How did they fuck it up so bad?

Apparently a lot of the problems with the Stryker are a result of trying to make it fit the weight requirements whilst using the Stryker chassis, the centauro for example based on a similar chassis weighs some 7 tons more.

Would a purpose built hull/chassis have had less problems? The AMX-10 carries a similar gun and a lot more ammo, but actually weighs less than the Stryker does.
This is presumably because it uses a smaller purpose built hull.
The question is, assuming that the army would cough up the development money, would it have made sense to add another vehicle type to the Stryker BCT? Which is basically all Strykers.
Would using a smaller and/or lower pressure gun have helped solve the problems with the MGS (IE 90mm or maybe even the Ares 75mm gun)?
Is the whole concept just fucked? And will Stryker BCTs do just fine without that kind of fire support?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One of the quirks of the Stryker is that it doesn't use a special reduced pressure gun, it straight up uses the M60/M1 105mm with a special recoil system.
    Was this really necessary for a vehicle that wasn't supposed to be used as a tank destroyer?
    This gun is not enough to penetrate the frontal armour of modern MBTs (hence why it was replaced with 120mm on current gen MBTs) but is arguably overkill for every other threat, was this not a silly requirement for a lightweight vehicle?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Arguably it could have penetrated modern Russian MBTs, though.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Put down the crack pipe anon.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          105mm is perfectly capable of dealing with russian tanks

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, if you mean T-54s. Frontally it's no threat to even moderately modern tanks.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Have you heard of our lord and savior M900A1

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              you're completely ignorant of how shit russian tanks are

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >105 is useless
              >USMC M60s frontally penned multiple Iraqi T-72s
              You can't use the monkey models excuse anymore

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >all T-72s are the same
                Big difference in armor protection from T-72 Ural/T-72A and it's export versions and the T-72B in both the turret and hull and later T-72B variants with Kontakt-5 which forced NATO to produce 120mm ammunition that specifically defeats it like M829A3 and DM53

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not that fag but it's a bit an 'if so then obviously' situation, innit? Obviousky 105mm isn't ideal but there are absolutely lots of Russian tanks in Ukraine that are well below that standard. More every day. It's clearly enough for at least sefense against the average Russian tank in 2023.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                M829A3 was made to beat any current and future ERA that was still able to detonate when hit by M829A2, which already completely defeats Kontakt-5. It's a round that made ERA obsolete as tank armor.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Its funny because kontakt-5 wasn't even fielded until the late 90s because of budgets

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Eh, T-80U had K-5 armor around 1987 but the initial production was quite slow

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                T-72Bs aren't as well protected against 105 as you'd think. Nearly all specs have Kontact 1 or 5 rolled into their data because the T-72B has about 450mm of turret armour and relies on ERA to not get killed. Modern 105 APFSDS is capable of over 550mm RHA pen. That doesn't include hull protection either or the fact the Stryker has vastly better optics than the B3 so will get multiple shots off before being targetted, resulting in a much greater kill chance.
                Ukraine has shown the "bear" to be a joke. Random fucking ATGMs that weren't designed primarily as MBT killers have completely cucked fully equipped T-72B3s in Kontakt 5.
                Russia got SUPER cocky after the T-72B3s were dominating the Ukrainian T-64BVs in 2014, not realising that the T-64 itself was a piece of shit itself.
                TLDR edition: modern 105 kills T-72B3s on the frontal arc without issue.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                T-72B of the 84 model has 490mm RHAe vs KE, T-72B model 85 slightly improved it to 500-515mm vs KE, T-72B model 89 improved that to 540-560mm

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Frontally it's no threat to even moderately modern tanks.
              Yes an no. Armor is the spectrum not single number.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Retard.
              >X can pen Y frontally
              is a statement that is generally only used if X can pen Y with a very high probability (close to 100%) if it hits. But no tank is 100% protected against APFSDS rounds from reasonably large caliber guns, most of them have a varying percentage of vulnerable area to even quite old guns and shell combos. This is more pronounced in upgraded T-72s than most western tanks because they rely on applique ERA for much of their paper figure protection.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Frontally it's no threat to even moderately modern tanks.
              Which is why millions are being spent on a shiny new tank with a 105mm gun.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why did every NATO cuntry adopt 120mm?
            Go be retarded on /r/NCD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They ran with the idea of a all-wheeled super air mobile world police force, all on a super-tight budget so it would use maximum commanlity of parts by using only a single vehicle platform.

      That meant Stryker had to be everything from APC to IFV to AATGM carrier to gunfire support.
      Because tanks and all tracked vehicels are obsolete and slow in the high speed low drag armed forces of the late 90s.

      And they probably wanted a way to expend existing 105mm ammo.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone else uses the LAV family for APC, Armored Recon, AATGM, Mortar carrier, ambulance, command, etc
        Even the Marines figured it out with their LAV-25
        Why is it the US Army alone fuckedup?
        That frankly seems suHispanicious

        The one exception is the cannon, other countries 6x6 or 8x8 gun vehicles tend to be purpose built

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      France is retiring the ERC and AMX
      The EBRC Jaguar is replacing them
      It has just a 40mm autocannon and a pair of ATGM
      Something to remember about French armor doctrine is they still practice combined arms at the platoon and company level
      So an armor platoon of 3 Leclercs or an armored reconnaissance platoon of 3 ERC/AMX/Jaguar will also be accompanied by 6 VBL armored cars - which can themselves rock an ATGM
      And a company will be accompanied by a platoon of infantry either mechanized in the VBCI or motorized in the VAB (itself being replaced with the Griffon a 6x6 MRAP truck) and this platoon will have its own ATGM team too
      So while they wont have a big gun they can more than amply spam missiles

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >an armor platoon of 3 Leclercs
        why does the French Army use base 3 platoons instead of 4? Having 4 would add 1 more manoeuvre or reserve element, and give the flexibility of pairing vehicles together if needed, instead of being stuck on the Leclerc + Jaguar + VBL mix all the time

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          'Cause french army is severely limited in manpower.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >just a 40mm autocannon
        Just a CTC 40mm autocannon that's so precise it shred armor at 2.5km.

        The reason why the 105mm gun isn't updated to the 120mm FER and lowered to 40mm is that you get the same armor penetration with a burst of 40mm CTC that you would get with a lowered in pressure 120mm gun firing NATO 120mm shells.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >so precise it shred armor at 2.5km
          >you get the same armor penetration with a burst of 40mm CTC that you would get with a lowered in pressure 120mm gun firing NATO 120mm shells
          if that's supposedly the case, why don't these 40mm wunderwaffen replace ordinary tanks' 120mm main guns? if that was possible, you could theoretically build a 40mm-armed MBT with shedloads of armour and multiple all-round hardkill APS with the weight saved

          big if true, but I'd like to see some sources

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A recon version of the leclerc with a 40mm CTC has been designed to replace the AMX-10 RC in it's armored recon job in leclerc company. It never went ahead because of budget consideration (better to have a all in one EBRC that is funded than branching out).

            What we will see is a EBRC AA I think.

            So it's not like they diddn't tought about it. Convert some leclercs to 40mm CTC while upgunning the aothers with the 140mm they also have developed.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >EBRC AA
              inevitably, with the drone threat, but I rather think Griffon or Serval for the platform

              Still, the 40mm is not going to replace 120mm by any means, no way it can match a KE penetrator for tank-killing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >have massive stockpi!e of old 105mm rounds
      >you can either put a low pressure gun and then modify your ammo inventory
      >or just put on a gun that already works with all the ammo you have
      Tough call

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I doubt the Stryker gmc was supposed to be a tank destroyer, probably meant to provide fire support to the rest of the Stryker borne infantry, the 105 is perfectly capable of slinging HE in that role.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes and no; they were meant to be an "assault gun" platoon with secondary light anti-armour role, exactly like the ol WW2 Stug IIIs. It actually replaced a conceptual Stryker Howitzer variant because they couldn't squeeze a 155mm on the chassis. The 105mm was chosen not just for its antitank capability, but also because it could fire HE into enemy strongpoints.

        It was obvious however that the MGS was going to be the only anti-armour capability a Stryker company had besides shoulder-fired infantry weapons, and indeed Stryker TOW stood in for MGS most of the time.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >less problems
    Fewer

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Japan also doesn't seem to have any issues with the type 16, which is air mobile and 105mm, but about 30% heavier.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Post last time Japs used those in combat.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As for its replacement, TOW missiles can do a lot of the work as Syria has shown.
    What I want to see is an AMOS Stryker.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >replacement
      you missed that boat bud.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        SBCT doesn't need it. Javs on ICVs, 30mm on Dragoons, TOW carriers, and advanced mortar rounds together are more effective at pretty much everything. All it would add is logistical drag.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you should tell the army that because they're into the idea of levelling buildings with 105mm AMP

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Army already heard and gave it to the IBCT. ABCT has had 120mm AMP for a bit now unless I'm mistaken. It's just not what Strykers are for. That's why other things exist.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Going the IBCT, not the SBCT. Striker MGS is not being replaced, though it's capabilities are being covered by other vehicles like Dragoon and Javelin

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        MPF is not going to Stryker brigades, it would ruin their road mobility.
        It's going to Infantry brigades at the division level to increase their firepower.
        Overall though it feels a bit limp dicked considering that they are approaching the weight of lighter MBTs but don't really have the firepower, it remains to be seen if they have some special logistical advantage from basically being upgunned and uparmoured IFVs.
        Russian motor rifle brigades often just straight up get T-72s for direct fire support.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Overall MPF feels like after a bunch of bad 'test' projects with overambitious requirements, the Army has now rapidly settled on a design that could have been made 30 years ago as the backbone of their future infantry brigade fire support.
          The pendulum now swinging too far in the opposite direction.
          'Low risk' and 'off the shelf' design getting picked because the army was fucking around for 30 years after the cold war and is now caught with their pants around their ankles.

          It's not even like there might be some big advantage of future commonality with OMFV, because these aren't even going to mechanised units.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, you have to have been around for the genesis of the Stryker programme, or at least remember it, in order to understand the full story of the Stryker

            First and foremost, bear in mind the Stryker was meant to replace the Humvee and MTV/deuce-half trucks. I'm not joking. Stryker was designed to mechanise and network what was essentially "lorry infantry" formations of the US Army. Hence it's actually a significant firepower boost to the Army had before. This also is why the original Strykers appear lightly-armed and -armoured; despite looking like it, they were never intended to be IFVs, but more like APCs. Think wheeled M113, not wheeled Bradley.

            >Apparently a lot of the problems with the Stryker are a result of trying to make it fit the weight requirements whilst using the Stryker chassis
            These problems are really only the MGS variant
            >would it have made sense to add another vehicle type to the Stryker BCT?
            It would, but they were trying for commonality, a "Stryker brigade". Not gonna lie this was one of the stupider aspects of the programme especially since only 9 or so MGS vehicles would have been assigned per brigade, it wouldn't have killed them to make a special-purpose vehicle.
            >Is the whole concept just fucked?
            No, and yes.
            No, because Stryker is still significant uplifts to Humvees; yes because we've gone way past that concept.
            Stryker is now partly replaced by Stryker Double V Hull, which is the true 8x8 IFV to the older "APC" model.
            >will Stryker BCTs do just fine
            They will, and those units with Stryker DVH will have one of the best 8x8 IFVs around.

            >a bunch of bad 'test' projects with overambitious requirements, the Army has now rapidly settled on a design that could have been made 30 years ago
            The US Army appears to constantly hold up-to-date designs on the the drawing board, but not put them into production, until the need arises. It might be one way of saving money.

            >Otherwise today they'd be using "M8a3sepv2 AGS"

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The US Army appears to constantly hold up-to-date designs on the the drawing board, but not put them into production, until the need arises. It might be one way of saving money.

              Given production lead times it's just incompetence. They seem to follow the Navy LCS incompetence model. There is no way to quickly produce vehicles without full production tooling and mature systems. Otherwise it's just beta testing in combat.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The LCS is a wholly different kettle of fish, anon.

                I don't mean that the Army begins producing vehicles only when war breaks out, but I'm fairly certain they have some kind of likelihood assessment and will start producing the latest design when they feel it is necessary, or when they can't eke out their older platforms any more.

                The "Pacific Pivot" was one obvious inflection point, for example.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/iyJsxCR.jpg

      >replacement
      you missed that boat bud.

      Unironically why have tank guns, chain guns and ATGMs when mortar technology has come so far? We now have IR homing 120mm AT mortar rounds like the Strix not to speak of cheaper GPS/laser guided munitions
      >guaranteed high angle top attack
      >much cheaper than ATGMs
      >longer range than most ATGMs (AMOS shoots to 10 km)
      A camera could be designed that drops from the mortar shell on a parachute so that the mortar could observe their fires independently.
      It could even be possible to mount a small missile to a mortar round that ejects mid-air to engage drones.
      If all tanks, IFVs and reconnaissance vehicles were replaced with mortar carriers logistics could be simplified

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Strix round is just worse version of teh Spike missile.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >gets shrecked by artillery
        >gets shrecked by anything that closes the distance

        >aha but with my target seaking mortar rounds and a camera drone-
        Fuck off.

        I can see the niche, but as a replacement it seems like a retarded idea.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OP has no idea what he is talking about and can't actually define how "they fucked it up".

      The 'replacement' for M1128 is Strykers with 30mm cannons and Javelins.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Stryker was supposed to be an interim vehicle that was one of the first large scale attempts at recreating a modern motorized infantry force. It suffered because of that, but held up well despite its shortcomings compared to other more modern wheeled ICVs.
    It should be due for replacement now, but will probably live on for another 20 years due to budget and the Army's inability to reliably develop new ground vehicles.
    The suspension was clapped out a decade ago with the double V hull variant and there is only so much more they can add without causing maintenance problems with the seals and hydraulics.
    TLDR Stryker served it's purpose but should be due for a replacement

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Makes sense, they've already started kicking around redesigned derivatives.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Stryker's design goal was to be airlift able by the C-130.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Stryker's design goal was being able to rapidly self deploy in theater based on lessons learned in Yugoslavia.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        M-SHORAD?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yep

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They should've just use autocannon+ATGM turret combo. Proven weapon on countless IFVs. Not so flashy as boomer MUH BIG GUN but it works and fits to LAV chassis no problem.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We were still GWOT brained. Wasn't much point in giving cannon plus ATGMs to every ICV when the most resistance you are likely to meet is a big building with dshk and RPGs in it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        are you fucking serious? GWOT brained? I can't tell if you're being ironic, the Stryker was developed in the 1990s and the MGS reached operational capability in 2003

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I dunno what to tell you senpai, those yeard are all smack in the middle of the shift from full scale Article 5 shit to world policing. GWOT brain, if you would. Don't let it bother you too much.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >muh world policing
            I dont think you know what the words and terms you try to meme actually mean

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/WgyoVzq.jpg

              >1997-2003
              >smack in the middle of GWOT

              >Can't laugh OR read.
              Neat.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >i was just pretending
                shut the fuck up gayass, you were trying to slip in that "durr america too prepared to fight sand wars" shit to realize that the Stryker was a product of the expeditionary wars in the 1990s

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >1997-2003
            >smack in the middle of GWOT

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not necessary to every ICV.
        There is the M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV). Bradley essentially turned into Light tank. Most infantry removed and space used to increase ammo storage 900->1500 for 25mm, 5->15 for TOW.

        You can make same from Stryker. Make Stryker with 25mm/TOW turret and one trooper (acting as loader). Use troops compartment to stow extra 25mm and TOWs. Use that as fire support vehicle instead of the M1134 Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle and the M1128 Mobile Gun System (MGS) in Stryker Brigades.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          anon, the m3 bradleys were all converted back to m2s with regular seating years ago, they just use them differently depending on what they do

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          M3

          Can I borrow your time machine, anon?

          Or are you from a parallel universe where scout Bradleys still exist?

          This guy must've just picked up tom clancys armored cav book from the 1990s.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m like 90% sure the M3 Bradley was still around in 2010, so not quite the 90’s. Are you by chance a Zoomer?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              he's not wrong, you misread his comment. The M3 bradleys in US service have been mostly, if not all converted back to M2s, they're the same vehicle but with different seating arrangements and things like where the viewing ports are mounted, they're just going to use some in different roles.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      autocannon LAV is armored recon not an IFV

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >This is presumably because it uses a smaller purpose built hull.
    AMX hull is derived from their now retired tracked IFV

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It uses the same engine and some of the drivetrain but is otherwise different.
      US army could have done the same with the LAV/Stryker on a smaller recon/fire support vehicle, afaik the Stryker actually shares an engine with US army logistics vehicles and it's a common civilian engine for trucks ect.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >a smaller vehicle
        nah you dont need that, Canada used to rock 6x6 LAVs but retired them as redundant and not very useful
        just go same vehicle, some are apc and some are armored recon/AT/Mortar/etc

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its too bad, because its such a fine looking vehicle too.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They should scrap this entire folly and move to the Boxer platform

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      contrast boxer vs lynx or puma. wheeled vehicles are taller and less compact than tracks.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      go away, Denise

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    did they? the mgs stryker works okay, and it was always supposed to be an interim design

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The issues came from the wiring harness and other electronics shitting the bed + commanders not being properly trained/educated on how to implement it.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I honestly bet Russia would be doing much better in Ukraine if they had one of these instead of every one of their current mbts

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You dont hear about other countries problems with weapons:

    1. They don't use them
    2. They don't notice the problems
    3. They don't report the problems
    4. They don't try to fix/replace the problem

    Almost every major US weapons program had an issue.

    It was fixed or replaced.

    Bradley, Abrams, Apache, etc. Everyone shit on these weapons as unreliable, underperforming, too complex, too maintenance extensive, etc.

    But the Americans make it work.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair, 99% of US superiority is logistics and intel. They could do most of what they did in the past 50 years using early cold war armour like M60s and M113s just because the support and supply chain allowed overwhelming air support in nearly all situations while their opponents couldn't counter it.
      There's definitely issues with the Abrams, Bradley and such but it's mainly salty Russians who are mad at the fact their "good" equipment is currently getting raped sideways by standard NATO disposables and random commercial drones using grenades.
      If Iraq had Saddam wiping out scores of M1s using RPG-7s then the same would have happened to the US but US equipment and MIC was designed around paper specs and perceptions of USSR capabilities that were shown to be complete fallacies in 2021.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *