RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160981,00.html

The only other Stryker complaint I've heard on this site also regarded the 105mm variant, an M1 jockey claimed that his 3 tank unit took out 30 of these while playing OPFOR at NTC. Don't know if the gun system can be reworked or if they need to go with some missile turret capable of firing a family of warheads like the old 106mm RR. Anybody?

Well, in reality, you shouldn't be attacking an M1 with a Stryker in the first place. The Stryker 105mm variant was designed for taking out "technicals" and elderly tanks typically found in 3rd World armies, not first-class MBTs.

quote:

Originally posted by CanisLatrans:
Well, in reality, you shouldn't be attacking an M1 with a Stryker in the first place. The Stryker 105mm variant was designed for taking out "technicals" and elderly tanks typically found in 3rd World armies, not first-class MBTs.

I was thinking that, the stated secret to the M1s success above was knocking out the Strykers before they got w/in range of the low recoil 105s. That's what got me thinking missiles. Never used the 106 but know alot of people that loved it for its versatility.

Always has been a brk -in phase even on the run, in combat seeing how it works in real life.
The argument about the suitability of sledgehammer stuff in the maintenance of stability in a civil population (if "maintenance" phase has been reached yet) is not answered at the platoon level. US civil police break down doors without 105 or 106 back up or first use for crowbar substitute. The quest for an infantryman: "Is this what i signed up for?" OLD COP

I'm old, please indulge me... I remember a saying we had in Viet Nam,"Ya can tell it's Matell, It's swell". You would hear it every time they sent over "Newer, Better... here, try this"!
I guess some things just don't change....

My thoughts are that they went entirely too big on the gun.

I would have drew it up with a 57mm gun. This would allow for a much higher angle of fire (great for urban environments) a higher rate of fire, and a larger ammo capacity and far less recoil.

Of course you get a much smaller projectile, but the 57mm is no slouch, much more destructive capability than the 25 and 30mm autocannons on other IFVs...

It would easily destroy any Non-MBT vehicle the enemy has, and would play havoc in MOUT/urban counter insurgency type operations...

quote:

Originally posted by schmiddc:
My thoughts are that they went entirely too big on the gun.

I would have drew it up with a 57mm gun. This would allow for a much higher angle of fire (great for urban environments) a higher rate of fire, and a larger ammo capacity and far less recoil.

Of course you get a much smaller projectile, but the 57mm is no slouch, much more destructive capability than the 25 and 30mm autocannons on other IFVs...

do we/NATO have 57mm?

quote:

Originally posted by TxEzRider:
I'm old, please indulge me... I remember a saying we had in Viet Nam,"Ya can tell it's Matell, It's swell". You would hear it every time they sent over "Newer, Better... here, try this"!
I guess some things just don't change....

Did you work with/around the old 106mm?

yeah, the bofors 57mm, is currently serving on naval platforms.
the one on the right I believe...

NTC OPFOR can take out 30 of anything at NTC. Hell, an NTC 3-man OPFOR RPG team can take out 30 Strykers, Brads or M1s. I wouldn't use an NTC OPFOR experience as a judgement against any piece of military equipment; if that was the case, we wouldn't have M2s, M3s, M1s, or AH-64's, either. They all perform a LOT differently against enemy equipment than they do against NTC OPFOR.

quote:

Originally posted by jwr6:
NTC OPFOR can take out 30 of anything at NTC. Hell, an NTC 3-man OPFOR RPG team can take out 30 Strykers, Brads or M1s. I wouldn't use an NTC OPFOR experience as a judgement against any piece of military equipment; if that was the case, we wouldn't have M2s, M3s, M1s, or AH-64's, either. They all perform a LOT differently against enemy equipment than they do against NTC OPFOR.

That's been the goal of the army as long as I can remember, to make the training standards above combat if possible.

quote:

Originally posted by schmiddc:
yeah, the bofors 57mm, is currently serving on naval platforms.
the one on the right I believe...

I guess it could be had with armor piercing or anti personel frag?

Oh, my relatives, family, and friends are already ready for this, as U. S. VOLUNTEERS, sayz that that their noses are very rearing, and willing, okay?

quote:

I guess it could be had with armor piercing or anti personel frag?

Yah, various loads have been produced for it. The standard navy shell fits, more or less, the standard HEDP (high explosive dual purpose) configuration. Also, since the technolgy for airbust shells and proximity fusing has made it down to 40mm, its fairly safe to assume it could be done on a shell of this size.

Again, when I look at something like the MGS, I'm not looking for something to slug it out with MBTs. I'm looking for something with more punch than the standard Autocannon/M2HB armnament, yet still in a supportable package.

I think a cannon in the 40-60mm range as a good comprimise...

quote:

Originally posted by jwr6:

NTC OPFOR can take out 30 of anything at NTC. Hell, an NTC 3-man OPFOR RPG team can take out 30 Strykers, Brads or M1s.

I wouldn't use an NTC OPFOR experience as a judgement against any piece of military equipment; if that was the case, we wouldn't have M2s, M3s, M1s, or AH-64's, either.

They all perform a LOT differently against enemy equipment than they do against NTC OPFOR.

Roger That J W . . ., as a former NTC OPFOR Infantry Company Commander, 84-86, we spent over 260 days (per year) in the desert.

Our Field Rotation schedule was two weeks deployed (down range) in the sand, followed by one week in Garrison, then two weeks down range..., on a continual basis...

When you "do something" on a continual basis for years..., you either become the best or looney. I had 99% that were the best, with 1% that were Alcoholic...

NOTE. During the early 80's the M-60A3 Tank was by far superior to the first generation M-1 Abrams Tank.

The reason..., Tank Thermal Sight (TTS) verses Tank Imagery Sight (TIS)... Once the M-1A1 came along with the updated TTS, nothing could stop'em, if used properly...

BE ADVISED. The STRYKER System is truly magnificent, IF USED PROPERLY. Its powertrain is QUIET, it transports Warriors & needed equipment to the battlefield verses Light Fighter mode..., AND provides additional Firepower to otherwise Light Infantry!!!

I'd go to war with it.

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:

quote:

Originally posted by jwr6:

NTC OPFOR can take out 30 of anything at NTC. Hell, an NTC 3-man OPFOR RPG team can take out 30 Strykers, Brads or M1s.

I wouldn't use an NTC OPFOR experience as a judgement against any piece of military equipment; if that was the case, we wouldn't have M2s, M3s, M1s, or AH-64's, either.

They all perform a LOT differently against enemy equipment than they do against NTC OPFOR.

Roger That J W . . ., as a former NTC OPFOR Infantry Company Commander, 84-86, we spent over 260 days (per year) in the desert.

Our Field Rotation schedule was two weeks deployed (down range) in the sand, followed by one week in Garrison, then two weeks down range..., on a continual basis...

When you "do something" on a continual basis for years..., you either become the best or looney. I had 99% that were the best, with 1% that were Alcoholic...

NOTE. During the early 80's the M-60A3 Tank was by far superior to the first generation M-1 Abrams Tank.

The reason..., Tank Thermal Sight (TTS) verses Tank Imagery Sight (TIS)... Once the M-1A1 came along with the updated TTS, nothing could stop'em, if used properly...

BE ADVISED. The STRYKER System is truly magnificent, IF USED PROPERLY. Its powertrain is QUIET, it transports Warriors & needed equipment to the battlefield verses Light Fighter mode..., AND provides additional Firepower to otherwise Light Infantry!!!

I'd go to war with it.

As I read it, it is not the concept that is flawed, but issues with the vehicle itself. Once the issues are fixed, the vehicle should bring some decent punch to the table. But I wouldn't want to be facing MBTs all by my lonesome with it.

It does appear that this version was somewhat rushed into theater, but from everything else I have read and heard, the basic Stryker has performed well.

Maybe the Army should look into a smaller caliber weapon, the 57mm or 30mm (I would lean towards the 30mm to ease logistics if nothing else). Maybe also mounted on the M-8? IIRC, that vehicle performed well before it fell to the "peace dividend" cuts.

In the late 1970s/early 1980s there was a Marder MICV, with a 57mm Bofors automatic cannon, trialled in Germany. It was trialled as a support tank to enagage other MICVs, helicopters etc, to save ammunition on MBTs to engage other tanks and hardened targets. The British Warrior MICV is to be equipped with 40mm automatic cannon and the Swedish CV90 MICV already is.

quote:

Originally posted by TxEzRider:
I'm old, please indulge me... I remember a saying we had in Viet Nam,"Ya can tell it's Matell, It's swell". You would hear it every time they sent over "Newer, Better... here, try this"!
I guess some things just don't change....

M-551 Sheridan Light Tank (aka, its Matell)

It was in fact constructed of aluminum, not plastic like a lot of people thought. Although developed to be air droppable, it was a rather amusing sight to go to one of the drop zones on Ft. Bragg and watch a drop. Many were towed, rather than driven, off the drop zone. Anyone remember the "rhino rubbers"?





The M551 Sheridan tank was designed in the early 1960's, as a need arose for U.S. forces needing a light tank. Constructed of aluminum armor, it is extremely fast, using a 300 hp Detroit Diesel engine and cross drive transmission. It mounts a steel turret and an aluminum hull. It was air transportable and fully amphibious with the screen around the sides raised. The main gun fired a 152mm standard projectile or a missile. It packed a lot of punch for a small tank. A similar gun was also used on the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. It is equipped with nuclear, biological, and chemical protection for the crew of four men. This enables it to fight in almost any climate or situation. The vehicle has seen combat use in Vietnam, Panama and Desert Storm, and it is used today for training in the California desert by the Armored Force Opposing Forces training center. Weight is 34,900 lbs. Top speed is 43 mph. It was built by the Allison Division of General Motors.

The M551 Sheridan was developed to provide the US Army with a light armored reconnaissance vehicle with heavy firepower. The main armament consists of an 152mm M81 gun/missile launcher capable of firing conventional ammunition and the MGM-51 Shillelagh antitank missile (20 conventional rounds and 8 missiles). Due to problems with the gun-tube-launched antitank missile, the Sheridan was not fielded widely throughout the Army. The gun would foul with caseless ammuniton, gun firing would interfere with missle electronics, and the entire vehicle recoiled with unusual vigor when the gun was fired, since the 152mm gun was too big for the light-weight chassis. The Shillelagh missles were evidently never used in anger. In addition to the main gun/missile launcher, the M551 is armed with a 7.62mm M240 machine gun and a 12.7mm M2 HB antiaircraft machine gun. A Detroit Diesel 6V-53T 300hp turbo-charged V-6 diesel engine and an Allison TG-250-2A poweshift transmission provide the Sheridan's power. Protection for the four-man crew is provided by an aluminum hull and steel turret. Although light enough to be airdrop-capable, the alumninum armour was thin enough to be pierced by heavy machine-gun rounds, and the vehicle was particularly vulnerable to mines.

Initially produced in 1966, the M551 was fielded in 1968. 1,562 M551s were built between 1966 and 1970. The Sheridan saw limited action in Vietnam, where many deficiencies were revealed. The missle system was useless against an enemy that employed tanks, though the Sheridan saw a lot of use towards the end of the war because of its mobility. The M551 "General Sheridan" armored reconnaissance airborne assault vehicle had been under development as "a lightweight armored vehicle to support ground reconnaissance." In mid-1969 it began to replace some of the tanks in the armored cavalry squadrons. The relatively large 152-mm. gun and launcher fired combustible-case conventional ammunition. It could also fire the Shillelagh missile but was not used for this purpose in Vietnam. The gun was superior to the 90-mm. tank gun against both bunkers and personnel, and its canister round was excellent to open up bamboo thickets. A disadvantage of the M551 was its limited ability to "bust" through dense jungle. The main battle tank was greatly superior in this respect.