What is wrong/right with the Stryker...

What is wrong/right with the Stryker? What are it's pros and cons and how does it compare to other vehicles like the Patria AMV, Boxer, Terrex or other wheeled armored vehicles?

Attached: SEBI2KYJI5CPXAUJFEIYVBWOEI.jpg (1200x800, 328K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina
m.youtube.com/watch?v=voeUeMWLbb0&t=4s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>wrong
the base model is fairly vulnerable, and modestly armed
base model is effectively an APC with airlift capabilities, though not necessarily a bad thing

>right
it gives the US army the ability to respond to threats very quickly and with a high degree of flexibility
its various upgrade and add-ons can address the issues of the base models

its main power lies in the fact it fills a very empty niche in the US arsenal
if deployed in its intended role of providing an adaptable force with a very good reaction time, then it will highlight its strengths of speed and reliability, without putting its weaknesses into play
indeed, the thing its weak at, direct combat with a heavy force, is covered by the bradley

Wasn't it developed for green berets a la Kosovo? For hyper shoot and scoot with partisans?

Its design is far older then any of the Boxer, AMV or Terrex, so naturally its not as capable. But its still a great machine.

You really need to put it into a doctrinal perspective tho. Its similar to the BTR-equipped Motor Rifle Divisions of the USSR, but with more protection, vastly better optics and similar armament, at the cost of beeing far more expensive.

And expensive as it may be, its still far cheaper then for example a Boxer or AMV.

By protection, how well does the armor stack up against 25mm or 30mm rounds? Hell even against an RPG?

Its not an IFV so it can probably only at best take them frontally at long ranges. IIRC its all around protected against 14,5x114mm AP wich is what the Russian BTRs is armed with.

base model has 14mm protection all around

slat-armor, ERA, steel, and ceramic packages are all available to increase protection up to RPGs

its designed to only protect against the most likely threats it might encounter, not necessarily the best protection available
the slat armor in particular makes it too large to fit inside a C-130, although it can be attached easily after landing

i used to be a driver and vehicle commander on the stryker. I thought it was a great system. smooth ride, roomy, and you felt secure. When we deployed to afghanistan we were lucky to receive double V hull versions. we didn't suffer any KIA due to IEDs with this stryker variant.

as another user said, its night a fighting vehicle. its an infantry carrier vehicle. therefor, the stryker is designed to drop off the infantry and then shadow them while they are on patrol. Its meant for infantry support. They can handle up to 50 caliber fire and RPG protection with the upgraded slat armor cages.

Attached: DSC00410.jpg (1920x1080, 903K)

It wasnt really specifically designed to follow the infantry while on patrol, rather to transport them and then stay away from the fighting. It just ended up beeing very good for that job, and so it was adapted for that role too.

we used them in both ways

Attached: DSC00297.jpg (1920x1080, 778K)

Then how come the Stryker has gained such a bad rep over years? People have been calling it a failure for a wide range of reasons. Note, I'm not an expert in any of this.

its 50 cal isnt exactly a wave motion gun, but its still big enough to threaten targets up until light vehicles

the M113 ACAV was succesfully used as a light tank with this armament, so a stryker would perform admirably in fire support

the 30mm armed dragoon would be even better at it, on that note

people have largely praised its career in iraq and afghanistan
its actually very safe and reliable

i dont really know. i haven't heard much bad rep from it.

Attached: DSC00336.jpg (4320x3240, 2.97M)

Yeah turns out its pretty awsome for that in a low-risk enviroment (low-risk in this case beeing anything else then full WW3-style mechanized warfare)

Anyway I have a few questions for you.
1) Was visibility good for the driver?
2) Could you fit an entire squad plus all their gear?
3) Did you get to try out any of the non ICV-variants?

The 30mm-armed one is indeed great for that role, and the regular Stryker is in most enviroments too, that role just wasnt specified in the design criteria.

1. this was what my view looked like from the driver's seat (with the blast shields installed like in the first picture).
2. yes definitely. it was tight in the back with a fully equipped squad. but it does work. we had 4 vehicles, 1 for each squad and it worked great.
3. I've see 4 variants. the MEV, ICV, MGS, and Mortar carrier. the ICV is the only one i've actually used tho.

Attached: driving.png (1272x715, 1.18M)

How does Stryker stack against a BTR-80/82? Or whenever it gets involved in a conventional conflict?

Cool! Thanks for answering user. Sounds really good. Did it work well off-road?

i don't know much about the BTR-80. but from google it seems like an uncomfortable piece of shit. the only concern i'd see would be the 30mm variant of BTR, although. that exists with strykers now too.

the US puts more care into the protection of it's crews. I don't think the russians care so much.

Attached: DSC00310.jpg (1920x1080, 878K)

The BTR-80 is far older, 1/10th of the price and based around a totally different concept.

There really is no comparing them as the BTR is worse in almost every regard, the only good side it has compared to a Stryker is that it can travel over water and you can field ten times as many of them for the same price

yeah it worked really well off road. i can't remember what the system was called since i've been out for a while now. The driver was able to control the air pressure in the tires. So you could select what conditions you were driving in (paved road, offroad, snow, ice). It could also go up very steep grades with 8 wheel drive mode on

Attached: 252684_213576705343055_100000721823639_675771_5724208_n.jpg (720x540, 69K)

noice

>What is wrong with the Stryker?
The fact that it isn't a GTK Boxer. Even those insufferable bongcunts chose it for their MIV programme and will choose Rheinmetall for the Challenger 2 LEP. Should have bought german, yank.

Yeah, if only the Boxer had you know, existed when the US Army selected the Stryker user.

>When we deployed to afghanistan we were lucky to receive double V hull versions
Did the non-DVH versions get these blast seats as well, or are they still using benches?

Attached: 6d647052-5091-11e7-9ddc-918a7c11f12b-640x427.jpg (5760x3840, 2.64M)

IIRC it technically did exist back then, but it was a clusterfuck in its earliest stages of development.AFAIK the only other vehicle trialed for IAV was the Bionix. That being said, it's time to replace the Stryker with a clean-sheet design.

Attached: bionix_04.jpg (510x265, 36K)

we had non DVHs in the states and we had blast seats just like in your picture

The whole point of the Stryker programe was to get fast deliveries and then use them until the Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles was delivered.

No point in selecting something that is still 10 years away from production as an interim solution

other problem would be that boxter is like 10t to heavy

Fuck off and stop bullying Big-Boy-Boxer-chan.

>Its design is far older then any of the Boxer, AMV or Terrex

The design of the current model of Stryker is actually newer than the Boxer and AMV.

No it's not.

>Then how come the Stryker has gained such a bad rep over years?

It hasn't outside of the group of people who would believe Blacktail videos.

Try educating yourself on the age of the four mentioned vehicles.

For some reason I read "newer" as "better".

>Pros
Fast
Reliable
Easy to work with

>Cons
Don't get in a fight with anything with a turret. Even dug in infantry should make you think twice.

Just remember, it's not a battle wagon it's a steel taxi cab. Get your troops into the fight then hang back as much as possible.

>gets told that boxer isn't good for the USs needs
>responds with anime bully meme
Yikes

>backpedaling

Oh I'm sorry user, I robbed you of your chance of being right at something for once.

Attached: 1522067246543.png (188x159, 9K)

>claims boxer is newer than current model of Stryker
>it is not
>backpedals and tries to claim victory
Cringe.

>admitting a mistake in reading is backpedaling
Oh no, it's retarded.

Oh, so instead its
>isn't informed on subject
>misreads argument
>runs with it until confronted
>backpedals and claims victory
Extra cringe.

Also you still haven't given any argument of why the boxer is better

>not only bullying Boxer-tan but now me too
S-stop it, b-baka.

>its actually very safe and reliable
If it's so good, why was there a crash MRAP program that resulted in the cougar, which is basically a copy of the saffa Casspir?

Why would those two things conflict?

>Why would those two things conflict?
Well, if the stryker is perfectly suitable, you'd think you'd just spend the money on building those, rather than introducing a whole new development cycle, which is rushed so it costs like 5 times as much.

They don't fill the same role, retard.
It's like asking why the F-35 doesn't replace a fucking huey

the cougar is an IMV, designed to allow troops to move around a dangerous regions regularly
it is an alternative to the humvee which had no armor at all

the stryker is a fast response APC, a role very distinct and with wholly different requirements from an IMV
and the stryker is pretty safe for a wheeled APC, it can withstand IEDs and full rollovers with few casualties

>Same carrying capacity of troops (cougar carries 1 more)
>Same weight (actually cougar is slightly lighter)
>Same armament
>Same armor
>Generally same performance
They don't really seem all that different to me. Why are you getting so angry? Is there some kind of stryker internet defense force?

It just seems strange to me if a vehicle is 100% that you would then issue a requirement for another vehicle that has almost the same capabilities, unless the first one was a disapointment. I'm not even trolling here.

Because green berets were involved in so many shootouts 'with partisans' in Kosovo? The fuck are you on about?

cougar is a heavily armored truck designed to protect troops moving around, its an extra tough humvee
it carries troops around in maximum safety in an risky environment

stryker is a fast-response APC designed for high reliability, ready rate, and deployability
it is a middle of the road approach between the heavily armed bradley and unarmored trucks
it is designed to carry extra armor or weapons depending on the situation

the 2 dont serve the same purpose at all, and arent replacing one another
you also cant put a 105mm gun on a cougar

this
The easiest way I can explain the stryker is the army version of a SWAT team. It's not meant for a conventional war or to do anything non combat but more a fast response group in a usually urban area and that's about it.

But.... it's slower than the Cougar. The cougar's top speed is 65 mph and the stryker's is 60.

>you also cant put a 105mm gun on a cougar
I bet you can if you really want to.

>why did the Army buy MRAPs to supplant Humvees in IED prone areas

cougar has fewer road wheels, giving it poorer off road capabilities
and importantly, the strkyer was designed with a high strategic mobility, with the base model fitting inside a C-130 and being able to fight right out of it

cougar is designed solely to protect its crew, it does not seek out its targets
it is first and foremost means of transportation
nothing more, nothing less
it even has a front mounted engine like a civilian truck
its a really big humvee

the stryker is designed as a military vehicle for conducting battle
it has more armor and weapon options to improve its versatility
it has command and control equipment
it has superior targeting and optics
its a smaller bradley

The actual question is
>Why did the army buy cougars instead of strykers to replace hummvees, given that strykers were already researched and in production

And I haven't yet got a reasonable answer, just insults.

>roomy and smooth ride

thats a no

>It's not meant for a conventional war
But that's wrong. It's just not an infantry fighting vehicle. It exists to transport infantry from point A to B, giving them protection against small arms fire, mines and fragments, leaving the actual fighting to the dismounts, possibly giving them direct fire support if the situation allows it.
It's motorised infantry in the way it's deployed, essentially.

Cougars are not as protected as Strykers and are actually roadbound unlike Strykers, MATVs or MaxxPros.

because the role the cougar fills does not need the command equipment, targeting equipment, nor the airlift capabilities of the stryker
it does not need the armor and weapons of the stryker either

the only upgrades over the humvee needed were for bullets and IEDs
the stryker would have had bells and whistles not needed for the task

You have had several people both explain and factcheck you without insults.

Cougars are based on the casspir, which I know for a fact can travel offroad in Africa.

Cougars predate Iraq 2 electric boogaloo, carry less people than Strykers and are less protected than Strykers.

They have also been retired in favor of MaxxPro.

>command equipment,
Installed easily
>targeting equipment,
Installed easily
>or the airlift capabilities of the stryker
I'll take your word for it
>it does not need the armor and weapons of the stryker either
Apart from the big gun, it has the same armament, and I bet you can stick a 105 on the cougar if you want to because that's essentially what a ratel is.
>Armor
They are both rated to withstand .50 at most according to people in this thread.
The difference seems to be cost, withthe cougar able to everything the stryker can do, at a unit cost of 600k as opposed to the strykers unit cost of 4.6 million

And I have responded to what they said. That's how discussions work, point and counterpoint.

>carry less people than Strykers
Stryker carries 9, cougar 6x6 carries 10.

Most Cougars are 4x4.

A Ratal has a low pressure 90mm.

>Most Cougars are 4x4.
Why a compare a 4x4 cougar to a stryker, they really are completely different.

>A Ratal has a low pressure 90mm.
And?

>why compare the bulk of Cougars with the Stryker

It's almost like you are arguing from an intellectually dishonest position, but you would never do that.

Actually I assumed most cougars were 6x6 because those seem to be the ones you see the most of, and because it was based on the sesspir variant of the casspir, which is 6x6.

what are the numbers involved anyway?

Does this Cougar fanboy not know that it was primarily used by the USMC, who never operated Strykers?

>Apart from the big gun, it has the same armament, and I bet you can stick a 105 on the cougar if you want to because that's essentially what a ratel is.
This is the dumbest thing I've read on here all month. Please stop posting until you become less retarded. The Ratel is far closer to the Stryker than to an MRAP, and you couldn't put anything near a 105 on top of a Cougar- hell, the stryker can barely handle it as it is.

>Fanboy
I just think the cougar is cheaper and has basically the same capabilities.

It's cheaper but only compares in IED protection, which is what they were bought for.

But it's faster, has equivalent mobility, carries 1 more soldier and has equivalent armor protection. You keep asserting it's better, even when I quote facts and figures.
Are you genuinely some kind of General Dynamics shill?

In fact the cougar has way better IED protection than the stryker, which isn't really surprising since that's what it was designed for.

Boomerang

Attached: RIAN_03070024.HR_.ru_.jpg (900x506, 161K)

>But it's faster, has equivalent mobility

This is false.

>carries 1 more soldier

The 6x6 does, not the 4x4

>and has equivalent armor protection.

STANAG 3 is not STANAG 4 with the option of mounting even heavier armor.

The cougar is like 50% heavier than the Casspir with the same contact area.

Stop pretending you have any idea when you're saying.

BOOMER@ng

Attached: 1 (1).jpg (672x378, 94K)

Being my first post ITT I can defend the Stryker was not meant for conventional war in the way it was deployed in Iraq and in fact the army testing a 30mm cannon on it is admitting it's under gunned in a real war.

Gun seems kinda far back back no?

hope they go through with putting those switchblade racks on the striker dragoons

Attached: download (1).jpg (790x444, 84K)

Why should they when the average Russian soldier is literally treated like a punching bag by more senior enlisted?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina

Having a speed governor that kicks in 5mph later does NOT translate into superior cross-country mobility, acceleration, or general maneuverability. Add to this the fact that even the 6x6, which has been establised to be the exception rather than the rule, has a higher cg and smaller contact patch than a stryker, and the mobility question answers itself.

Its worse in every single way compared to both contemporaries and some predecessors.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=voeUeMWLbb0&t=4s

Heres good old Sparky roasting it and striking the clock twice a day.

Centauro was also superior.

About the only thing the Stryker can do is fit into planes, and honestly, it would have been better to just license a Centauro or a fucking Rooikat and then build better planes.

>it gives the US army the ability to respond to threats very quickly and with a high degree of flexibility
>its various upgrade and add-ons can address the issues of the base models
No it doesnt. It has a shitastic range. Just pure crap range. Like 100miles or some shit. So it cant really go anywhere and cant do much fighting.

>for green berets doing hyper shoot and scoot with partisans

fuck no

>for (because of) kosovo

yes. it was developed as a wheeled APC role to speed up operational maneuver in operations other than full scale war, because the russians beat NATO to an airport or something during bosnia IIRC, which could have been diplomatically awkward. It was also a temp substitute for FCS in a pre-IED world.

Summarized: the Stryker is a mid 90s M113 that drives faster and farther.

The Centauro did.

And then there's this fucking moron

Attached: 1533480041501m.jpg (1024x928, 73K)