That was a build up for a fight against an actual mechanized army. Not against light infantry in aluminum coffins. Like, I'm honestly fairly sure the Saudi's could and would just throw Jihadist at the problem until it stopped. In fact, against some Commies on foot, I doubt we would even *need* to mobilize. In order to reinforce that Soviet Paratrooper Division, they would have to conquer either or both Turkey and Iran.
Just so they could stage out of Iraq. So a Soviet Paratrooper division dropping into Saudi Arabia? Every surrounding Muslim nations gears up, drives over there, and slaughters the poor bloody infantry in an ocean of high explosives. Whle the Soviets both starve to death and dehydrate to death.
Its the only way the Stryker advocates can win. >Why don't you find one of it sitting on a berm or next to the edge of an elevated road. Because nobody filmed that. they knew better than to do so
Please don't start a whole new thread just to yell at a couple people in a dead thread who are not going to read what you wrote anyway. That's some serious grade-A faggot shit right there.
Carson Clark
Pathetic display, OP. Rethink your life.
Luis Brooks
Faggot mods killed the thread because they are faggots.
Logan Jones
OP got BTFO so hard he had to make a new thread to salve his autism.
>hard, compacted dirt. >level, even terrain >not a video of the gun firing.
Xavier Cruz
the stryker was a decent answer to what it was USED for (APC for antiterrorism operations) though i dont know off the top of my head if it was MADE for that
though AFAIK the MGS stryker is trash compared to a 30mm BTR
the US definitely needs new armored vehicles, our abrams is starting to get old too and everybody is coming out with next gen stuff In the long term, it really makes sense why Trump did pull out of Syria and Afghanistan, it will make keeping up with the jones alot easier.
Brandon Campbell
You never explained how you thought firing on a berm would make a Stryker flip over (but not any other vehicle with a large caliber gun.)
Daniel Lewis
Why did you make another thread to continue an argument someone else was having?
Landon Cruz
>the stryker was a decent answer to what it was USED for (APC for antiterrorism operations No, it wasn't. Its shit against IEDs, and the 105mm is barely useable....and can't be Vhulled. 1. not that guy, just on the same side. 2. Physics. Its too light, its tires are too small, and its too skinny.
Josiah Parker
I used to be a M1126 driver and VC, it’s not a bad vehicle desu
Isaac Butler
>continues the same arguments in the same manner >n-no I'm not the same guy
And like in the previous thread, you make statements that show your knowledge of the subject is lacking (and Blacktail inspired).
The MGS and NBC sniffer use a different hull than the other vehicles in the Stryker family, there isn't a DVH version of them because one hasn't been made.
Nathan Lopez
>there isn't a DVH version of them because one hasn't been made Gee....I wonder why.
Tyler Jenkins
What is the point of the Stryker family when almost every other nation on Earth uses tracked APCs for their Mechanized Infantry.
I’m honestly curious: what does the Stryker offer that an upgraded M113 or turretless Bradley can’t deliver?
Wyatt Murphy
>You cant have more than one person arguing on a side in a thread
Hudson Campbell
Because the MGS and NBCRV don't share the same hull as the rest of the Stryker family, meaning a separate one would need to be made just for them.
Eli Young
>I have no clue why we formed SBCTs at all and refuse to read about it but here is my shitty opinion!
Pretty much all relevant nations has had wheeled APCs for at least 50+ years now user, what are you even on about?
Stryker battalions are not even considered mechanized.
Wyatt Smith
>What is the point of the Stryker family when almost every other nation on Earth uses tracked APCs for their Mechanized Infantry. That's not remotely true. Wheeled APC's are quite popular these days.
Wheeled APCs has been popular since the BTR-50 became a thing.
Some nations call similar formations motorized yes. A mechanized force is almost allways defined as similar to an armored one, just with less firepower. Tracked APCs or IFV has allways been the core of mechanized units.
Joshua Thomas
>What is the point of the Stryker family when almost every other nation on Earth uses tracked APCs for their Mechanized Infantry.
There are plenty of wheeled APC's out there. The Stryker is hardly an unusual vehicle.
>I’m honestly curious: what does the Stryker offer that an upgraded M113 or turretless Bradley can’t deliver?
Well, Strykers are a little bigger on the inside so they can carry more stuff. They're probably faster on roads. Also, we already bought a ton of them. Aside from that they're pretty ass. The AMPV is probably going to replace them all eventually but it'll take a while since we just have so many of the goddamn things as it is.
Alexander Howard
You just happened to make a new thread a day later to continue someone elses argument.
The story of the Stryker began with operation desert storm. U.S. paratroops that arrived in Saudi Arabia during desert shield were lightly armed and vulnerable to Iraqi attack, while the Heavy forces took months to deploy. During the unrest in Kosovo, the US army's task force hawk, consisting of heavy armored units, was deployed; they didn't fire a single shot. Concerned about the lack of ability to respond to threats that required more than some paratroopers but urgent enough to need a quick deployment, and concerned about losing their portion of the shrinking post coldwar defense budget to the air force, the army began the future combat system. The FCS was going to use all the advanced tech of the information age to hit as hard as an armored division with the deployment footprint of an airborne one, but it wouldn't be ready for some years. That's where the IAV(Interim armor vehicle) came in, an off the shelf vehicle that could be bought cheaply and used to test the concept of the medium brigade before the FCS was ready. Several great vehicles were tested for this, such as the Bionix, but the 8x8 craze and the ease at which the Stryker could be adapted to the variants needed for the IAV program(Something similar had come about for the Marines on the LAV-25) led to it winning. Of course, the FCS never materialized and we're using an off the shelf solution that wasn't really intended to stay in service that long to fight wars it was never intended to.
The point of 8x8s and 6x6s? Less fuel consumption, fuckloads less maintenance, higher resistance to mobility kills, better against mines, and faster.
Just all around better than tracked vehicles outside of a few niche applications, as long as the weight is uner 35 tons. Past 35 tons, tracks are better at the sized AFVs typically roll around at.
>Stryker >Stryker
It was originally Lav, a Canadian project with tiny wheels. It was, and remains, barely acceptable in its role. Several countries have made better vehicles, entire families of better vehicles.
>but muh amphib Literally fucking useless at the scale of an AFV. Especially useless for the wars America has actually fought in the last 30 years. And if we ever do find a a conflict where we need scads of amphib, we don't. We really fucking don't. Not nearly to the level that it affects budgetary concerns outside the US Army Corps of Engineers. >but muh airdeployability Worse than useless. Actively detrimental to armored design. The USA has ships, and ports of call everywhere. We transport an extremely minor amount of shit by air, and what we do transport wouldnt be bothered by an 8x8 MGS weighing at 30 tons or an IFV/APV weighing in at about the same.
M113, le Gavinator, is hot garbage. Its only kept in service because the Bradley is such garbage at...moving infantry around. Take the Bradley, make it bigger. Up to a base weight of 45 tons. Crew of three, passengers at 9. Even if the extra two spaces aren't used, fuck it, more room for more shit.
Asher Howard
Literally who still has the M113, I've been in for years and never even seen one aside from Nasty Girls
Robert Powell
Strykers are LAV based But LAV is Swiss based Please let us be proud of our one military thing
Josiah Green
So all that supposed interchangibility....doesn't exist at all? Wow.
Trash. >The Stryker is hardly an unusual vehicle. It is in how terribad it is at anything it tries to do. Yes? Fuck you. The LAV tires are tiny. FUCKING TINY. SHORTLEGGED SHIT.
Easton Perez
You dont interchange the hull autismo. Its the shit that is attached to the hull that need to be interchangeable.
Jesus you seem buthurt. Did you go on deployment and ran into an IED with your Stryker or some shit? I genuinly want to hear were your bad experiences with it come from...
Luis Sullivan
For those that are actually curious, the Stryker is a result of lessons learned in Yugoslavia.
I wrote all that myself and it's 100 percent true. Except that isn't entirely true, Desert storm played a large amount into it as well.
Hudson Stewart
LAV25 is an LAV II variant, not a LAV III development.
Hunter Davis
Nah, it still works, because the Bradley is terrible at that, and the M113 does do that. Only morons and cheapskates do pic related.
Jose Evans
Except that M113 are not used as troop carriers in the US Army.
Bentley Hernandez
A thread died for this, I hope it was one of those fake AK generals where everyone just posts lolis with guns.
Hudson Jackson
Then what are they used for, trashcans? Mine bait? Ammo carriers?
They are even hotter garbage than Bradleys.
Robert Adams
Why are people hating on wheelie bois
THE FUCKS UR PROBLEM
Hunter Hall
The Concept of a wheeled medium vehicle is actually quite good, it's just that the stryker is shit; for an example of the same concept done well, look at the Boxer MPAV.
Setting aside that the main difference between a Boxer and a Stryker is how expensive Boxers are.
Ryan Phillips
get a load of this seething faggot
Isaac Robinson
The Boxer is not muchfully more expensive than the Stryker- the unit cost of a stryker was 4.5 million USD in 2012, compared with a cost of 5.7 million USD per vehicle cost of the Boxer in 2015. With that extra 1.2 million you get a much more capable vehicle.
Easton Nelson
And its garbage. Such amazed.
Julian Cox
Australia just paid ~$11 million per vehicle for its Boxers.
What you have done is use the cost of a contract to figure out the cost of a vehicle itself. This isn't entirely wrong, but we're talking about the cost of each vehicle on its own. The Contract includes logistics and maintenance support, ammunition, and the manufacturing capacity at the Rheinmetall plant they're building (built?) for the trucks, Boxers, and probably Lynxes down there.
Lucas Rogers
Tell us how much Australia paid for it's Boxers, the cost of the vehicles themselves.
Gavin Harris
I'm not sure where one would find the breakdown for the proportions of the contract that were spent on each component. The cost of the IFV boxers sold to Lithuania was around 5 million USD each this year, while the per unit cost of an addition 131 unit order from Germany came out to around 5.7 million USD. If you have any sort of breakdown for the Australian order please post it.
Sebastian Rogers
and? its a better vehicle. Its fucking enormous, but its better.
Nicholas Powell
For comparison, it costs ~$2.2 million to make a new DVH A1 Stryker out of an old FBH Stryker. Since America can get 5 new Strykers for the cost of 2 new Boxers, there is little reason to buy Boxers.
How about having a vehicle that is actually good at its job and is worth having?
Carson James
Like I said, there is no reason for the US to buy Boxers.
Nathan Cruz
>No reason Other than the Stryker being the worst family of 8x8s in the world. Its terrible at everything, isn't even amphibious or airdroppable. It sacrifices everything and gets nothing in return.
Andrew Reyes
Lying about the Boxers contemporaries on a Taiwanese shadow puppet forum will not sell more Boxers.
Ryan Martinez
The future of the Stryker (and US wheeled APCs in general) is going to depend upon the strategic situation.
The Stryker was the first product of the 1990s-era strategic thinking that, with Desert Storm and the end of the Cold War, we no longer knew for certain where we would be deploying, limiting our ability to pre-position effectively.
Logistics is a huge deal. It's been the secret sauce of our success since WWII. And everybody learned the lesson in ODS that if they gave us 6 months to build up our forces in a region, we were pretty much unstoppable. So, naturally, we expected future opponents to speed up their initial attacks, and try to prevent us from having a place to deploy (in ODS/ODS, this would have been Saddam committing logistics to take the entire Saudi east coast during the first week--unlikely to succeed, but in retrospect his best bet).
So, our pre-9/11 planning revolved around having to deploy on a moment's notice, and probably from CONUS (the goal--believe it or not--was a medium brigade from CONUS to a front line anywhere on the planet in 72 hours, and the rest of that brigade's entire DIVISION by 24 hours after that). That meant we needed lighter units and heavier strategic transports. All kinds of ideas came out of this (look up the hybrid airships or the Pelican WiGE/plane). The Stryker was one of the many attempts to make a lighter vehicle--it was actually an interim vehicle that the final FCS vehicles would replace.
But, almost everything failed. The lowest-risk transport option (LMSRs and increased pre-positioning) was the only one not cancelled. And the Stryker was the only new vehicle not cancelled.
What we do going ahead is going to depend on what we want (strategic orientation) and what we are willing to pay for it (technology/cost). Will isolationism win out (it sure looks like it right now)? Will we abandon overseas bases? Who will we fight for, and how will we get there?
Jack Scott
forced entry, stability ops, and strategic movement is the new reality for US FORCES and heavy forces are unsuited
Blake Ross
>The Stryker was the first product of the 1990s-era strategic thinking that...
The Stryker is the product of needing to move troops around quickly in Yugoslavia.
Jack Brooks
The strategic discussions started well before Kosovo. I believe it was no later than ~'95, maybe even earlier; the web was in its infancy at the time, and I'm a little fuzzy on when I first saw it in places like AvLeak and the .mil newsgroups. By '99, even the armchair brigade was generally aware of the 72/96 goals.
Kayden Cruz
>Stryker >mechanized
It’s a wheeled IFV for Moto Inf (or the US equivalent designation) for when you want mobility and firepower. Ie: Maneuver brigades
The idea is pretty old and there are entire armies are built around it
Boxer has way less strategic mobility, the entire point of the stryker.
If the US is going to going to spend 30,000 kg to ship something, they are going to send the vastly superior Bradley.
Xavier Morales
Will we abandon overseas bases? Who know, Tump just recdntly announced that he is pulling thousands of troops back.
Who will we fight for, and how will we get there? Hopefully we will fight for the American people instead of everyone else as we have done since WW2.
Parker Fisher
>Other than the Stryker being the worst family of 8x8s in the world. That's not even remotely true. Pretty much every Russian 8x8 is worse. Worse armor, worse armament, worse electronics, just fucking worse.
Brody White
Its like 20 (or 40 depending on how you look at it) years older then any other 8x8s besides the BTR-series tho. So naturally it isnt as good anymore.
Juan Ward
Compare the stryker to pretty much every vehicle in its weight class, and it's as good or better, fact.
Joshua Price
Australia still has them as our mechanized infantry vehicles but we are running a program to replace them. K21 Redback and Ajax are contending with the Lynx KF41 most likely to win due to winning the 8x8 Combat Recon Vehicle with Boxer.
People are forgetting that when America bought the Stryker, modern and better 8x8s didn't really exist.
People saying America should have bought Boxers are retarded because the Boxer was not invented or available when the project to create a medium weight vehicle to support motorized infantry (also known as SBCT) began.
America had the right idea to make this concept as a quickER reaction force of infantry with reasonable firepower support (105mm assault guns, and now also 30mm armed vehicles), but they went with the Stryker which was honestly not up to the futures task of increased weight and stress bearing. People attacking Strykers are dumb faggots who fail to want to see the reason behind things.
>In fact, against some Commies on foot, I doubt we would even *need* to mobilize. In order to reinforce that Soviet Paratrooper Division >Soviet Paratrooper Division >VDV >Commies on foot A+++ Faggot VDV is a fully mechanized infantry force They have their own airdrop-capable tank destroyers you pathetic cunt
>They have their own airdrop-capable tank destroyers >Cardboard armored shits with low pressure gun and two piece ammo in 2018 Hurrr
Adam Cook
I recommend you watch a few of this guy's presentations. Our actions since WWII make a lot more sense when you consider the deal that we made the rest of the world in exchange for stopping Communism. He also spends most of his time warning about how it's all been falling apart since the election--of Bill Clinton, not Trump--and what's likely to happen when we go quasi-isolationist.
tl;dr The US is mostly fine, but most of the rest of the world economy collapses, wars break out all over, and well... global overpopulation will no longer be a concern.
Next, think about who we would bother trying to defend, and how we would get sufficient forces (and their supplies!) over there. Then, come up with a list of requirements for everything from infantry gear to AFVs.
Ayden Martin
>Stryker which was honestly not up to the futures task of increased weight and stress bearing.
I disagree, it took the 30mm with ease and does accommodate full power 105mm, which is pretty damn impressive for an 8x8.
Nathan Wilson
It can do those task yes, but with some sacrifices. A major one being the inability to put a double V hull on the 105 version.
It is impress what the Stryker can do, considering it is an older design. But it does suffer increased stress, maintenance and fatigue from the trappings of modern equipment and combat needs.
>Hurr at least you admit being retarded that low pressure gun fires same AT missiles with 5km range as T-90
Jayden Perez
One of those looks like a vehicle you air ship half way around the world in mass quantities to have an overwhelming maneuver force on target in short order.
The other looks like something you use at home, or to invade your neighbor or take a few at a time to places you're not balls out swinging on.
Carter Nelson
Patria is breddy good tho and it has off-the-shelf 105mm options (look up the Polish Wilk)
Weight is meh though (26t)
Isaac Kelly
More or less, but both of those look like they can move and support infantry on the battlefield, and move them to the next one. Both look like they can be put on a boat and shipped overseas, but one came out decades before the other, for a battlefield less rife with guided missiles or IEDs.
To be fair in the strykers defense a v hull (double or otherwise) was not a part of the original design. A big oversight, Imo.
But yeah, I think it's clear the stryker is designed for growth, but you do bring up a good point.
David Carter
True, modern Patria even better. I love the AMOS version and I think they would be absolutely amazing in a fantasy setup of a modern SBCT without Strykers but with post-2010s 8x8.
Of course, there's no way America would do that considering the cost or need. It's what this faggot autismo OP doesn't understand.
>Both look like they can be put on a boat and shipped overseas One is significantly bigger, heavier, and less logistically mobile. If you can ship twice as many of one than the other, it's no longer comparable.
You clearly don't "get it", this is how America has fought since WWII >We will not only match you in mission capability >We will outnumber uou >Outpace you logistically >Claim air superiority >And while you're laughing at how each of your weapons are worth five of ours, ten will fall on your head
Jason Wilson
I'm not discussing how you think America has fought since WWII, as it has nothing to do with my post chain.
You can't ship twice as many, you are exaggerating, and Boxer is air transportable too.
I'm not arguing against Strykers, on the contrary, they are a great vehicle that was designed to have a lower logistical footprint and demand, while still delivering a medium weight vehicle capable to bringing both mobility and firepower to quickerER reaction forces.
It's just they are older, and do not as easily as modern 8x8s, meet the strenuous demands of modern US requirements. I repeat, they meet the demands, just not as simple or easily.
Sorry, I'm just so used to the "lol it's not the best so it's shit" attitude on here that I had a knee jerk reaction, my bad.
Yeah, the Striker isn't as good in country as new hotness vehicles, but it's faster/cheaper to get there, and that's the whole point.
I guess I'm just irritated at people focusing on the occupations and not remembering the invasions thatcwere necessary to start them. The Striker is a weapon of invasion, the Boxer is a weapon of defense or occupation.
Kevin Thomas
No worries man. I too see too often the same threads denouncing certain vehicles with little thought or reason applied to the OP's shitty opinion.
>The Striker is a weapon of invasion, the Boxer is a weapon of defense or occupation. I think this is a pretty fair statement.
although I will add to saying it's a fair statement, that countries with land borders would involve the heavy vehicles like Boxers to push enemy flanks or seize assets. Even Australia (if they could get them ashore via a port) would use them heavily to counteract a push of Chinese forces down SEA countries.
We don't have beach assault ships capable of landing tanks or boxers due to weight limitation.
>The Striker is a weapon of invasion, the Boxer is a weapon of defense or occupation What? The Stryker wasn't used in either of our modern invasions, it first saw combat in Nov. 2003, months after the invasion had ended. It was an interim vehicle and it's time for it to go.
Julian Jenkins
>It was an interim vehicle and it's time for it to go. Replaced with?
Andrew Bailey
Was supposed to be replaced with the FCS, hence the IAV name
Jaxson Sanders
OK, my question stands.
Luke Reyes
The Patria AMV, the Boxer, a new development vehicle tailored specifically to our needs, or a suitable tracked vehicle with band tracks.
Joshua Green
The patria amv and especially the boxer are both too big and heavy to meet the strykers logistical role. Any heavier and the US will just send Bradleys, a far superior option to both of the above.
Could you justify the R&D costs of a replacement, along with procrument of about 5000, to replace the strykers?
Bentley Nelson
>The patria amv and especially the boxer are both too big and heavy to meet the strykers logistical role We'd only be losing 1 vehicle in a C-17 transport, and the biggest advantage of an SBCT is its ability to deploy at the objective, the road march capability of an 8x8 is fantastic. >Any heavier and the US will just send Bradleys, a far superior option to both of the above The Bradley is part of the ABCT, and deploying one of those is a hell of a lot more logistically intensive than the Boxer could ever hope to be. >Could you justify the R&D costs of a replacement, along with procrument of about 5000, to replace the strykers? Yes, considering we're on an AFV spending spree right now.
Nathan Ortiz
>We'd only be losing 1 vehicle in a C-17 transport, And losing C-130 capability completely, as little as that is used. However, 1 less vehicle per plane is huge, that means for every 3 C-17s for a striker you have to send 5 for the same number of vehicles for the boxer. That is alot, especially when you consider that SBCT's are dismount centric, each vehicle needs troops to fill it beyond fire support vehicles. SBCT's are akin to IBCTs in this regard. (not that ABCTs don't have a significant dismount capacity)
>The Bradley is part of the ABCT, and deploying one of those is a hell of a lot more logistically intensive than the Boxer could ever hope to be. True, but the Bradley and boxer are the exact same from a strategic air mobility standpoint, which was a HUGE part of the IAV program. The ability to deploy at an objective is far greater for a SBCT than a Boxer BCT.
>Yes, considering we're on an AFV spending spree right now. Doubtful, keeping in mind the mobility requirements and the sheer scale of procrument of the stryker. It's worth to note that there is slightly less strykers in the US active inventory that the total number of BTR-80s ever built.
Julian Carter
>And losing C-130 capability completely, as little as that is used I could be incorrect here but certain variants of the Stryker like the Double-Vhull and the MGS already don't fit in. >that means for every 3 C-17s for a striker you have to send 5 for the same number of vehicles for the boxer. I see this as more a problem with the dismal state of the US airlift capacity than with the Boxer itself. Armored vehicles have become heavier, it's just a fact of life for now. >SBCT's are akin to IBCTs in this regard We need to convert a good 1/3 of the IBCT into something more useful. >True, but the Bradley and boxer are the exact same from a strategic air mobility standpoint, which was a HUGE part of the IAV program Not going to argue with that but I'd contend that the whole 72/96 thing was a little bit unrealistic. >The ability to deploy at an objective is far greater for a SBCT than a Boxer BCT The Boxer has much better range than the stryker. >Doubtful, keeping in mind the mobility requirements and the sheer scale of procrument of the stryker I don't think the design problem would be too difficult, and it gives the design/manufacturing base something to do while we're waiting for MPF and NGCV. >It's worth to note that there is slightly less strykers in the US active inventory that the total number of BTR-80s ever built Well it was supposed to be the pre-replacement for the vast majority of our active Brigades, so that makes sense.
Connor Long
LAV 25 was made almost a decade before the LAV III
