>LAV originally has a cannon
>Army turns it into the Stryker and removes the cannon
>two decades later they put the cannon back on
Why the frick was it removed in the first place? It thought it was established decades ago that an MG doesnt cut it anymore.
>Stryker sucks and doesn’t know what it wants to be
Everyone knows this. They need to put those 25mm chaintuns back on.
ahem
>Stryker sucks
compared to what?
>doesn’t know what it wants to be
considering there's like 10+ variants that's a good thing
>compared to what?
Boxer
You moron americans are the ones that removed it. Literally every other country kept it on. Stupid burger.
military procurement is run by morons
what else is new
same reason why they have to up armor the shit out of these vehicles
I'd assume something about air mobility, anon. The statements I've seen about the Stryker from US Army people have basically been "we can't use them in a peer environment but we have them so oh well".
>"we can't use them in a peer environment but we have them so oh well".
stryker brigades will operate in armored divisions alongside armored brigades
meaning they will be used almost exclusively in peer war
>meaning they will be used almost exclusively in peer war
Yeah, I don't think that's such a good idea.
>Yeah, I don't think that's such a good idea.
it obviously is, otherwise they wouldnt have included stryker brigades in an armored division
each armored divison has 2 armored brigades for maneuver and breakthrough
and 1 stryker brigade, to plug up any holes, rapidly react to enemy maneuvers, or provide an infantry-heavy force that can keep up with the pace of a mechanized unit
Sounds more like an attempt at finding a use for a deprecated vehicle. Basically remade the Russian BTR.
>Sounds more like an attempt at finding a use for a deprecated vehicle
if it was totally useless they would have scrapped them in their entirety
but as it stands, they provide a medium response between an uparmored humvee and an M2 bradley
there are armored divisions with no strykers at all, and they are for breaking through heavily prepared defenses so that the others can follow
>Basically remade the Russian BTR.
the BTR itself fills a motorized niche between mechanized units equipped with BMPs and rifle units equipped with trucks
the stryker fills the same role, which is to give armored divisions access to an infantry-heavy unit to provide proportionate response on the battlefield
>if it was totally useless they would have scrapped them in their entirety
Even humvees are still in use. A vehicle in stock in large amounts, not having reached their service lifespan, is never totally useless. But a modern, survivable and capable combat vehicle it is not, even if you throw an autocannon turret on it.
>which is to give armored divisions access to an infantry-heavy unit to provide proportionate response on the battlefield
But at least the Russo-Soviets had organic MBTs in their motor-rifle units, giving them actual functionality as an armored vehicle based force. The MPF project is again a copying effort of what the Soviets did with these units. Giving the infantry organic armor, which they need to actually conduct offensives reliably.
>Even humvees are still in use.
because they are effective in their intended role
as the styker is in its role, if they were useless they would have been sold or scrapped
but their inclusion in the armored division, the force that will see the heaviest combat, implies that they arent just effective but optimal
>implies that they arent just effective but optimal
"Optimal" just means they already exist, that you don't have to go through another moronic acquisitions project that ends up producing another turd.
optimal means nothing is better than it
if the strykers only advantage was existing, it would have been just sold off instead of going into an armored division, where the top shelf weapons go
>optimal means nothing is better than it
Which includes budget, availability, maintenance, existing stocks, etc. A tool in your hand is better than one you're planning to get maybe two decades from now, if the usual thing happens.
>but their inclusion in the armored division, the force that will see the heaviest combat, implies that they arent just effective but optimal
There is absolutely no other place in the new organization for them to be placed in. It's just an attempt at finding a solution to the problem that is the Stryker's design of being neither heavy enough for armored assaults, nor light enough to be a part of the light infantry. To survive a modern battlefield, you're either light and dispersed, or super heavy and extremely concentrated. We see this reflected in the division proposals.
The Stryker doesn't fit in.
Stryker Dragoons are already running a 30mm gun. Good balance of effects and ammunition capacity. (Stored kills is a meme)
>There is absolutely no other place in the new organization for them to be placed in
they would have simply been sold or scrapped like most equipment if they had no good use
> It's just an attempt at finding a solution to the problem that is the Stryker's design of being neither heavy enough for armored assaults, nor light enough to be a part of the light infantry.
thats literally its point, its a medium response that is neither heavy nor light
so its used in armored divisons to do exactly that
>To survive a modern battlefield, you're either light and dispersed, or super heavy and extremely concentrated. We see this reflected in the division proposals.
to which the stryker does what its supposed to do, provide additional infantry to armored divisions so that they dont divert an entire armored brigade everytime
>they would have simply been sold or scrapped like most equipment if they had no good use
No. The US would in fact not have scrapped entire brigades without there being a replacement for them.
>thats literally its point, its a medium response that is neither heavy nor light
It's a medium response that can't functionally function as a medium response, because the vehicle lacks modern protection. Tossing an autocannon on an APC sadly does not an IFV make.
>No. The US would in fact not have scrapped entire brigades without there being a replacement for them.
they actually would have like the M113, where they were replaced by M2s on a 1:1 basis
but the stryker fills a gap in the army capabilities, so it remains
>It's a medium response that can't functionally function as a medium response, because the vehicle lacks modern protection
it literally has the same protection as the M2 bradley
it does what its supposed to do, provide more protection than a truck, have more mobility than an IFV
>they actually would have like the M113, where they were replaced by M2s on a 1:1 basis
How many years did that project last? Could it be that it took two whole decades? Saying the US would scrap the Strykers now is like saying they would've scrapped the M113s in the early 60s.
>it literally has the same protection as the M2 bradley
I don't think Bradleys are only protected against 14.5mm heavy machine guns.
>it does what its supposed to do, provide more protection than a truck, have more mobility than an IFV
And get penetrated by the lightest autocannon at long range, wiping out the squad inside of it like it were a goddamn BTR.
>How many years did that project last?
we know what the US does with outdated equipment
they are slated for replacement by a better vehicle
if the stryker was ineffective, they would be replaced by the M2 bradley and SBCTs converted to ABCTs
and existing strykers would be re-labelled ABCTs and slowly transition to M2s and not be placed in an armored division where they would expect to see heavy fighting
they would be placed as far away as possible from any combat whatsoever
>I don't think Bradleys are only protected against 14.5mm heavy machine guns.
the bradley has 14.5mm as standard and 30mm cannon with add-on armor
the stryker has 14.5mm all-around and 30mm from the front with add-on armor, only the side armor has less protection
>And get penetrated by the lightest autocannon at long range, wiping out the squad inside of it like it were a goddamn BTR.
but protected from 14.5mm AP protection
the SBCTs are there to provide an infantry response to armored divisions so that they can tailor their response to the situation
>we know what the US does with outdated equipment
>they are slated for replacement by a better vehicle
And those projects last for decades, which means in the interim those outdated vehicles are kept in active use.
>if the stryker was ineffective, they would be replaced by the M2 bradley and SBCTs converted to ABCTs
No, because they still want motor-rifle units. They just don't have the ideal vehicle for them, so they're using what they actually have. Budget also has to be used elsewhere, in more important places. New MBT, new IFV, for example. A battle-taxi with a bolt-on gun on it is not the most important.
>the bradley has 14.5mm as standard
Hard to call it a standard when it's not found on vehicles in active use. It's not the same amphibious vehicle it once was.
>the stryker has 14.5mm all-around and 30mm from the front with add-on armor, only the side armor has less protection
You gonna provide a source for that? Stryker's add-on armor is 14.5mm all around, unless you have some classified manual you want to leak here.
>but protected from 14.5mm AP protection
Which is not a significant threat, as the original BTRs and BRDMs are just about destroyed on the Ukrainian plains. Chinese are running autocannons, and as you yourself have been arguing, these Strykers are part of Armor divisions, which means they're going to be facing serious enemy firepower.
>the SBCTs are there to provide an infantry response to armored divisions so that they can tailor their response to the situation
And the Stryker is a less-than-ideal vehicle for that purpose. It's crippled by the original design of the Stryker being such a light, air-transportable vehicle meant for strategic mobility, instead of being a purpose-design motor-rifle vehicle. A superior modular design for the initial vehicle would have been a far better choice.
>And those projects last for decades, which means in the interim those outdated vehicles are kept in active use.
we know what they do to interim units, they are slated to be phased out for the proper vehicle
which is not whats happening to the stryker
>And the Stryker is a less-than-ideal vehicle for that purpose.
then it would have been replaced ages ago
but it as it is, its effective for its intended role
>which is not whats happening to the stryker
It is what's going to happen to it once its place is solidified in the new doctrine, and people start realizing the vehicle isn't up to scratch. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/never-bring-stryker-tank-fight/
>then it would have been replaced ages ago
That has never happened in the history of US military procurement. It takes a long-ass time for replacements to go from being designed to being produced and falling into place in units.
Never mind that the Stryker fulfilled its requirements in the previous doctrine, where strategic air mobility was the decisive factor. That's why the vehicle still exists. It's not going to fulfill the requirements of a modern motor-rifle vehicle against a (near) peer enemy.
>but it as it is, its effective for its intended role
Getting destroyed by Chinese IFVs?
>then it would have been replaced ages ago
That's not how US procurement works anon, look at how stupid long up-armored humvees stayed in service despite everyone and their mom knowing they were piece of shit stopgaps from day 1.
>then it would have been replaced ages ago
Why do you presume Army competence rather than eternal internal rivalry?
>the stryker has 14.5mm all-around and 30mm from the front with add-on armor
It doesn't have 30mm front protection even with the ceramic add-on armor. The ceramic add-on is what brings it up to 14.5mm protection. Without it it's even less armored.
The Stryker was never meant for front line duty
>>they would have simply been sold or scrapped like most equipment if they had no good use
But that's fricking moronic. You have several thousand of the things, there are already units trained on them, they have modern optics and weapons, and they're not terrible vehicles (being unable to go up against the PLA 1v1 doesn't make it a shit vehicle, it's still a solid survivable box with an MG on it). Why would you toss them? That's like tossing all F-16s because they'd get shot down over Hainan/Shanghai, they still have life in them and can still be put to use in the period between production stopping and the last vehicles reaching end of life.
>Infantry BCT
>no organic artillery
WTF, can someone explain why this is the case?
Did they just say frick it and clump all the artillery into the Artillery Brigade? The reason I ask is that every BCT had it's own artillery battalion before.
I think it's because of the move, in the US Army, away from independent brigades as the primary combat unit. I'm not an officer there but I've seen people claiming to be say that the Artillery Brigade could be used by itself as a division level asset or parts of it could be broken off and assigned to the BCTs as needed.
Makes sense, thanks for the insightful insight anon.
Also,
>the USA just copied a Russian Motor Rifle Division
Uh yeah ok I guess
>ISV
I assume that's meant for China stuff in mountainous and overgrown terrain because in other places that vehicles aren't very good for line units
None of those were its intended purpose and it isn't fit for the purpose you describe. SBCT were designed to be an air deployable medium weight force for peace enforcement operations and were explicitly never meant to face peer or near peer threats, because everyone thought that history had ended and that the US would be stuck being Team America: World Police forever. The Stryker cannot keep up with tracked vehicles and SBCT cannot maintain the operational tempo of armored formations, nor operate in the same terrain. The only reason that Stryker is still in service is that Army is poor and has way too many things that it needs to spend precious capital on before another AFV replacement program. Stryker, just like BTR, has proved to be a dogshit abortion of a compromise that forms the backbone of a dogshit operational concept.
for what it's worth I use them in combat mission shock force and black sea and they suck Black person shit, their armor is think and penned by hmgs and even mmgs on the sides, they only have 50s or mk16 remote turrets but if you try using them as a base of fire theres a high chance theyll get rekt by the fire they draw, wheels are rekt by arty, they're not survivable at all in a fight, it's just a taxi, the problem is that you get to use them against a mechanized enemy that at the very least has btr80s with 30mm autocannons so you're outgunned as frick, you're light infantry, but with mech inf squad size, and your vehicle is just an heavy weapons squad worth of fire power, so on the offense you got to be careful as frick, they have operational qualities such as being lighter and quicker so easier to deploy where needed as reserves or airlifted and can then self deploy, but at the tactical level they suck dick.
the saving grace is that us troops have javelins so if the terrain allows you can try to scout and snipe enemy vehicles with javs and or pgms, especially if you got a drone, and then after this shaping phase actually start maneuvering, and keep the Black folk in defilade and try to stick out just the turret which is hard since it's like 4m tall or something
Try them in Arma anon. They're actually usable as long as the enemy doesn't have ATGMs.
but arma isnt a strategy game like CM, I mainly play CM and graviteam, used to play armored brigade, I also got grigsby war in the west and east but havent had the will to learn them,
Yes, but strategy games require a bit of cheesiness to work since you're not micromanaging (aka using properly) every vehicle all the time. They tend to simplify shit like cover or vision or command and control.
In Arma you can legitimately hide behind trees and shit, kick out your dismounts, then begin providing suppressive fire with your .50 out to a km or more. You have thermals and a laser range finder. If you're up against a mechanized force you can bring javelins or even a dismounted TOW team and frick their shit up, and that's if you don't have a TOW Stryker with you.
Don't get me wrong I'm not disagreeing with you, I agree with you that Strykers are kinda shit against BMPs and so on, but they're not useless. You just have to be careful.
I agree they're not useless just suck and hard to use
I like arma just dont have anyone to play with so I have to make my own small scenarios and the AI is fricktarded so you have to micro them to do even the most basic shit and its impossible, also my PC is ass so if I play online it becomes PowerPoint
>here, take your stryker company and destroy that defending Russian mechanized battalion
>also capture the entire town in one hour or you lose :^)
yeah lol they're often pushed into roles where they're not appropriate, but I like the game very much still, I think it's pretty good, same for graviteam and armored brigade, ofc they're games but I like them for being simulators and to learn tactics and operations that I learn in books
>yeah lol they're often pushed into roles where they're not appropriate, but I like the game very much still
They do that IRL too, so it's just realistic.
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/never-bring-stryker-tank-fight/
But in-game there's always some way of working around it at least, thank God for Javelins.
Anyone using Strykers as more than the fast bulletproof Humvees they're a replacement for is an idiot
the "bad" part is that theres very little observation drones and no strike drones, that addition would make it much more interesting
>Basically remade the Russian BTR.
actually, the BTR is a Russian remake of a NATO battlegroup, but with MOAR DAKKA to (attempt to) offset the tactical deficiencies of its infantry
>no more brigade-level arty
is this a misprint?
No. The US is going back to divisions as the basic unit size, moving away from the concept of independently operating BCTs. It's just not that viable to pack everything you need on a modern battlefield into a brigade anymore.
companies got 81mm mortars, battalions 120mm, then division got 155mm, anything else?
anyway small vehicles with mortars in the ass and ammo are based
Stryker Brigades were the brain child of Donald Rumsfeld. If I remember correctly, Rumsfeld read Ret Col Douglas Macgregor's book about the US Army needing to be faster and lighter for future warfare. That was all the moronic needed to change/ destroy many brigades to the Stryker Brigades.
BTW, that is also the same Ret Col Macgregor that fanboys for Russia in the Russian War against Ukraine. He also likes to doom post about how the US Army and US Military are useless. Just another disgruntle Col that did not make it to General.
>Stryker Brigades were the brain child of Donald Rumsfeld.
It was because of General Shinseki who pushed for the creation of the "medium" BCTs after seeing first hand the fallout of the Pristina Airport Incident where the more mobile, wheeled Russian units dabbed on the NATO forces in the area:
>During his tenure as Army Chief of Staff, Shinseki initiated an innovative but controversial plan to make the army more strategically deployable and mobile in urban terrain by creating Stryker Interim-Force Brigade Combat Teams.[13] He conceived a long-term strategic plan for the army dubbed "Objective Force", which included a program he designed, Future Combat Systems.[14
>Just another disgruntle Col that did not make it to General
says the E-4 who smoked pot in high school
It's accurate though. His various proposals like Puma were attempts to be relevant and make consulting bucks.
APCs are a versatile mistake.
APCs and anything with light armor coerces its use as an IFV with predictable results. This dates to the M2 Purple Heart Box WWII halftrack.
M113 could easily be repowered and armored to match Bradley and even given a vee hull because they're extremely simple vehicles but the time to care is long past since Bradley is vastly better. The US should give them all to Ukraine so their existing won't be an excuse to keep using them.
>Even humvees are still in use.
It started life as a CUCV replacement then the Army left them unarmored far too long when it should have always had an MRAP-equivalent vehicle. South Africa solved that problem long ago.
>coerces its use as an IFV with predictable results
>if we give infantrymen a rapid-fire weapon, they will waste ammo
Bad analogy. Why did you choose that and how did you imagine it fit?
The choice is not between no transport but between feeble unsafe transport vs. much more robust IFV which permits direct combat. IFV can do everything APC do with vastly greater crew survivability.
Precisly what makes pure IFV advantage somehow comparable to reducing capability?
Giving infantry APC gets them lit up and while the mobility advantage (ONLY in transporting equipment and weapons, not actually protecting the crew from more than the lightest shrapnel, blast etc) is vital an IFV can do the same thing.
Between Bradley and M113 or Stryker which would you rather ride to war and why?
>Why did you choose that and how did you imagine it fit?
It's an excellent analogy.
You seem to imagine that APC commanders will be totally unable to exercise judgment to use the APC according to its strengths and weaknesses and will be "coerced" into using it as an IFV; the exact same argument was given for depriving infantrymen of rapid fire weapons
>The choice is not between no transport but between feeble unsafe transport vs. much more robust IFV which permits direct combat. IFV can do everything APC do with vastly greater crew survivability.
There's one very important thing it can't do: cost less.
>Precisly what makes pure IFV advantage somehow comparable to reducing capability?
When one can field 2 or even 3 APCs instead of 1 IFV.
>Giving infantry APC gets them lit up
Unless the CONOPS is merely to ferry them from place to place.
>Between Bradley and M113 or Stryker which would you rather ride to war and why?
I would rather ride in a B-21 Raider, so let's only build B-21s ever, amirite?
>IFV can do everything APC
Not really. Bradley doesn't fit in a C-130, isn't as fast, and is much louder than a Stryker
The Bradley is also much heavier meaning it has all sorts of bridging requirements and such that the Stryker does not. The Stryker's main asset is it's mobility. It can do the job with far fewer complications.
Let's say the US has to go into some crappy Caribbean nation to restore order (Grenada, Panama, Haiti, whatever take your pick). Strykers can be loaded up and shipped out and set to work far quicker and with fewer logistics requirements than a big heavy IFV while being far more capable than using some armored car.
It is this rapid deployment policing force that has taken up most of the US Army's efforts for the last 50 years with a couple exceptions. Having a specific vehicle for these duties and specific units trained on the mission seems like a no-brainer to me.
If they ever get deployed against a conventional enemy and are used as IFVs it means somebody screwed up or they are being used as a rapidly deployed initial force to secure an area and defend it until the heavy hitters show up.
i mean in case of COIN, non-peer police work, or rear-guard duty for bases or occupied cities, then wouldn't an up-armored/armed JLTV do the job sufficiently enough?
Probably
Especially considering you can have 15 of them for the same price as 1 Stryker
Both are true.
Strykers were the brainchild of General Shinsheki and the Medium-Weight Brigade idea pre-9/11.
At the time, the Army forecast that its primary missions would be deployed peackeeping, so they wanted an air-transportable, infantry-heavy (but still reasonably mobile & armored) force. Shinseki was a cavalry officer by background, and he wanted modern cavalry. The Stryker is what came out of that. Strykers would be cheaper to operate than "heavy" brigades with Abrams/Bradley, but still have more armor protection than a pure infantry "light" brigade.
The Army would also be buying a whole new vehicle family and associated gear, so that would make the defense contractors/congress happy.
The idea probably appealed to Rumsfeld, though.
Is there any actual feedback from the Stryker in Ukraine? I assume they realized autocannons are useful after the T90 video but they havent talked about the vehicle itself in length.
The Strykers sent to Ukraine all were equipped with M2 .50 cal since the Stryker Dragoon (with 25mm) is still not mass adopted by the US Army.
>Stryker Dragoon (with 25mm)
Dragoon has a 30mm.
It's not widely adopted because it was only intended to be an interim capability on the older generation Stryker A0 hull.
They're going to change to a different turret for the roll-out to other Stryker brigades on the A1 hull, but have had software issues with it.
Dragoon is a DVH hull
They're not that happy because they're reaching the limits of what the hull can support
Objectively it's worse than Boxer
>Dragoon is a DVH hull
No it isn't. DVH hulls have a deeper "nose" that isn't present on Dragoons.
Pic related is the only DVH with the Kongsberg turret. It was GD's proposal for the MCWS program, which lost to the Oshkosh entry with the Rafael turret
Oh really? I thought they went with the DVH hull
So that sucks even more balls then
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure the Dragoons deployed in Europe are DVH. After all, they're at the tip of US's land-based defence against Russia.
I also don't believe it is an interim turret anymore. They're rolling it out on several platforms like the Milrem robot medium and ACV.
Originally, the US Army and US Marines were going to develope an LAV.
Big Army with all of its insanity fricked up the project so much that the USMC did their own thing.
The US Army has delusional wants, but far less funding. The USF has delusions desires, but the funding.
>USF
USAF
>Why the frick was it removed in the first place?
Listen anon, one can not overstate how mind bogglingly moron Army acquisition brass is. They're the dumbest homies in military procurement after the morons who handled the LCS program.
>They're the dumbest homies in military procurement after the morons who handled the LCS program.
So close, yet so far. Anything amphibious or having to do with water gets pretty far up the list though
What exactly is this supposed to be
Some sort of amphibious troop carrier with an IFV turret.
moist bois go zoomzoom
USMC EFV.
On the upside, it actually worked(eventually), unit could carry 17 troops, zoom across the water relatively fast, and accurately provide support with the stabilized 30mm gun.
Downside, per unit costs were comparable to a fighter jet, so the whole thing was scrapped
>BMD-4 at home
>EFV never
FRICKING CHINK LOBBYIST FRICKS FRICK YOU
>Why the frick was it removed in the first place?
So they could fit Stryker in a C-130
Stryker exists because the US was humiliated that Russians took over Pristina airport with BTR-80s during the Balkans wars, before the US was able to get any armoured vehicles near the place. So they leaned real hard on the idea of light, deployable armoured vehicles for the next decade.
Dragoon is much better than LAV-III though: unmanned 30mm turret that doesn't take up additional space inside vs the regular ICV, vs a manned 25mm turret with a huge basket that takes up half the troop-space
The LAV-25 is transportable by a C-130
LAV-25 isn't transportable by C-130 in a combat-ready condition. They have to remove the turret and then re-fit it after unloading the vehicle - takes a couple of hours
And it's irrelevant since Stryker is on a completely separate generation hull (LAV-25 is a Piranha I, Stryker is a Piranha III)
the Ukrainiane war has proven wheeled vehicles are good for rapid maneuver. it has also proven how good auto cannons are. 1+1 = wheeled auto cannon ifv.
Can you call bushmaster and ask for a 35mm version of the Bradley's gun?
>Can you call bushmaster and ask for a 35mm version of the Bradley's gun
That's what Bushmaster III is.
The XM913 50mm gun that's going on Bradley in future is derived from the 35mm Bushmaster III
Kind of stupid to put big guns on the Stryker. They should be used exclusively for shuttling infantry and protecting against artillery splinters. If anything give it the same gimped gun the warrior has he crew doesn’t mistake their role with that of an IFV
>IFV discussion on /k/
>no schizo mentions of warriortard
whats going on here?
>it's weird you brought him up
I haven't seen an ifv thread without in years probably
I physically can not pretend like the 40mm gun on the cv90 is good for an IFV role. Thankfully Ukraine has exposed the error in adopting a 40mm IFV
wdym?
I think smaller autocannons like 25 or 30mm are better bc you get more ammo and can cover a larger area for more time instead of being a mini tank with the higher caliber autocannons
>I physically can not pretend like the 40mm gun on the cv90 is good for an IFV role.
It is clip fed with a rimmed cartridge so it has room for technical development going to rimless and belt feeding.
Seriously I don't understand how the US Army takes something great at it's job like the LAV-25 and turns it into dog shit.
what is a turret basket?
that had nothing to do with it turrets are tiny
>Why the frick was it removed in the first place?
Probably to make it cheaper. It was originally called the Interim Armored Vehicle and was a stopgap between the heavy cold war vehicles of previous years and a new light, deployable vehicle family to be introduced in the 2000s.
.
I’m surprised to learn that the Stryker is mediocre. Mike Sparks shat on it so obsessively I just assumed it was good.
In it's designed role as a faster M113 it's fine. It's meant to get infantry near an objective so they can do the rest. It was never meant to engage directly.
Problem is morons in the army keep trying to use it like it's a Bradley and are surprised when it doesn't survive
Operators of the Stryker (teh actual grunts) have a generally positive view of it. It have been mechanically reliable, and reasonablly (sometimes ridiulously) survivable against IEDs (defined as the crew surviving, not the vehicle).
Except the 105mm MGS Stryker. Nobody liked that thing and it was pulled from service in favor of Javelin and 30-mm armed Strykers.
TLDR cause I'm fricking tired of going through the entire Stryker procurement process all over again
>Army turns it into the Stryker and removes the cannon
because the Interim Armored Vehicle was really a replacement for Humvees and MTV trucks, and those don't have cannon do they?
>two decades later they put the cannon back on
because they wanted an 8x8 IFV fast fast fast and chose the Stryker, an existing in-production vehicle with plenty of common parts, so that they could get it cheap and fast fast fast
Evolution will always return to crab
>Why the frick was it removed in the first place?
without shells useless
Lets make sure the crew wear berets to boost esprit de corps. I wrote my thesis about this in military academy.
Ideally we would have tanks pulling armored trailers/containers for the infantry, could still mount a motor for limited mobility
And excavator arms/loader buckets built into basically all vehicles to prepare fighting positions
Autonomous suicide/grenade dropping drones are inevitable, jamming won't be a solution