I'm more of a plane and ship guy but apparently Ukraine is getting 100 of these from the US this week and it made me notice I don't really k...

I'm more of a plane and ship guy but apparently Ukraine is getting 100 of these from the US this week and it made me notice I don't really know shit about the Stryker and its different versions.

So redpill me on the Stryker PrepHole: how is this thing and how are the capabilities of the different versions? Is this something that could be useful in the Slav Wars? I will say the version with the mobile gun system on it looks fun as fuck but I'm guessing it's probably not the most practical thing in the world.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Some have M2s mounted on the top, some have Mk 19 grenade launchers on the top, some have TOWs mounted on the top, some are command vehicles with M2s on them, some are ambulances, some are engineering vehicles. One type, the MGS, had a large cannon on it for supporting infantry and sniping BTRs (this has since been retired due to its perceived limited use and difficulty of maintenance), while another, the Dragoon, has a 30mm cannon on top. There are also variants that have 120mm mortars inside, allowing for shoot and scoot mortar fire without exposing the operators or requiring the mortar to be set up. A new variant has a laser on top, allowing it to shoot mortar rounds and UAVs in flight.

    All of them have protection up to 14.5 (what you'd get from a BTR) w, all have thermals, most can hold a squad of 8.

    The way they operate in US service is by closing to within 500 meters or so of the enemy, kicking their dismounts out, then providing fire support.

    Basically they're just actually good BTRs, and they'll likely be used as such in Ukraine.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What version do you think Ukraine is most likely to get, just the basic M2 version?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Correction, squad of 9.

        And probably a mix. I assume. I haven't seen any documents about the exact number/variants they're handing over, but to be used the way they're intended you need at least 3 or 4 variants in a unit. A commander would have a pretty hard time doing his job in an infantry carrying variant for example.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm hoping they get the models with TOWs and the MGS for maximum cell phone PrepHole

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they should make a drone/loitering munition MLRS variant

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pls stop you will give the Russians a heart attack

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          sexo

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        HIMARS is already the wheeled variant MLRS for motor formations.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          idc.

          I want an American boxer. Their modularity is pleasing to my autism

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Dragoon Variant also mounts a Javelin system on the outer turret

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    AFAIK Ukraine already has 40 or so APC versions from Canada.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think they have guns, kek

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Things have evolved quickly in terms of what's being provided to Ukraine. At the time the US was only sending Humvees and M113s. If the US actually sends Strykers Canada might send 25mm LAVs.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I was under the impression that the stryker was shitty and almost universally disliked. Am I wrong?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I heard that too but I also heard it from the same retards that said the Bradley was shit so I always just assumed they had no fucking clue what they were talking about.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Bradley, M-16, and Stryker all fell victim to the same thing. It-was-not-perfect-from-day-one-so-it-is-garbage syndrome. Instead of appreciating it for what it became and how it works, people point to bullshit from 20+ years before current use to make a point.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Before the Stryker most of those units would have been walking or at best been delivered in tin cans to the front.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I’ve heard they are constantly breaking down so I bet they are doing a lot of walking anyways

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          AFAIK the MGS autoloader is always breaking, but the Stryker mechanics are solid. They had a tendency to tip over in Afghanistan on really bad roads and in the early WOT the suspensions would get overloaded with extra weight from slat armor, but generally they seem to be solid, plus being economical they can be fielded in huge number.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's every military vehicle

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was not particularly useful for the work 98% of American service members did in Muslimland, so they just assumed it was bad at its job.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I hate this. What vehicle, in 2003 (or now) would have been better for turning jihadis into a fine pink mist? People just like to bitch.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its my understanding that Stryker is basically just a Bradley with wheels, which means it should be fine in all other areas but less capable off road

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Maximum meme potential would be them getting MGS's, but it's probably going to be either unarmed or .50 cal CROWS armed (most likely IMO) ones.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No reason to only give worst armed ones if we're already sending Bradleys

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      MGS are being retired anyway wouldn't giving them away specifically be basically free if not even a net profit?

      Also, god bless. America continues to be the military leader in Europe. If only because none of the previously supposed ones refused to pull their thumbs out of their asses

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We have 145 Stryker MGS that were retired in 2021 being replaced by the Stryker Dragoon. The MGS had issues with availability due to auto loader and electrical issues.
    Good idea to give them to Ukraine so they actually see action in their mediocre service history. They’ll sit in a warehouse otherwise.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I should clarify that the Stryker MGS is the one in OPs picture.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I did a deployment to iraq in a stryker. It's pretty comfy if you're in the hatch. Even the inside isn't too bad. Peed in many bottles inside the stryker. 8x8 is kewl.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just one more thing for Russian artillery to blow to shit, so that in six months Zelensky is begging for another army's worth of equipment, 500 tanks, 1000 APCs, 500 artillery pieces, blah blah blah

    Russia is truly succeeding in disarming the West.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The West can comfortably continue this for several rounds more. Can Russia?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only 6,000 more Abrams and 3,500 leopard 2’s left to go!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What's hilarious is even those excluded, there are still enough Challengers, Leclerks, K2s, Arietes, Type-90sz, etc to destroy all of Russia's tank forces 5 times over.

        First world economies are a helluva drug.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yep. Also ignores about 7,000 Bradley’s, 7,000 Strykers, 5,000 M113, etc
          While I’d like to see the West step up production to send the message that we are ready to supply Ukraine for as long as they want to fight, we are in zero danger of being “disarmed” anytime soon.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, but Russia gave that many without Zelensky even asking. Russia is a better ally than USA.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Expending obsolete vehicles built to kill Commie scum by killing Commie scum is pure win. This war is perfect for cleaning out old stock that's long paid for.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Stryker originated in Canada back in the 1990's. It started life as a basic bitch LAV III. Canada used it replace all their old wheeled and light track APC garbage. When the Soviets collapsed, the US army didn't know who they would be fighting, so they wanted a vehicle to use in the Balkans, Somalia, and so on. Tanks, Bradleys, and such were too much, and Infantry alone were overmatched. Like goldilocks, they wanted something in the middle to destroy bullshit armies without going "all out". Unfortunately they didn't have the time, money or energy to design it perfectly from scratch, so they grabbed the LAV III off-the-shelf and used it as a base. They wanted something that was deployed by air, better mobility than a tracked vehicle, much better protection than a Humvee, less of a logistic footprint than a Bradley, wasn't too expensive to build or operate, used a common base with variants with guns, mortars, medivac, engineers, ATGM, recovery vehicles, etc..

    They got used in Iraq/Afghanistan for counter insurgency with mixed results. Without it, the US would have been absolutely fucked, but when pressed in a real war they found a ton of flaws. The US had to make a ton of upgrades, at which point they got a lot more expensive per unit, they needed a V hull, they got heavier and slower, etc.. Like most US weapon systems, it developed into an effective IFV with a ton of awesome variants but people still whine that it wasn't perfect from get-go . Definitely better than the BTRs the Russians have. It will be great for the Slav war. Protects troops from mines, mow down Russian infantry, thermals, protects the crew from near-misses from Artillery, less of a burden logistics-wise than some alternatives, good for casualty evacuation, and so on. After 20 years of war, the US Army is still buying a new generation of them. They can't be that bad. 6/10.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Ukraine

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Good morning sir, much obliged

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm sure this is just as legit as every other time an AFU unit has supposedly deserted

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I met a guy who crewed a Stryker for 3 years and he fucking hated it. Granted, 90% of his gripes were mechanical and or about a weird welded segment in the compartment that was deceptively placed to ensure you would brain yourself on it every day.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/T9n9vmT.jpg

      >So redpill me on the Stryker

      >It grants operational mobility.
      What that means is that a Stryker brigade combat team can pack up and drive away to a different part of the theater with no fuss.
      Other types of formations - those with lots of tracked vehicles or tanks - cannot do this.
      They need to load their tracked vehicles up on trains or trucks before they can depart.

      Strykers also carry an entire infantry squad, whereas the Bradley needs 4 vehicles to carry 3 squads, leading to organization problems.
      All this means a Stryker BCT is very logistics-independent and very quick to react to changing battlefield conditions.

      Worth noting:
      >the Stryker is good and has a good record
      >the Stryker MGS (the one with the cannon) is a complete piece of shit with significant reliability problems

      Thanks for reminding me that his complaints were about the MGS.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The MGS is funny because it means a vatnik or arab will take an RPG shot at a Stryker from 900 meters away thinking it's just a dumb BTR clone, yell allahu akbar/cyka blyat, then get domed with an 105mm tank round.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >So redpill me on the Stryker

    >It grants operational mobility.
    What that means is that a Stryker brigade combat team can pack up and drive away to a different part of the theater with no fuss.
    Other types of formations - those with lots of tracked vehicles or tanks - cannot do this.
    They need to load their tracked vehicles up on trains or trucks before they can depart.

    Strykers also carry an entire infantry squad, whereas the Bradley needs 4 vehicles to carry 3 squads, leading to organization problems.
    All this means a Stryker BCT is very logistics-independent and very quick to react to changing battlefield conditions.

    Worth noting:
    >the Stryker is good and has a good record
    >the Stryker MGS (the one with the cannon) is a complete piece of shit with significant reliability problems

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Stryker MGS is a piece of shit
      Yeah but it looks cool and looking cool is half the battle.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I watched that video, too.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do the Russians have sufficient atgm's to counter this? I haven't heard anything about the kornet in this war yet.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      From the complaints of troops, ATGM's are plentiful, but tightly distributed to key areas. If you're not in an area expecting a mechanised rush, you're stuck with whatever RPG's come down the line. Surprisingly, they're performing far, far better than artillery, mortars and AA after coming out of long term storage, with very, very few duds and next to none of them found with faults or unfired by Ukrainian units picking over their positions.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they even have a hybrid version now. this shit looks straight out of mass effect, same with the AAV replacement

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm sorry Mako!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      between all of these and the new FN rifle the US military is starting to become really aesthetic again. Like I imagined it would by now when I watched future weapons as a kid.

      We still need to replace desert tan with Israeli Sinai Grey and replace Scorpion with something new (multicam is becoming too common to be used as IFF now, same reason we get rid of M81)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        forgot picrel

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    considering we keep feeding them vehicles and materials, and there is still now essentially a stalemate on the front while Russia appears to be building (slowly) and offensive in Belarus...

    ONe wonders why the demand for so many new weapons, etc. Are ukraine losses higher than anyone is admitting?

    Can ukraine force Russians out before the new Russian northern offensive?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Materiel gets blown up during war. Russia can replace its materiel losses by dusting off its cold war stockpile; Ukraine does not have the same luxury. Ukraine could never have fought to this point without international aid. The longer frontline combat goes on, the more they will need.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ukraine started with a very heavy armor deficiency. Since they were playing defense and had sufficient mines and atgm's/artillery that was okay. Now that they're back on the offensive they're really feeling their lack of armor. This should ease the burden.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >their lack of armor
        Anon they've captured several hundred T-72s alone.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Good armor*

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Alot of the captures aren't in usable condition, russians crews talk in interviews about units where half the tanks don't move, and the ones that move don't shoot. The ukies aren't trying to feed like it's a bad game of League, the russians don't care so they send them out with all of their deferred maintenance.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    fucking wheeled shitter objectively inferior to M113 Gavin and utterly incapable of AIR MECH STRIKE.

    Airborne!

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They are? Thank god. Wasn't the US going to retire all of these anyway?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They are?
      >https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/ukraine-latest-us-to-send-about-100-stryker-armored-vehicles

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good luck to the repair crew

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