What are your thoughts on the Stryker?

cont.
The RWS system is phenomenal and mounting a .50 cal or a MARK 19 makes the thing a fucking nightmare..plus theres so much amazing technology there that literally makes it a little spaceship on ground. My only issue would be to incorporate motion sensor for the rear air guard spots and also ramp, the only issue with it is the amount of blind spots the truck has , which makes driving one a three man job. Overall, it's a great vehicle that will just get better as time goes on, it's the future of mechanized infantry.

>Theres even talks to completely decommission Bradley's and replace them with MGS systems
[citation needed]

I would love too but unfortunately it was all hear say while I was in the school house, I didnt believe it until a cav friend of mine said the same thing once while we were talking shit.

Attached: ATafoot.jpg (720x775, 88K)

Honey Badger's a mean bitch sir

Was on the stryker for 3 years, started as a driver then moved up to VC. I agree with most of what you said, it was a perfect match for iraq with the amount of urban ops but when we used it in Afghanistan it got it's shit pushed in hard. The brigade I was in was supposedly the first to really push the stryker in Afghanistan, we ended up having one of the worst mass casualties due to the bottom armor. After that incident they started fielding the v hulls. Our 2nd tour we switched to mostly mraps and they worked way better, we had one stryker we would use mostly for hauling water and what not to a new fob or cop

Not as good as what it is meant to copy

Attached: BTR-3DA.jpg (1332x850, 203K)

1. The Stryker is not a copy of the BTR
2. The BTR sucks. All of them.

How has the btr actually performed in combat? I know the BMP was both a decent IFV and a death trap depending on the crews competence and the commands competence in using thay platform, but other than police actions in 3rd world shitholes i have heard of the effectiveness of the btr in both direct and or asymmetrical warfare?

You can claim there is no need all day, but all you'll end up with is grunts welding on the guns themselves.

Attached: the-grim-reaper.jpg (912x1206, 425K)

>Strykers are meant to be used during MOUT operations, not conventional warfare..
How about you actually read the TM before you shoot your mouth off?

That’s a lot of daka. That fuckin minigun tho

That's not a stryker you fucking retard.

>TM
FM, my mistake. Either way it clearly states that SBCTs have a role in conventional and unconventional/assymetric warfare. You're getting schooled on your own job by a stinking 42R, how pathetic you are. I bet you lock your knees in ceremonies.

That's 200lbs at most

That's 200lbs at most

Its mandic, he is pretty much a retard by definition no matter what he does.

>Everybody agrees that the Stryker is pretty good but a little underprotected.
>The BTR has way worse protection than the Stryker

I don't think so, Tim.

They've barely been used in recent conflicts AFAICT. I suspect that if they have been used, it's mostly as taxis. The M113 has better armor.

>Swiss infantry
>Still working with the MOWAG Piranha MkI

I would pay its cost myself if I could use a current gen battle taxi.
The Piranha MkI sucks ass for everybody involved

>Manual turret with no electric drive
>Seatbelts are in the most stupidly ineffective/dangerous of designs
>Barely enough room for a squad of 8 and their equipment, current doctrine wants us to load in checkpoint gear at all times, food, water and ammunition for 11 people for 72h, sleeping bags a heavy directional charge and leave room for prisoners/wounded/detached LTs
>This means we gotta ride with backpacks on our knees, good luck getting out with some dynamism
>All this while the armored compartment for the transmission forces your feet into an unnatural position and hurts your knees like hell

Please give us anything else

>There is no need for a manual M240 on the commander's hole and a coaxial M240 on the turret.

Which variant are you referring to, because I think you are talking out of your ass.

>their MGS system is very bulky and prone to rollovers so theres that.
>Theres even talks to completely decommission Bradley's and replace them with MGS systems.

LARP senses are tingling

>What are your thoughts on the Stryker?

It's done very well and helped break the ice regarding to widespread use of 8x8 in Western armies.

>Was it a success in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yes and yes.

>Will it be able to hold its own in an actual War?

Yes.

Attached: 58460485_2244597018912047_2563306631953645568_n.jpg (900x598, 130K)

Meanwhile we just got the Piranha MK V in Denmark, rides like a dream, but it is about the size of a ferry

And yet the airguard and commander hatch guns are very useful and can always be dismounted to augment the squad.

Oh yeah, and the bushmaster is a 25mm.

Retard.

Pretty good. I started in brads then went to a Stryker unit. They’re fast, comfy (comparatively) and way easier to maintain. More storage space too.

I think ditching the tow and mags variants for something with tows or javelins and a busmaster gun would be great. Would need to redesign the turret though.

Summer has started early I see.

I’m not a fan of killing kids, but I wouldn’t be upset if you killed yourself.

It's slow. It's not as maneuverable as contemporary designs. It can't swim. It doesn't transport enough equipment or troops as an APC. It will never replace Bradleys.

It's a deeply flawed design. The BTR series is not without it's warts but overall it's a much more successful execution of an APC. The BTR-80 has comparable firepower in a 30mm cannon, etc. The BTR-90 has better firepower in a more affordable package.

Attached: 1556813469118.jpg (1021x1021, 81K)

No you’re not, and you don’t know shit about driving a Stryker. Brads, 113’s, and yes even abrams drive like trucks too.

>BTRs aren’t used much

False. Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia/Azerbaijan/nagorno karabakh, Chechnya and Chechnya 2: electric boogaloo etc.

BTRs are barely passable and mostly suck. The countries that use them do so because they can’t afford better.

Attached: 1d216eb631262b385653ce3d1e9a826c.jpg (4000x2667, 1.44M)

I fundamentally dont understand why an autocannon variant was never adopted. Literally every other 8x8 combat vehicle ever, including the strykers own parent the LAV/Mowag, offered autocannons as a basic model. Seems like a salvo of 25mm HEI would be far more flexible for taking out entrenched opponents than a .50.

I'm about to drive to work but once I get there I'll do a writeup of my experiences with the Stryker in Afghanistan.

Hey guys, everyone look at this retard who thinks a 240 and a thousand or so rounds is going to weigh down a truck so much it effects the speed and somehow prevents its carry of full compliment of troops.

Look at him and laugh.

Not him, but there is a 30 mm bushmaster
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk44_Bushmaster_II

Heavy, recoil is rough on the frame, takes up a lot of space, reduced ammo in troop varient compared to the .50

Having .50’s and 19’s was judged sufficient, and they really are. Dismounts, firesupport, and combined arms tactics easily make up for any shortcomings in the armament.

Exists, but only adopted by the cav guys in graf. I doubt it’ll be widely adopted.

The slat armor was dogshit. It made it too heavy and wouldn't fit in a plane. Also the added weight kept the central tire inflation system from working.

Almost none of them had a working APU.

Slats and cages did their job though. The loss of a little mobility was nbd

>The loss of a little mobility was nbd
Yeah not leaving a improved surface in wet conditions was just great.

Personally I was 100% okay with not having to wash six inches of mud off every surface, nook, and cranny for a couple weeks. But to each their own.

I never once washed one in Iraq. Pretty sure the ones we fell in on were not washed once in two years.

Do you want to know how I know you never deployed? September can’t come soon enough.

How?

I deployed with 2nd ID to Afghanistan in '09. We were a mechanized Stryker brigade. Up until a month or two before deployment we were scheduled to deploy to Iraq, but got a last minute FRAGO to go to Kandahar. Strykers were fucking dogshit in Afghanistan. We called them kevlar coffins. In the first few months of deployment we had lost three trucks to IEDs, two of which were catastrophic losses involving the deaths of basically everyone riding within them.

When we got to Afghanistan, our battalion took over a brigade sized AO from a company of Canadians. Due to the Canadians' being dramatically under strength, they were limited to patrols within a very small area around their firebase, and the Taliban, foreseeing a surge in the area, had taken the opportunity to saturate the area with IED's on the dirt roads. When we took over, we learned that the trucks were very poor for this mission. One IED blew the bottom armor plate clear through the roof of the truck, killing all 8 in the troop compartment instantly.

Naturally, we eventually completely abandoned the trucks and acted as purely light infantry, but this still left the issue of resupply. Without the logistical resources of a light infantry brigade, we still needed to use the trucks to resupply the guys at the COP and firebases. We lost another truck in this manner to an IED, killing the skeleton crew inside before higher finally realized that they'd fucked up by putting Strykers in this environment and having us drive up and down the ONE hardball road in the area for the rest of deployment providing route security.

tl;dr Strykers are not so great for operating off paven roads but serviceable for urban environments

Yes, the original is in 25x137.

Today, however, they also come in 30x173 (GAU-8, rather than the shorter ADEN/DEFA), 35x228, 40x365, and 50x319. The 30 and 35 are in service; I don't know if anybody has purchased the 40 or 50 yet.

They will be there on the second or third day and that is what matters

Having seen them operate for four years in a row now, I don't think there is anything wrong with the vehicle, you just need to get rid of the guys teaching the officers to use them like IFV's.

To be fair, the Brad's track system is poorly designed and cannot do the duties asked of tracks made literally a century ago.

I've heard about the tracked stryker not being iin the cards, but why not give it a conversion system like the Soviet BT tanks did? Rather than a dedicated transmission, have the tracks either fold over the tires or replace said tires with triangular track pods like I've seen on certain trucks.

Attached: 1552204020961.png (485x256, 294K)

Something like this for the track pods.

Attached: 1537137213125.png (800x600, 1.11M)

The only ones in use by the US military are the 30’s that shoot the same rounds as older Brit AA guns, and they only place they’re being used is the Stryker cav unit in graf.

It's a bad American copy of the Centauro

You woul make every single track in the vehicle as complicated as a single track system in a mbt. With the only diference than a mbt has 2 systems, and the stryker would have 8

>What are your thoughts on the Stryker?
dey gots a nice bush

You are now aware that in raw numbers most 8x8 vehicles in service are not armed with autocannons.

>the Brad's track system is poorly designed and cannot do the duties asked of tracks made literally a century ago.

Never go full retard.