vehicle, no? (give or take a few differences)...No. Same family but 2 generations appart. Some "family" history:
The Piranha was the product of the Swiss company Mowag. There are four generations (Piranha I through Piranha IV). Piranha I & Piranha II were produced in 4 x4, 6x6, and 8x8 variants. Piranha III was 6x6, 8x8, and 10x10. The Piranha IV is still relatively new & only exists in 8x8.

http://www.mowag.ch/En/02_ProdukteEn/PIRANHAEn/02-02_Frameset.htm

General Motors Diesel Division, of Canada, bought rights to build a 6x6 piranha variant called the AVGP (http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehavgp.htm). It sold three variants of these to Canada:

Grizzly (http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehgriz.htm).
Cougar (http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehcoug.htm).
Husky (http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehhusk.htm).

Later, GM Defence bought rights to develop an 8x8 Piranha derivative. It called this the LAV. There have been three generations of the LAV.

The LAV 25 is first generation and would be most closely related to Piranha I.

The Canadian Bison APC (http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehbiso.htm) and Coyote (http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehcoyo.htm) are LAV II. I think that the Aussie LAV is LAV II, and Saudi Arabia has either LAV I or LAV II in thier forces.

The Stryker is LAV III, however it has a sligtly raised roof when compared to other LAV III.

LAV III APC: http://www.gdlscanada.com/products.asp?ID=8 (Canadian & New Zealand forces)
Stryker APC: http://www.gdlscanada.com/products.asp?ID=6
LAV III MGS: http://www.gdlscanada.com/products.asp?ID=29
LAV III Armd Mortar: http://www.gdlscanada.com/products.asp?ID=28

In the late 90's, GM Defence (seperated from GM Deisel Div) bought Mowag. A few years later GM Defence was bought by GDLS.

The second generation (of Piranha & LAV) was just an improved version of the first generation. The third generation of the vehicles was infact a completely redesigned vehicle that only resembled its predessesor.
http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/LAV%20Compare.JPG
Coyote (LAV-25) left, Piranha III right

Gen III are more powerfull, more spacious, better armoured, and have many other improved features. Gen I & II had external mufflers that presented an increadable thermal signature. This has been corrected on the Gen III.

This shows a few types of LAV III APC:
http://army.ca/album/Vehicles/Canadian/Types.JPG

This is several different LAV III (Note: top right & HVM platform at bottom are Piranha III & not LAV III)
http://army.ca/album/Vehicles/Canadian/LAVIIITypes.jpg

[Yard Ape]

its .50 caliber or Mk 19 grenade laucneher can't be fired on the move. Are you sure of this? GDLS, the maker of the LAV/Stryker/Piranha family, makes a stabalised remote weapon station. This could be fired on the move.

http://www.gdlscanada.com/products.asp?ID=35

I have also read claims that the MGS will not be able to fire on the move, but this also has a stabalised cannon and can in fact fire while moving.

[vitiaz]

Like Ivy said, M113

http://www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm

:bash:

[digrar]

If all of the troops in the seven contacts have walked away, I reckon they would be more than happy with the Strykers performance.

[Brozozo]

I hear the Canadians are planning to replace their Leopard C2's with Strykers. Not a great solution in my opinion.

[FallenAngel]

I hear the Canadians are planning to replace their Leopard C2's with Strykers. Not a great solution in my opinion.

Yup...by 2010 the Canadian Army will be without a single tank in it's inventory...at least that's the plan as I read somewhere.

[Brozozo]

I hear the Canadians are planning to replace their Leopard C2's with Strykers. Not a great solution in my opinion.

Yup...by 2010 the Canadian Army will be without a single tank in it's inventory...at least that's the plan as I read somewhere.

Balls, I'd like to see a Stryker go through some of the stuff tracks can go through, 8 inches of mud and the day's over.

[pAt]

http://www.g2mil.com/LAV-III.htm

[Chris1]

http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26245&highlight=Mike+Sparks
Originally posted by Snake
Filter this through the Field Expedient Anti-Bull**** device. It's an article by Mike Sparks, Anti-USMC Mullah.


He washed out of Marine Infantry Officer Training(whateverr ya'll call it. ITB?), got offered a slot in Supply, refused it, and resigned with about 7 months of active duty. Has -loathed- the Marine Corps ever since. He was given a boot to the ass on the "OLD" SocNet, back around 1998.

He's an Officer in an Army Reserve rigger unit, nowadays. Publishes wild ****, like putting a Brigade of the 82nd on bicycles, etc. Always calls the M113 the "Gavin". He's the only one to do this, so you can recognize his works. Universally loathed. Even Hackworth said he's got a few rounds missing from his belt.

[ANGRY KIWI]

hello i have read these forums for ever and until the other day i havent felt the need 2 post

this styker/lav debait is close 2 my heart

i live in new zealand we are a small country but proud we stand by our beliefs e.g nuclear power
OUR government recently perchased a bunch of these ***** death traps on wheels

http://www.oag.govt.nz/HomePageFolders/Publications/lav_lov/lav_lov.htm

also here
http://www.army.mil.nz/?CHANNEL=LAV+III&PAGE=NZLAVIII

we already have m113's for wot we do this is perfect

my point is we ONLY do peace keeping (medi,rebuilding etc)
and most often this is in pasific islands with NO real roads
so having a apc that cant effectively go of road is bloody stuipt!

also we have c130's
http://www.army.mil.nz/?CHANNEL=LAV+III&PAGE=NZLAVIII+%2D+Questions+and+Answers+3

here they say


Why isn't the NZLAV portable in a C130?
This is untrue. A RNZAF C130 will be able to carry one NZLAV.
Air transportability in a RNZAF C130 Hercules is a required production specification of NZLAV including the requirement for axle loads not to exceed the RNZAF C130 axle load limits.
The Canadian Department of Defence conducted trials for loading LAVIIIs onto C130s as part of the vehicle development process and has provided information, including a video, about the results.
There is no requirement for the turret to be removed from a NZLAV for transportation within a C130.
The NZLAV will be fitted with a Height Control System that lowers the vehicle to air transport height and then re-elevates it to normal height following transport. Both actions require only several minutes to complete.



and???
this is bloody stuipt

we spent $677.464 million (nz$ its a bout 333.732 us)
on things we can use propely
we could have upgraded our current m113 for a lot cheaper
but they didnt they spent a **** load of money on a 20ton bullet magnet!
:slap:

our great leaders

a.sold our tanks (we had some scorpeans)
b.sold our air force (we had some sky hawks)
c.used that $$ for these dumb pimp moblies

we dont need fancy elecronics
we dont need air con
power windows or chrome mags
all we needed is a metal box to put our troops in


digrar said
If all of the troops in the seven contacts have walked away, I reckon they would be more than happy with the Strykers performance.

ok they walked away
wouldn't we rather have the troops DRIVE away after an enamy engagement??!

gg Helen Clark* you rock!!





*NZ primeminster

[jizzmonkey]

ok.........

I am assigned to the second stryker brigade here at fort lewis,

I have been training with the ICV (infantry carrying vehicle) for the last 2 years
the weapons platforms ie. 50 cl/ MK19 CAN be fired on the move, the remote weapon platform is "the ****".

I have a lot of friends in the first Stryker brigade in Mosul. thier take on the Strykers current use there is as follow:

1- haji is scared ****less of the Stryker
2- to date only 7 have been hit with RPG's, and none were destroyed THE SLAT ARMOR WORKS!!
3- average convoy speed is 55 mph even through busy streets, we dont stop for ****
4- if the convoys take fire... everyone to include air guards identify dirrection using turn signals and light those ****ers up!
5- 3 have hit IED's and sustained damage but were not destroyed, a winch cable and security team and it is self recovered back to the FOB, the stryker will run on 3 wheels if needed.

We never go anywhere without little bird's
they fly circle -eights in front of the convoy to clear routes and give us uncanny fire support when needed.

My brigade will replace 3rd Brigade as scheduled in September, and all the reports we have gotten from them say that the Stryker is unmatched, even by the Tracked vehicles currently in use.

and they dont carry 7 joe's
you have a full rifle squad per vehicle
to include TC and driver, that is 11 total


I dont care what anyone says, the Stryker is perfect for the current operations in Iraq, very user friendly and versital.

Its so usefull, that we are scheduled for a 2 year rotation instead of the standard 12 to 14 months.

[scm77]

ok.........

and they dont carry 7 joe's
you have a full rifle squad per vehicle
to include TC and driver, that is 11 total



The LAV-3 holds seven. The stryker without the turret adds more space. Strykers look awesome. I don't know about the MGS system replacing the Leopard tanks in Canada though.

[ANGRY KIWI]

our crappie country dosnt have little birds or any birds for that matter
we got like 3 hueys but there all bust at the mo
we lack the all round support u joes have
it may work great in large numbers with mbt/heli support

but if you dont got that what happens??



We never go anywhere without little bird's

can they work with out little birds??

are they stand alone??

i am not saying they are bad they are just not for us :(

[Scrim]

Chris1 wrote

Originally posted by Snake
Filter this through the Field Expedient Anti-Bull**** device. It's an article by Mike Sparks, Anti-USMC Mullah.


He washed out of Marine Infantry Officer Training(whateverr ya'll call it. ITB?), got offered a slot in Supply, refused it, and resigned with about 7 months of active duty. Has -loathed- the Marine Corps ever since. He was given a boot to the ass on the "OLD" SocNet, back around 1998.

He's an Officer in an Army Reserve rigger unit, nowadays. Publishes wild ****, like putting a Brigade of the 82nd on bicycles, etc. Always calls the M113 the "Gavin". He's the only one to do this, so you can recognize his works. Universally loathed. Even Hackworth said he's got a few rounds missing from his belt.

Thanks for posting that man. That Sparks bloke is a douchebag. Never new his history though. What a little bitch.

[Flagg]

Hey Angry Kiwi, welcome aboard!

A couple of things......

I've recently had the opportunity to climb around the NZ Army M113s stationed in Waiouru.

Although they have been maintained and upgraded by very professional soldiers.....they are approximately 40 years old....and quite past their used by date on a modern battlefield, even one of the "peacekeeping" variety.

I have mixed feelings about the LAV as well.....but after seeing them in the flesh and learning of their modern capabilites which the M113s sorely lack(survivability/firepower/communications/optics to name but a few)....I think they will significantly increase the NZ Army's capabilities.

In regards to the NZ Air Force Helos....I was on one about two months ago.....they ARE approaching their used by date, but they certainly got the job done....I believe procurement of new helos will be happening in the relatively near future.

I agree with Digrar and 100_percent, if the crews survived every contact...at the cost of losing the vehicles......that's a pretty good track record/tradeoff in my book....crew survivability should always come first.

Everything in life is a compromise and building a single vehicle that can do everything perfectly in every environment would either be impossible or prohibitively expensive...even for the US.

Personally, being in Light Infantry by trade...I think it will be weird training to fight in/from the LAV as we are supposedly going to be doing in the coming years(except for the much appreciated lift saving my feet and knees).....I'd prefer to remain on foot as a target not worthy of shooting at while hunting enemy IFVs or better yet going into close country bush where enemy IFVs can't find me ;)

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Angry Kiwi wrote,

my point is we ONLY do peace keeping (medi,rebuilding etc)
and most often this is in pasific islands with NO real roads
so having a apc that cant effectively go of road is bloody stuipt

Says who?. East Timor, Solomons, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan etc were not peace keeping (medi, rebuilding,etc), they were peace MAKING, and only one of the above was in the Pasific.


we dont need fancy elecronics
we dont need air con
power windows or chrome mags
all we needed is a metal box to put our troops in

Oh really, and you also say that
m113's for wot we do this is perfect .
So your saying that a vehicle that needs three days of maintenance for one day of operations is 'perfect' is it?, because thats the level of work the M-113s needed by the fourth rotation to East Timor.
A vehicle that has no FCS for its armament whatsoever so that the gunner adjusts his fire by watching the tracers and applying aim off (you can't use the iron sights in the T-55 turret) is superior to a vehicle that has a stabilised weapons platform with computerised fire control and integral night observation devices.

The LAVIII is a far more capable vehicle than the M-113. Anything that can kill an LAVIII can also kill a M-113.



we dont need fancy elecronics
we dont need air con
power windows or chrome mags
all we needed is a metal box to put our troops in

Who the **** is we sport?, are you serving in the Royal New Zealand Army?, have you ever served overseas on operations?. From what you've written i can tell all your knowledge/experience/information comes from the media.
That also tells me your a boy because a man would know better that to take everything he learns from the media at face value.
How about you rock on down to the recruiters and enlist in either the Rifleman or Crewman trades and then not only will you have a personal investment in what your saying you'll also figure out fairly rapidly not to talk out your arse straight off the bat.

Fukkin chairborne warrior.

[usa320]

Luckily none of the crews died but still that doesn't make it a good vehicle

Wrong- the whole point of APC's is to keep troops safe from the battlefield around them. Just think about how they would fare if they werent in a stryker and were ina jeep or walking.

[soma]

ngati's such a f-ing tool , hahah.... Take it easy flame warrior.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Flame warrior?,

I AM USING ALL CAPS THEREFORE I AM RIGHT SO f*** YOU.
Yeah, whatever ****head.

[Korth]

It seems to me that the stryker is made for an urban battlefield. An upgraded M-113 would be better for the countryside.

But I never been inside of a Stryker, so what do I know?

[Yard Ape]

No, it is intended to fight in any mechanized enviroment. For a wheeled vehicle, it has excellent cross-country mobility. In has excellent road speed which it can exploit.

[GazB]

Russian experience has shown that wheeled armoured vehicles are good enough to continue perservering with. They are much cheaper to run and operate than a track layer and have better speed and road range than a tracked vehicle too.

They are slightly less well armoured than a tracked vehicle but as few APCs can withstand much more than HMG fire then the difference is academic. Most heavy tracked IFVs can generally withstand light cannon fire over their frontal arcs at battle ranges and HMG from the sides from 3-400m. Modern wheeled APCs can often match that but are not super vehicles.

One area where wheeled vehicles come out on top is mine survival. A tracked vehicle is useless if its track is destroyed, yet BTR-60s in afghanistan could trundle around with 2 or even 3 wheels missing from mine detonations.

Considering the intended future use of New Zealand Army units is peace keeping then perhaps a wheeled vehicle that doesn't rip up roads is not a bad choice. By being fitted with a turret and night vision systems the LAV-111 offers much better soldier support than an M113.

My Nephew is currently in the Soloman Islands and will be commanding an LAV. He thinks they are pretty good and he loves the power of the gun and the sighting systems. I doubt the armour is less than on the M113s but I can absolutely guarantee that the costs of owning and using them will be much less.

As he told me the difference between the M113 and the LAVs regarding transportation by Herc mean nothing as he said we always sent the M113s by ship and that is how we are going to send the LAVs to anywhere we need them.

[Korth]

As he told me the difference between the M113 and the LAVs regarding transportation by Herc mean nothing as he said we always sent the M113s by ship and that is how we are going to send the LAVs to anywhere we need them.

That seems to be true for the US as well. It just goes to show the importiance of having a fast sealift capability.

[Flagg]

ngati's such a f-ing tool , hahah.... Take it easy flame warrior.

Oy,

Soma......shut your noisehole

[oldsoak]

Just been looking at the M113AS - http://www.tenix.com/PDFLibrary/137.pdf

would it have been an idea for the NZDF to have gone this route or are their M113's just that bit to old ?

rgds

[GazB]

They are old and needed replacement. We also replaced our old Scorpion light tanks at the same time... that is the old British light recon tank armed with a 3 inch main gun.

The new wheeled LAVs can have upgrade armour fitted too but the cost savings in fuel and maintainence over a tracked vehicle should be considerable.

Having said that the firepower advantage and visibility for the commander with a turret position and modern TI night vision sights can not be over estimated. Good situational awareness is very important.

[gilgoul]

I like the M113A3 woot

Op Ivy, it`s because you like tracks ;)

[Chris1]

Just been looking at the M113AS - http://www.tenix.com/PDFLibrary/137.pdf

would it have been an idea for the NZDF to have gone this route or are their M113's just that bit to old ?

rgds
would you want 432 to be upgraded, or replaced?

[Korth]

If the M-113's are getting too old, then why not build more? I would add some improvements, like better armor, armament, and electronics.

[Operation Ivy]

I like the M113A3 woot

Op Ivy, it`s because you like tracks ;)

so true :D

[GazB]

If the M-113's are getting too old, then why not build more? I would add some improvements, like better armor, armament, and electronics.

Because the basic design was a simple cheap box to carry troops. An aluminium box at that... I wouldn't trust it to stop grenade fragments let alone anything serious like AP rifle rounds.

The cost of upgrading and retooling factories to make them wouldn't be much cheaper than going with a newer design.

The US has finally caught on to the Soviet policy of hi low mix of infantry transports. A bradley is good, well armoured and with good firepower and optics etc etc, while lower priority troops need something cheaper and lighter. The wheeled option is lighter and much much cheaper to operate and it offers flexibility because it looks les agressive than a tracked vehicle and can be operated over road systems much more quickly. Transporting M113s overland would require lots of trucks... transporting Strykers would simply involve driving Strykers where they are needed... they can keep up with road traffic, they don't rip up roads and they are fun to drive...

[martinexsquaddie]

who came up with the plan of air transporting an armoured brigade anyway?
did they ask the air force if it could really be done :roll:

[Yard Ape]

It is not about making armoured brigades airportable. It is about making armour available to lighter forces that have traditionaly had to do without. Think of all the soldiers operating in HMMVWs as a fighting platform. That does not meat the standard of cavalry vehicle, security/escort vehicle, or even roadside MG position. It is a utility/liaison vehicle, and it is being expected to do more.

[Uncle Sam]

It is not about making armoured brigades airportable. It is about making armour available to lighter forces that have traditionaly had to do without. Think of all the soldiers operating in HMMVWs as a fighting platform. That does not meat the standard of cavalry vehicle, security/escort vehicle, or even roadside MG position. It is a utility/liaison vehicle, and it is being expected to do more.

I agree. The HMMWV is NOT a fighting platform. It has been thrown into a role in which it is NOT suited.

[ronin2172]

It is not about making armoured brigades airportable. It is about making armour available to lighter forces that have traditionaly had to do without. Think of all the soldiers operating in HMMVWs as a fighting platform. That does not meat the standard of cavalry vehicle, security/escort vehicle, or even roadside MG position. It is a utility/liaison vehicle, and it is being expected to do more.

uhh actually that was the stated goal of the stryker brigades. They were supposed to be air transportable. Too bad they did not consult the Air force on that topic. The Stryker is not air transportable over a tactically signifigant distance. They have to have signifigant portions of their equipment removed to fit in the MAXIMUM restrictions of the C 130 otherwise they have to be transported in a C17 which makes the stryker pointless as these can carry a Bradley or an M1. true they r better than a HMMV, but almost ANY armored vehicle is better than that.