Stryker Armored Vehicle

Larac

Mongoose
I saw none on the list to be made yet.

These are really great tank/transport I saw some IED results on them and RPG strikes, they are taking a pounding and still getting folks out alive.

Here is the skinny ( no not the gray guys!)

Stryker Armored Vehicle

n February 2002 the Army named its new interim armored vehicle after two soldiers who received the Medal of Honor. The Stryker is named in honor of Spc. 4 Robert F. Stryker, who received the Medal of Honor for his actions during the Vietnam War, and Pfc. Stuart S. Stryker, who received the award for his actions during World War II. Both men were killed in action. They were not related.

The Army's LAV is being produced in two major variants: the Infantry Carrier Vehicle and the Mobile Gun System. The Mobile Gun System will have a 105mm cannon, the same gun tube as the one on the original M-1 Abrams tank. This is not a tank replacement, but it gives a direct fire capability to support the infantry elements. Before the Mobile Gun System is fielded, units will get the Anti-tank Guided Missile Vehicle which will have a TOW system capable of blasting through reinforced concrete bunkers.

All of the LAVs will be deployable by C-130 and larger aircraft. As of September 2002 the Army was flying Stryker in C-130s under a temporary waiver issued by the Air Force. The waiver was necessary because the vehicle is too wide to accommodate the 14-inch safety aisle around all sides that is required by the Air Force for the loadmaster. Additionally, only a portion of its crew may fly in the same aircraft. Yet, the Army disputes claims that Stryker -- the centerpiece of its new Brigade Combat Teams -- is not transportable via C-130. During the Millennium Challenge exercise the Infantry Carrier Vehicle variant required multiple alterations to fit into a C-130: The crew removed two smoke grenade launchers, all antennas, a left rear bracket that blocked egress over the top of the vehicle, the Remote Weapons System and the third-row wheel's bump-stop. Reassembly upon landing took as long as 17 minutes.

Design

They have a maximum speed of 60 miles per hour and a range of 300 miles on a tank of fuel. The vehicle are swift, easily maintainable and include features designed for the safety of soldiers. The LAV's tires can be inflated or deflated from inside the vehicle to adapt to surfaces ranging from deep mud to hardtop, and it has run-flat tires, a built-in fire-suppression system and self-recovery winch. The vehicles run quieter than the current armored personnel carriers, increasing their "stealth." They will also give the new brigades a reduced logistics footprint, and make the units cheaper to operate than today's heavy brigades. The Interim Brigade Combat Team should be about 25 percent cheaper to operate than today's heavy brigades.

The LAV engine is a Caterpillar engine, which is common to the Army's family of medium tactical vehicles. That means some of the same repair parts can be used. Commonality of equipment reduces the brigade's logistical footprint and support costs and makes the entire vehicle fleet easier to maintain. This will allow the use of the same support structure for all of a unit's vehicles, including mechanics and parts.

Reducing its weight is a modification the Stryker underwent before the vehicles arrive in May at 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division and 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, both located at Fort Lewis, Wash. The Stryker was reported to be 4,000 pounds more than the 38,000-pound requirement. However, officials expect that the vehicles will meet weight limits, which will allow them to be loaded and transported on a C-130 cargo plane.

Deployment

The first interim brigade combat team contains three substitute vehicles, because the mobile gun system and support systems for the nuclear, biological and chemical reconnaissance vehicle, and the fire support vehicle, would not be ready by May 2003. The Army will not field an interim brigade combat team supported by all configurations of the Stryker until 2005.

For the first time since World War I, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division deployed overseas. The brigade's Stryker vehicles and other equipment arrived 12 November 2003 in the port of Kuwait on board the USNS Shughart and USNS Sisler after a three-week voyage from Fort Lewis, Wash., via the Port of Tacoma. The deployment marks the second time that Stryker vehicles have landed on foreign soil though. In August 2003 a platoon from the Army's first Stryker Brigade Combat team conducted a capabilities demonstration in South Korea.

The Army is betting much of its future on the success of this 19-ton wheeled combat vehicle wrapped in a steel-grilled hoop skirt. In Iraq, the vehicle's combat debut is unfolding with the Army's first Stryker Brigade combat team. This much-debated $10 billion experiment aims to field as many as half a dozen 3,600-soldier units equipped with these high-tech, lightly armored vehicles that can speed infantry to a fight. Unlike an Abrams tank or a Bradley fighting vehicle, the Stryker is a medium-weight, eight-wheel vehicle that can carry 11 soldiers and weapons at speeds of more than 60 miles an hour. With its giant rubber tires instead of noisy tracks, it is fast and quiet and draws on the brigade's reconnaissance drones, eavesdropping equipment and the Army's most advanced communications gear to outflank an enemy rather than outslug it.


Lee
 
Alas, it's a logistical nightmare.... and the new slat armor designed to stop RPGs from destroying the Stykers makes them top heavy, and are more prone to roll-overs.
 
There's always someone who just sees the bad side.

IT'S BIG AND IT LOOKS COOL!! :twisted:

The USMC should definitely have one in the game.
 
Hiromoon,

Had not heard the top heavy issues yet, but I saw tapes of a motar IED hitting the front of one. It was impressive lost a wheel and just rolled away, one injury a broken arm from impact.

As for the rest is it worse than the Bradley when it was dropped in?

Or the Land Warrior and FIST issues?

It looks like these are here to stay for a while, with the amount bought and the others set to be made, seems they would be in Evo, either as newer versions, or as surplus to use against the US.

Lee
 
There seems to be some really serious issues with the Stryker, being top-heavy, prone to get stuck, getting the wheels blown away, etcetera...

http://www.geocities.com/paratroop2000/strykerhorrors.htm

I can't vouch for the objectivity of the site, but the evidence presented is... stryking...

Still, it would certainly look good on the table.
 
They fill a tactical niche.

And Mongoose already said in one of their docs that the Stryker will be coming for the USMC.
 
Britney -> The Stryker is a US Army only vehicle.

If Mongoose puts a Stryker in for the USMC, well....I'd have to hunt down the team of researchers and hurt every single one of them.

Willypold -> Yep, probably doesn't talk about how the Army uses contractors to maintain it, and those contractors need extra logistical support elements. Also, there's approximately 47 odd lubricants that, at the time, weren't in the Army supply chain, and thus hard to get....and it goes through parts like crazy.
 
The USMC has a LAV- 25. There is no reason for the devil dogs to have the striker armored spam can.


trust me, you don't want it.
 
There was big controversy over the stryker adoption because of how the army already had a good tracked vehicle in their arsenal that could fill the same role, just with some upgrades.

I forgot the name of the vehicle, but it was an older one but still air liftable, and upgrades could make it resistent to IEDs and modern weapons.
 
I think that's called a Bradley? Those are airliftable... I've seen one get crunched in the front by a SUV-IED and just roll on like nothing hit it.
 
Personally i think the british army striker is alot better and cooler. however most Alvis S series military vehicles are of a higher calibre, except the Saxon battle taxi.

But then i am biased
 
Britney -> The Stryker is a US Army only vehicle.

If Mongoose puts a Stryker in for the USMC, well....I'd have to hunt down the team of researchers and hurt every single one of them.

i know, thus my reference to 'fictional elements'...

i took a quick trip in one from FOB Diamondback, to Merez, to FOB Courage(?) back in Mosul...
uneventful trip, everyone just sort of sat and watched the TV (from the weapon mounted camera for those who dont know)

i would much rather see the marines with LAVs in BF:E but who's to say they dont get the Stryker foisted on them in 10-15 years time... same as the Talon/Sword robot.
 
Isn't that the problem? Stryker is suppsed to fill all sorts of niches... it's an infantry carrier, a recon vehicle, a heavier chassis that will cary a 105mm cannon, a mortar carrier, a command vehicle, a "fire support vehicle", an engineer support vehicle, a medevac vehicle, an antitank version with TOW missles, and an NBC recon version.
So, while it's nice in theory that one vechile can do everything... in practice you know the different versions will pretty much end up as 10 different vehicles. So, it's not saving much except money buying basic parts.
I see the point of the Army wanting to change to lighter vehicles... eh, this is going to turn into a discussion we don't want to have. :)
Wodan said:
They fill a tactical niche.

And Mongoose already said in one of their docs that the Stryker will be coming for the USMC.
 
Hiromoon said:
If Mongoose puts a Stryker in for the USMC, well....I'd have to hunt down the team of researchers and hurt every single one of them.

We have no plans for the Stryker in the USMC force. . .
 
msprange said:
Hiromoon said:
If Mongoose puts a Stryker in for the USMC, well....I'd have to hunt down the team of researchers and hurt every single one of them.

We have no plans for the Stryker in the USMC force. . .

What about the LAV-25 then? or any of the LAV series. I love those things, it would be great to see a model with swappable turrets to cover the many varied versions of the USMC LAV.
 
Larac said:
These are really great tank/transport I saw some IED results on them and RPG strikes, they are taking a pounding and still getting folks out alive.

Blew a tire and rolled on.
http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/jizzmonkey/adc

Yes, they may have issues, but I'll take one of those into combat over a Hummer any day of the week.
 
Turtle said:
There was big controversy over the stryker adoption because of how the army already had a good tracked vehicle in their arsenal that could fill the same role, just with some upgrades.

I forgot the name of the vehicle, but it was an older one but still air liftable, and upgrades could make it resistent to IEDs and modern weapons.

IIRC that was the M113 APC

While not as fast it is lighter, fits on the C 130, equal or better armor and can go where wheeled vehicles can not. We also had a bunch.

There was som flap about the time the Striker was adopted. The US army chose that time to donate 600-800 M113 hulls to be sunk off the coast as an artificial reef.
 
Hiromoon said:
Britney ->
If Mongoose puts a Stryker in for the USMC, well....I'd have to hunt down the team of researchers and hurt every single one of them.

It took some work but I talked them out of USMC Strikers.
To be honest most people would never notice the error. To anybody with a personal connection to the Marines (or even Navy) they would not accept it.

Instead the Marines get the EFV in the game.

In the real world the LAV-25 is expected to reach end of life in 10-15 years. While stats could be made for the LAV-25 we would most likely only see support variants by the BF:Evo time frame.
 
Back
Top