+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 150

Thread: Stryker pics from Iraq

  1. #121
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Country: Switzerland
    The 'fences' around the vehicle pre-detonate the RPG at a distance from the actual hull.

    Many strykers have been hit by RPG fire in Iraq, i don't think any have been lost to RPG fire.

    I will say this, Stryker is patheticly under-gunned in it's base model.

  2. #122
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 Aug 04
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisF202
    o boy, 1 RPG and those things are goners Who comes up with these ideas? Why not paint a bullseye on it?
    Thats more to do with the RPG, if you know how to use it it can disable an M-1,
    If you are really good and realy lucky then you can kill an Abrams.

    The best defens against Hostile fire is Thoroug scouting and effective deployment of infantry and air cover, No one will ever be able to fulfill the Dream Of an unkillable AFV

  3. #123
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 Aug 04
    Posts
    126
    I have been reviewing this thread and I would like to point out a few things APC's and AFV's by nature can not withstand direct impact of any ANTI TANK weapon, PRG's are deadly to anything thay can hit, Includeing MI 24 Hind gunships and Apaches. Just Ask The Mujahaden Fighters who perfected the art of The RPG.
    The stryker is not what I want to ride into battle in. But I think we should keep it in perspective, it is not supposed to be a Tank, It Is a combat taxi intended to protect from fragments, small arms fire and grenades, the only defense against an RPG is to kill the guy firing it.

  4. #124
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Country: Switzerland
    A stryker can stop an RPG-7 in most places.

  5. #125
    New Member
    Join Date
    30 Jul 04
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Fury
    NZLAV? Never heard of it rather seen one But the 25mm sounds good, any ATGMs on it?
    Sorry for not replying, I've been away. Nah, no atgms on our NZLAVs, its not designed to kill tanks, its there to deliver the infantry to the battle and support with 25mm direct fire. That said, the 25mm APFSDS will kill anything up to T72(pushing it), esp with the advanced sight and targetting systems. I think it has more applique armour than a stryker but we dont have the rpg screens. It has all the bells and whistles TI, fire on the move, C4I and laser warning system.

    We are using it to replace our ageing '113s, not as a 'deployable' unit. That said, they fit in a herc ok, but ships will always be the best way to transport armoured vehicles. From what I've seen, the stryker seems ok for what theyre using it for - as long as you dont start trying to fight the vehicle. Its a taxi, nothing more.
    Attached Images  

  6. #126
    New Member
    Join Date
    25 Aug 04
    Posts
    5
    im a us soldier in Iraq that’s part of the first stryker bde. 3rd bde 2infantry, and from what i can tell you.... the vehicle is the SHIT. the problem with a lot of people that are against it is, that they compare it too the bradley or tanks, when its not a armored or IFV, its just a taxi for us infantry soldiers to kick ass. thats all. i know that the m113 Gavin out classes the stryker like a bitch. its simply a better vehicle, but as for the situation that the us is with iraq, the stryker is better suited. the main thing that the stryker has over the gavin and other vehicles are, 1. Stealth 2. Speed 3. MGS (mobile gun system), which allows the gunner to fire from he inside of the vehicle.

    most of the operations we do out her are mainly raids, kicking in doors and waving the m-4. we are like a bad ass swat team. the stryker speed and stealth is so damn good, that we often do raids on enemy locations, that they dont even know what hit them. a example of our stealth is when we inserted into sammorra and at night time insurrgents were placing ieds around us. the funny thing is, that because the vehicle is so quiet, we just sit there watching these fools set up ieds, and when they were done, we hit em up with the 50 cal. or mk19(lol).

    we are so highly moble that we have had situations were we would move to central iraq( we are currently in northern iraq, mosul) within 28 hrs. if this was a heavier bde,we would have to get a bunch of hemetts and move all the heavy vehicles and that wouldve taken about a week. but we are always ready to get to point b and get the job done. alos our speed helps us out a lot when we get ambushed in the urban areas, we fight our way out with high speed and fire power.

    a funny thing that i hear out and around from people agianst the stryker is the thin armour. they all complain saying the amour is too thin and rpgs will cush it. thats funny. the slate armour(which was first used by the russians in chechnya) is the shit. i have been shot at by a lot of rpgs and many hit the slate armour(and some cases bombarded by rpgs) and im still standing and the stryker kept rolling.



    i feel that the stryker should never be a weapon used in conventional warfare, but as far as operations like iraq, afgan, somalia, and kosova...its the perfect choice. right now the stryker is still somewhat of a concept weapon, so itll still go though some developments as time pass. and im sure itll get better. think about where the m-16 was 30 years ago...a peice of shit. and look at it today, along side with the models that evolved from that rifle. only time will test and tell.

  7. #127
    Regular
    Join Date
    20 Aug 04
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by dominoism83


    i feel that the stryker should never be a weapon used in conventional warfare, but as far as operations like iraq, afgan, somalia, and kosova...its the perfect choice. right now the stryker is still somewhat of a concept weapon, so itll still go though some developments as time pass. and im sure itll get better. think about where the m-16 was 30 years ago...a peice of shit. and look at it today, along side with the models that evolved from that rifle. only time will test and tell.
    Well that is the biggest problem I have with the entire anti Stryker movement. Before this [from what I understand], most of these infantry units were leg mobile with little or no armor to speak off. Wheren't these the divisions that were destined to be ultra light and flown into the ME to counter the sovs during the cold war?

    Any way from that perspective I guess anything is a step up compared to humping it. I always wondered during the coldwar, if the USA had so many M-113s laying around [ I hear reached 34,000 inventory in the '80s],why did they not make these light divisions with M-113s. But the counter argument was that they would still require twice as much lift to get to the theater...compared to the ultra lights.

    From what I read Stryker was never intended to replace M-1/M-2 brigades and was not intended for heavy warfare but more like rear area security roles and occupation [peacekeeping].

  8. #128
    New Member
    Join Date
    25 Aug 04
    Posts
    5
    From what I read Stryker was never intended to replace M-1/M-2 brigades and was not intended for heavy warfare but more like rear area security roles and occupation peacekeeping
    you are exactly right. too give a good example of how good we are doing in this type of low conflict warfare,that we train and do mission side by side with SF units, suchas, green beret, delta force, a-teams, and my favorite, the us navy seals. we have donr soo good for this type of theater that higher command kick he seals out of theater, because most of their units and teams was with us and they were usless.(not too mention dumb as hell an many situation)

    the russians have a vehicle that is almost just like the strker, called the btr-80A. this vehicle was used differently then the regular btr-80, it was more used for light urban warfare(suchas around small villages and towns) and was sucessful in afgan and chechnya. because of its light weight and highspeed it could put down a village or town upraising faster then some of the other varients of the btr and bmps. the russians would use the heavier btr systems and BMP(the russians version of infantry fighting vehicle) to take much larger and dense urban operations. before the btr80A came out the soviets would use small 4 wheeled vehicle to take small urban areas. its a real bitch that when you are trying to take a major city and most of you more mech units are fighting in the city, but all these smaller towns and cities are acting up, and some of the towns are on the same highway that you supply trucks run up and down to feed and fuel the fight for the larger city. so instead of taking units away from the main fighting and due to their heavier weight it would take time and planning,they would get these smaller lighter units to put down these littel upraisings.

  9. #129
    New Member
    Join Date
    25 Aug 04
    Posts
    5
    Well that is the biggest problem I have with the entire anti Stryker movement. Before this [from what I understand], most of these infantry units were leg mobile with little or no armor to speak off. Wheren't these the divisions that were destined to be ultra light and flown into the ME to counter the sovs during the cold war?
    actually 3rd bde 2id (ARROWHEAD HOOO YAHH) was a mechinzed amoured brigade, as for 1bde 25id im not to sure, but i do remember that these units were to be fast moblie units for the pacific. back when they were armoured

  10. #130
    Regular
    Join Date
    18 Aug 04
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster
    How does it compare to the Crusader? Crusader weighs at least over 80 tons including the ammo train. How much does it weigh?

    What are its firing capabilities in terms of rate of fire, range, time of acquisition, cooling time, reload time, and accuracy?
    Here's a 'story' I archieved back in 200 on the Crusader developments before it's cancelation :
    Crusader, the Army's new 40-ton, 155-mm self-propelled howitzer (SPH), has fired a 15 round salvo at a rate of 10.4 rounds-per-minute. During live fire testing at the Yuma Proving Ground earlier this month, projectiles were automatically loaded and fired using its on-board autoloader and software.
    The firing demonstrated that Crusader's meets the ten rounds-per-minute rate-of-fire (ROF) key performance parameter (KPP) set by the US Army as a requirement at Milestone III. "This ROF test is an important achievement," said Jim Unterseher, United Defense Programme Manager for Crusader. "We are showing the ability to exceed Milestone III requirements even before Milestone II. We now have demonstrated confidence that this high rate of fire is very achievable-it is a key to the lethality that will be needed for the Army's Transformation to a lighter force. It also shows that hard work and teamwork by everybody involved brings success."

    The howitzer is scheduled to demonstrate its multiple round simultaneous impact (MRSI) capability later this month. Crusader will begin delivering fully functional prototypes in 2004 and remains on track to field the first unit in April 2008.

    "Team Crusader continues to move ahead just like we have said we would," said Colonel Charles Cartwright, Programme Manager for the Army. "One year ago we were focused on weight and software. This year, with software development on track, weight reduction and our new design path forward established, and testing underway, we are setting the pace for the future. "

    To sustain these demonstrated firing rates for several minutes requires rapid cannon heat dissipation. On Crusader, this is done by its integral liquid-cooled cannon. As yet, no other field artillery cannon in the world has this capability.

    Crusader is a self-propelled 155-mm howitzer (SPH) supported by tracked and wheeled re-supply vehicles, which can be strategically deployable by C-17 and C-5 aircraft.
    ~ Gary Mikami ~
    Live 'N Let Live!

  11. #131
    Regular
    Join Date
    20 Aug 04
    Posts
    60

  12. #132
    New Member
    Join Date
    30 Aug 04
    Posts
    1

    RPG-7 hit....NOT!

    Quote Originally Posted by lurker
    Wouldn't be offtopic i guess


    PRG7 hit.

    THE STRYKER IN THIS PICTURE WAS NOT HIT BY A RPG-7! THIS STRYKER WAS DESTROYED BY AN "IED."

    I took a look at the website you got the picture from and they are wrong! The two strykers pictured there are two different strykers. The Stryker you have posted was hit Samarra, and I was there when it happened! To date there has been only one destroyed by an rpg and it was hit from above, and everyone was dismounted therefore it had no protection at the time.

  13. #133
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    30 Sep 04
    Posts
    778
    how the heck did an IED do that? i knew they were bad, but thought ppl in apcs were ok.

  14. #134
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Oct 04
    Posts
    58
    I just read a Stryker and it's crew survived a 500 pound bomb detonated next to it, the vehicle rolled 30 feet and when flipped back over, was able to move under it's own power.

    From what I hear, the soldiers in Iraq like the Stryker.

  15. #135
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,427
    Country: United States
    This has been an interesting thread to read through with some good information and plenty of misinformation. Having been a part of the Stryker Brigade "transformation" from nearly the beginning (2001), I had the opportunity to command an infantry company through our NTC and JRTC rotations and during operations in Samarra and Mosul. I believe it is important to start from the beginning in order to understand the decision to select the Stryker.

    The SBCT was designed as an infantry-centric organization that uses information supremacy maneuver to a place of advantage to destroy the enemy in the close fight through combined arms. Within an IN company, there is a Mobile Gun System platoon manned by armormen, a mortar section with 120mm and 60mm mortars, a fire support team, and a sniper team.

    As a BDE, the SBCT was designed as a medium force that could bridge the gap between the light forces (quick deployability) and the heavy forces (slow deployability). It was never designed to replace either force (i.e. the Stryker was never meant to replace the M1 Abrams or the M2 Bradley). Historical examples where such a force would have been useful were plentiful (for example, Kosovo, where our heavy forces were too heavy for the bridge infrastructure; Desert Shield, where the 82nd ABN Ready BDE was a symbolic defense)Thus, a requirement for a vehicle that could be transported in a C-130 was developed. Another major criteria was the selection of a platform that had a commality of parts across the variants and with other vehicles in the Army inventory and with a low mean between failure rate. In other words, a need to reduce spare parts required so that it would reduce the number of supply vehicles to support the brigade. Also, fuel mileage was a major criteria since it would reduce the required # of fuel trucks to support the brigade.

    While I don't recall all the details, I saw the decision brief that compared the above criteria and as well as other, and this objective analysis decided that the Stryker was a better vehicle for the BDE. From a subjective point of view, the soldiers in my battalion were involved in a side by side comparison of the M113 and the Canadian LAV-III, and the soldiers preferred the LAV-III hands down over the M113.

    All of that being said, I would like to address a few of the points brought up throughout this thread:

    1. To my knowledge, we have lost only two Strykers to enemy fire during its 12 months in Iraq. The first one was due to a command detonated IED (the one in flames in the picture) in Samarra. The force of the blast ruptured a fuel line and the AFSS (automated fire suppression system) didn't work properly, preventing the fire from being extinguished. The only injury was a broken ankle on the driver. The second one was when a RPG struck some fuel can on top of the Stryker. The resulting fire was unable to brought under control when the onboard, handheld fire extinguishers failed to work. Other extinguishers almost had the fire under control when ammunition stored on top began to cook off. The decision was made was allow the vehicle to burn instead of risking any soldier's life. There were no injuries. There have been others that received battle damage from VBIEDs and RPGs, but these were able to be repaired quickly. It is true that a 500lb VBIED caused a Stryker to rollover with no injuries to the crew and the Stryker could roll on its own. In another case, a 500lb VBIED was detonated a few feet from a Stryker and the only damage was a cracked display screen inside the vehicle.
    2. The slat armor has been very effective in defeating or minimizing RPG damage - there have been no soldiers killed in the interior of a Stryker. The slat armor is designed to completely defeat a RPG (either with a single or a tandem warhead) by "catching" it between the slats, prevent the point detonating fuse from activating. If the round does strike the actual slat, then the standoff distance that allows the slat to "catch" a round minimizes any potential damage as the plasma jet loses energy. There have been hundereds of RPG attacks against the Stryker and dozens of strikes and the Stryker has done its job in protecting the soldiers.
    3. The operational mobility of the Stryker has been incredible, as evident by the fact that Stryker BNs have participated in operations in Samarra, An Najaf, Mosul, Tal Afar, Fallajuh, Balad, Babil province, andalong the MSR north and south of Baghdad. This operational mobility would not have been possible if it were a tracked vehicle. While there is a trade off in tactical mobility vs. the M113, I can not recall a single time in Iraq or at JRTC where this affected a company plan. I would also like to point out that tracks do not automatically equal better off road mobility. Most of my senior NCOs grew up with Bradley, and they all hands down believed that the Stryker could go places that you couldn't dream of going with the Stryker. While there were plenty of times where a Stryker would get stuck (between the irrigation canals in the Tigris valley and the rain in northern Iraq, there was plenty of mud to go around), never once did we require a recovery vehicle.
    4. The smooth and quiet ride provided by the Stryker allows the infantry to arrive at an objective fresh and undetected. This quiet ride resulted in the unit being described as a "phantom" in Samarra since we "were everywhere at once and no where at once." While the only experience I had in a tracked vehicle (M113) was in the summer of 1994, I recall swearing off ever being in the mech infantry because of the rough ride. My soldiers that were on Brads in their previous lifetime described the quality of the ride as night and day in favor of the Stryker, and that they were often fatigued after just riding in the Bradley (a relative term if you are light IN as was). The quiet ride was effective for my company (after I switched command) when they rolled up on a firefight between insurgents and a MP unit along the MSR in Baghdad. The insurgents didn't hear them, but finally realized what happened and broke contact after the company killed 6 through precision M4 engagements and the use of the M2 .50 cal on the remote weapons station (RWS).
    5. The roomy interior in the Stryker allowed for tremendous flexibility in cross loading pax, attachments, equipment. While not roomy like a luxurious vehicle when fully loaded, the Stryker was able to handle its crew, a 9 man infantry squad, the PL, the FO, mission essential equipment such as urban mechanical breaching tools, explosive detectors, small UAVs, etc. (and this is with all soldiers wearing their body armor, which makes a big difference in size). This flexibility prevented attachments from having to bring their own vehicles (HMMWVs). The room also allowed the Strykers to be used as a means of non-standard CASEVAC.
    6. The Stryker does fly in a C130. My CO TM, consisting of 30 Strykers across 7 variants, conducted airland operations at NTC in March 03. We were able to fly with full vehicle loads and the accompanying passengers (IN SQD, etc.). Within 2 minutes of landing and exiting the aircraft, each vehicle had reconfigured to where it could fight (FM and digital comms established and guns in action). Stowage racks took additional time to reinstall on certain variants, but this could be done when time was available. To provide RPG protection, separate C130s would be necessary to fly in the palletized slat armor or reactive armor when that is fielded.
    7. The Stryker does not have an amphibious capability. It does have a fording capability, and the high wheels help here.
    8. The Stryker received minimal damage from daily IEDs, typically consisting of 152mm or 155mm rounds; maybe shrapnel damage to stowage racks and some flat tires (it has run flats, so vehicles always self-recovered to the FOB and changed tires, rarely if ever affecting the mission).
    9. While the higher wheel base makes a slightly larger target, the slat protects against RPG strikes and the height makes it safer for soldiers in the hatches when an IED detonates (tougher angle for shrapnel/blast effects to reach soldiers).
    10. The "sprint" speed and max sustained speeds for the vehicle are above the advertised max speed of 62.5, allowing for rapid movements when necessary and making IEDs even more ineffective since they're difficult to time.
    11. The Stryker uses the same engine as the FMTV. This reduces the # of lines of PLL/ASL required to sustain the BDE (commonality of parts). If the BDE had M113s, they would have to stock both FMTV engines and M113 engines, increasing the required # of trucks to haul parts or reduce stockage of repair parts and risk non-mission capable equipment. This is just one example. The GAO report on the comparison exercise between the Stryker and M113 concluded that the Stryker would require much less repair parts than supporting a M113 fleet.
    12. Don't compare apples to oranges when comparing costs. The cost of the $2.5 million Stryker include: ceramic armor, C4ISR systems (ASIP, FBCB2, EPLRS, NTDR, PLGR, HF, SATCOM, routers, hubs), RWS. To compare to the M113A3, you would have to compare a cost of $1.42 million (basic Stryker with RWS and 14.5mm armor protection) vs. $570K for a M113 to M113A3 upgrade with RWS. Additional costs would be added to the M113A3 for the bolt-on kits to up the protection to 14.5mm like the Stryker. Over the long run, maintenance and fuel costs for the M113A3 are greater than the Stryker, making the cost comparison almost a wash.

    My points are starting to turn into a laundry list, so I will stop here. However, I would serve in a Stryker unit again in a heartbeat and believe that the Stryker was the right choice for the Army. The things that were given up by choosing the Stryker over the M113, smaller size and weight and cross-country mobility, would not be worth the loss of ease of maintenance, operational mobility, additional room for pax/loads, and quiet operation. The money spent on the Stryker was well spent.

    In closing, I would like to shift to the soldiers of the SBCT, for they are the ones that are truly making it successul. While the Stryker is a great platform for an infantry-centric organization, it is the innovation and competence of the NCOs and soldiers in operating the Stryker and digital equipment that allow them to reach an OBJ and demonstrate controlled violence of action in seizing a search that OBJ to capture a high value target or remove a cache of weapons/explosives that could have been used against our fellow soldiers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Why We Are in Iraq
    By Leader in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 07 Nov 10,, 16:46
  2. The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq
    By lulldapull in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 20 May 08,, 09:48
  3. Iraq in Books - Review Essay
    By Shek in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29 Feb 08,, 11:08
  4. Arab volunteers killed in Iraq: an Analysis
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24 Aug 05,, 13:29
  5. Quagmire or not?
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 04 Jul 05,, 18:18

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts