I posted this also in Army - Armor, however as some may not frequent there, I thought this would be a good place to post these comments/question.

We are all aware of the serious problems with the Stryker MGS, but now that Stryker Brigades have entered combat, and peace stabilization work in Iraq, a number of observations have been made.

1. They are a hell of a lot safer than being in a light armoured jeep.

2. They can handle rifle and machine rounds.

3. Smaller IED and personnel mines handled without too much difficulty.

However, they cannot take the punishment that the M2 Bradley can handle. Even with SLAT armour, they have fallen prey when multiple RPG are fired at them. They are reportedly also taking a lot of damage in the wheel areas of the vehicles, whereas the tracked M2 would brush them off, keep on moving, and fighting.

Considering the foregoing, do you think the Stryker will be relegated a lessor position in the new modular army, with the M2 being put back into the spotlight. I note that todate I haven't seen much about the speed of the Stryker being of much use in convoy or patrol duties, which makes one wonder if the think-tanks are hashing this over in terms of light mobility that can't handle RPG's let alone larger munitions.

Do any of you believe a re-thinking of the move to light forces is necessary considering the reality seems to be shooting holes in prior theories?

Any other comments or questions welcomed?

Paul

The M2/M3 have shown that they can take more damage, sure, but they're still vulnerable to RPGs. The other thing that surprised me is that Strykers tend to do better when hit in the wheel areas than Bradleys; the RPG detonates when it hits the tires, meaning it disables the vehicle but doesn't punch through the armor, while the same hit wouldn't necessarily disable the Bradley but it'd kill everybody inside. I'll ride in the Stryker, thanks.
Also, the Stryker was never meant to lead an assault when there was real armor available; it's supposed to deploy quickly like the 82nd did in 1990 for the Gulf War, and then it's good for peacekeeping stuff, plus it's a good platform for middle echelon forces.

the Strykers have done pretty good in Mosul with 1-24 INF. I saw that had been hit by a car bomb, the only thing really wrong with it was the tranny made some funny noises and it needed some new tires and a paint job...

hell, the Stryker and the Bradley can be and have been penetrated by RPG's before. Sometimes their armor withstands it, sometimes not, depends on the shot.

They are all good in their own conditions, i will be put in a striker/infantry unit up in Ft Lewis WA straight out of basic as a combat engineer and its a deployable unit, this unit will be send out to iraq really quick after i get out of basic... Wish me luck against those RPG's n' IED's. thanks fellas

Dear Members,

One item that the Stryker units in Iraq wish they had "the day before" is the version with the 105mm cannon. But because of problems with the autoloader it's IOC has been pushed back to 2008 or 2009. For the life of me I can not figure out why the US Army does not buy some of those off the shelf 105mm two man conventional turrets (Cadillac Gage has them in production for export orders) and fit them to Strykers for Iraq till the overhead turret version is available.

Yes the TOW bunker buster is "some what" filling that role (ie electrical wires cause problems in urban warfare), but all the commanders say a conventional cannon is needed NOW. And in fact the conventional turret 105mm is much better for the type of warfare that the US Army is now engaged in in Iraq and Afghanistan (ie the turret commander can acquire targets and direct fire better). The only clear cut advantage that the overhead turret has is in the tank destroyer role.

Finally, if the US Army bought a batch of conventional 105mm turrets for an interim solution, after the overhead turret version is fielded those turrets could be removed and easily sold on the world export market.

Jack E. Hammond

Jack, one of the problems with the Stryker MGS is that some people tried to make them a tank replacement. They could have gotten away with a vehicle with more firepower over that of a 25-40mm cannon, with something like the Canadian Cougar with its short 76mm gun, and had no problems with shooting it. However, that would have brought into question the disparity between the 105-120mm guns on tanks.

I have no problems with light armoured forces, after all that is what I served in, however the Rumsfeld's of the world, and lord knows we have our share of them up here, had an agenda and nothing was going to change their idealogy, even if lives were lost. For me and I'd suggest many others that is the bottom line.

It also brings into question the thought processes that the Strykers would not be in frontline combat as this would be left to tanks and heavier armour in the way of the M2 and M3, but they somehow forgot how insurgency fighting can be as dangerous as frontline duty. Convoys with weaker armour can still cost lives, just as frontline combat can and in Iraq that never ending lesson is played out far too often.

One of the other posters said something important, IMHO, that these types of vehicles have a place for base security patrols, true peacekeeping where the belligerents want you there as a buffer forcce, but otherwise this use of Strykers in a combat zone has to be rethought. Maybe with newer Strykers that have added armour this situation will improve. I know that they have done pretty good in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In prior conflicts Canadian troops lost their legs, and sometimes lives due to the inherit weakness in the M-113 APC, with the wheels and bottom protection doing what they are supposed to do, and that is all to the good side of the equation. However, without added armour protection that benefit is lost and also the nonsense about making them air transportable in a Herc. No way with the added armour. Makes one think again that both Lockheed-Martin and Boeing have missed the boat in not creating a successor to the Herc, and why the A400M Airbus with its superior payload capacity while still having the same take off and landing requirements of a Herc will win the day in many purchases from NATO countries. Unproven yes, but if it does succeed, LM's lead in the medium military lift field will be extinguished.

Paul

The Stryker's performance in Iraq has changed quite a few preconcieved ideas. Myself included. In Iraq wheels vs tracks show wheels to be superior. The Stryker is a wheeled vehicle and is much more able to put the miles on.
As for taking damage, all are able to take some damage. There are many different types of RPG warheads. Even the M-1s have been destroyed by IEDs. Sheer armor is not the cureall. Rather combined arms, good crews, and competent leadership all allow whatever vehicles used to be effective.

*

I am currently transition to Stryker. Our vehicles are to have an updated transmission and drive train, stabilized gun, and we are getting reactive armor instead of the slats. This is supposedly going to be this new lighter weight reactive but you know how the rumors work. I'll post more as we go through our transition.

Dear Nelson,

The US Army no longer has any Abrams that mount the older 105mm cannon. All have been upgraded to the 120mm cannon.

As to the Stryker being to light for the 105mm cannon, there are many companies today that are manufacturing turrets that mount a so called "low recoil" 105mm cannon that fires the same NATO rounds as the 105mm cannon that was armed on the M60 and M1 Abrams. The reason they want the 105mm over the 120mm is that in the close support role there is a better ammo choice -- eg HEP.

Jack E. Hammond

quote:

Originally posted by friarboy:
I think the 105 mm set up works for marines who need the mobile gun platform but once the abrams is on the ground, there is not much it can do that the abrams cant do better.

The Stryker is not for the Marines. It is for the US Army. And the Stryker is designed to be on the ground and operate for long periods before the Abrams arrives. It is not its weight that makes it desirable but its "less" needs on logistics. It is a lot more complex than you can image. For example a light cruiser can do the job of a destroyer in WW2 a lot better. But no one ever said we ought to not make destroyers and instead make cruisers. It is a cost to benefit ratio.

quote:

What is the largest caliber cannon that can be mounted on a vehicle in this size class without compromising squad carrying capacity?

25mm to 30mm. Way to small for engaging armored targets at range or bunker busting and urban warfare.

quote:

The 105mm vehicle only fires 18 rounds; not a sufficient number for a long mission and has no infantry squad to add to its firepower; in essence it cant operate alone.

In the AGS version of the Stryker there is no squad. The 18 rounds is its magazine. The statement is like saying that because the M-16 assault rifle magazine only holds 30 rounds that is all the soldier has. It is not. As also with the AGS Stryker which will have more ammo in the hull.

quote:

The abrams would have more secondary weapons, a larger primary weapon and more rounds to fire as well as having better armor.

Apples and Oranges. In fact totally different planets.

quote:

The ideal stryker would have a smaller main gun than the abrams, capable of taking out enemy apc's and blowing up bunkers but would still be able to take a small squad into combat and have sufficient machine guns to keep any enemy infantry at bay.

That is a USMC LAV-25. Only problem is it sacrifices the number of men in the squad. That is not what the US Army needs for its medium brigades. It would have to have double the number of Strykers which would cause logistic problems. the US Army wants the AGS Stryker to fill the tank-destroyer and gun support. That takes a cannon in the 75mm to 120mm range.

Jack E. Hammond

Dear Member,

Have you ever read about the Three Blind Men who came upon an elephant and each described it. That is what you are doing. A lot of what you have posted is out of contexts. FYI there are 105mm rounds today that can defeat any MBT today. The reason for the adoption of the 120mm cannon had nothing do do with penetration. It was accuracy at long range. No matter how good the slip rings a rifled cannon will insert "wobble" into an APDS-FS round where a smoothbore will not.

Finally, the Marines easily defeated the Iraqi M-72s with the M60 fitted with the 105mm cannon. And FYI reactive armor has no effect on AP rounds: ie whether it be a 30mm AP rifled round from an A-10A cannon or a smoothbore APDS-FS 120mm round from an Abrams.

Jack E. Hammond


PS> Doing a GOOGLE on terms and just posting articles is the worst way in the world to debate important issues. You have to do research. It is like a person relying on a spelling checker and he has a sentence which states: "And there were too cannons on the destroyer." The spelling checker will not catch the "too" and replace it with "two". And take my word for it: I learned all this the hard way in the 1980s when I wrote defense articles. The so called "Defense Reformers" were notorious for what you are doing. And in 1991 in the Gulf War they were proven 100% wrong on the Abrams, Apache and the A-10A.

quote:

Originally posted by hybenamon:

FYI there are 105mm rounds today that can defeat any MBT today.

Moot point. My sources tell me that the MGS is being procured to support assaulting infantry in taking out bunkers, apc's, and dismounted infantry, not as a tankhunter.

quote:

The reason for the adoption of the 120mm cannon had nothing do do with penetration.

Of course it does. By enlarging the diameter of the barrel, and maintaining the same APDSFS-DU round you can increase range and velocity merely by placing it in a larger sabot and using a larger powder charge. APDSFS-DU rounds are kinetic rounds. More speed equals more penetration and/or longer range.

quote:

It was accuracy at long range.

You forgot to mention that accuracy only improves with the APDSFS-DU rounds. By switching to a smoothbore you cant stabilize the rounds that need rifling for in flight stabilization such as the HESH rounds.

quote:

Finally, the Marines easily defeated the Iraqi M-72s with the M60 fitted with the 105mm cannon.

And your point is? The Iraqis were poorly trained, poorly led and used obsolete tanks even by Soviet standards. None of them had DU rounds, none of them had composite armor and they sacrificed their mobility by hiding behind berms. Had they been Russian crews in modern tanks who knows? Either way, the T72 was not designed to face NATO tanks one on one;it was designed to be using in oerwhelming numbers in conjunction with the more advanced T80 and T90 tanks.

quote:

And FYI reactive armor has no effect on AP rounds: ie whether it be a 30mm AP rifled round from an A-10A cannon or a smoothbore APDS-FS 120mm round from an Abrams.

I have several reliable sources that tell me the opposite. The Russians are no fools. They know that they need to design armor that will defeat APDSFS-DU rounds; if ERA had no effect then they wouldnt be upgrading all thier tanks with it. It may not stop the round completely but will reduce its effectiveness. From my research it works by shearing off the penetrator tip, this reduces the initial penetration as well as reducing the mass of the round while also causing some velocity loss. You should research Kontakt-5, Erawa, and Kaktus reactive armours.

quote:

And in 1991 in the Gulf War they were proven 100% wrong on the Abrams, Apache and the A-10A.

They proved effective in a war where we had complete air supremacy, fighting a poorly trained, poorly equipped military , in a country with lots of open spaces that allowed us the ability to make the most of our long range weapons. In an urban war against Israel, China or Russia they may not have been as effective.

Dear Member,

Jack> FYI there are 105mm rounds today that can defeat any MBT today.

You> Moot point. My sources tell me that the MGS is being procured to support assaulting infantry in taking out bunkers, apc's, and dismounted infantry, not as a tankhunter.

ANS> Then why did you say it could not? And it it is for taking out only bunkers, apc and dismounted infantry and not a tankhunter why the overhead unmanned turret configuration? Think about it now.


Jack> The reason for the adoption of the 120mm cannon had nothing do do with penetration.


You> Of course it does. By enlarging the diameter of the barrel, and maintaining the same APDSFS-DU round you can increase range and velocity merely by placing it in a larger sabot and using a larger powder charge. APDSFS-DU rounds are kinetic rounds. More speed equals more penetration and/or longer range.

ANS> Then why not have a 120mm rifled cannon. Rifled weapons have as much velocity, etc. And why have anything rifled and not use finned projectiles for bullets in pistols and assault rifles and the .50 caliber to the 25mm caliber weapons? What is the "supreme" advantage of having a smoothbore over a rifled cannon when firing APDS-FS rounds???? Think about it.



Jack> It was accuracy at long range.


You> You forgot to mention that accuracy only improves with the APDSFS-DU rounds. By switching to a smoothbore you cant stabilize the rounds that need rifling for in flight stabilization such as the HESH rounds.

ANS> But why? And MECAR makes a fin stabalized HEP round. But why do they not have a HEP round (ie which any tanker in Iraq will tell you they would like to have) for the 120mm Abrams cannon? Think about it.

Jack> Finally, the Marines easily defeated the Iraqi M-72s with the M60 fitted with the 105mm cannon.


You> And your point is? The Iraqis were poorly trained, poorly led and used obsolete tanks even by Soviet standards. None of them had DU rounds, none of them had composite armor and they sacrificed their mobility by hiding behind berms. Had they been Russian crews in modern tanks who knows? Either way, the T72 was not designed to face NATO tanks one on one;it was designed to be using in oerwhelming numbers in conjunction with the more advanced T80 and T90 tanks.

ANS> All the above is false. The Iraqis had T-72s that had composite armor, etc. There is a reason true they were not effective with their 125mm cannon against the Abrams and Challenger, but that the Marines could engage them successfully with the 105mm cannon on their M60 tanks. Know why? Think about it.

Jack> And FYI reactive armor has no effect on AP rounds: ie whether it be a 30mm AP rifled round from an A-10A cannon or a smoothbore APDS-FS 120mm round from an Abrams.

You> I have several reliable sources that tell me the opposite. The Russians are no fools. They know that they need to design armor that will defeat APDSFS-DU rounds; if ERA had no effect then they wouldnt be upgrading all thier tanks with it. It may not stop the round completely but will reduce its effectiveness. From my research it works by shearing off the penetrator tip, this reduces the initial penetration as well as reducing the mass of the round while also causing some velocity loss. You should research Kontakt-5, Erawa, and Kaktus reactive armours.

ANS> There is a Master Tank Gunner in the Military.Com Army Forum in Armor. Post a question stating what you have stated. And your sentence stating "shearing off the penetrator tip.." says a lot about your statement. Know why? Do you understand how reactive armor works? Think about it.


Jack> And in 1991 in the Gulf War they were proven 100% wrong on the Abrams, Apache and the A-10A.

You> They proved effective in a war where we had complete air supremacy, fighting a poorly trained, poorly equipped military , in a country with lots of open spaces that allowed us the ability to make the most of our long range weapons. In an urban war against Israel, China or Russia they may not have been as effective.

ANS> That is not the discussion. It is a strawman you are knocking down. It is like saying during WW2 that antiaircraft guns on warships are worthless because they can not stop a submarine and a torpedo. Know why? Think about it.

Jack E. Hammond

BTW. Back in 1982 when I started my 12 year career as a defense journalists I was making all the claims you are. Learned that their were a lot of simple, easily explained answers. And they were usually wrong.

PS> How about a name and not a screen name?

Of course I'll have to add my 2 cents worth in...

105mm rounds:
It true that there are some 105mm rounds that have impressive penetrating capabilities and could still be effective against 80% of the world's countries that have tank forces. However, these rounds have exceptional chamber pressures and do not fall into the "low recoil" catagory as on the proposed fielded MGS. The propaganda machine identifies the MGS as a bunker buster. The issue is, when one side brings a tank like vehicle to the battlefield the otherside also brings one. That is how tank development came to the way it is now. Why regress?

120mm cannon:
There are a number of reasons why we went to a smoothbore 120mm cannon. Penetration (muzzle energy) was only one variable. One could get the same velocity out of a rifled cannon too as Jack questioned.

Long range accuracy:
"fairboy" It doesn't sound like you completely understand what is accuracy and the difference to it and consistancy. There isn't a round that has to have rifling to obtain stabalization. The currently and older fielded HESH/HEP rounds don't require rifling for stability. They require the spinning effect to better disperse the explosive on impact prior to detonation to achieve the desired effects.

Iraqi Armor:
Having been in military schools with the Marines in those M60s; they were damn scared of Iraqi Armor. They had no idea of how effective their main gun ammo would be against the T-72 but knew without a doubt that the T-72 could eat their lunch. If fact we were all told the the T-72 could out match the M1. There are a lot of reason why the Iraqis lost Desert Storm. Equipment was only one reason. If the Iraqis had T-95s the results would been the same. The insurgents in Grozny didn't seem to have too much problems with the T-80s either and they were fielded with "experienced" Russian crews. Think about it.

Reactive Armor:
Oh yes, the great debate... Shearing off the tip. Sounds great! I've even seen "X-ray" pics of bent penetrators in flight while trying to go through ERA. Awsome pics! So clean and neat. It must have taken an engineering marvel to have gotten such perfect pics during a very violent event. Ever seen a sabot penetrator after it hits a real tank? Sometimes they are bent and the ojive (nose)is crushed. Even training rounds are fairly intact. This is from far greater energy than what an ERA package can do. Just think about the act of cutting through steel for example. It takes a cutting torch (focused energy) several seconds to cut through steel of the same thickness of a penetrator. A TOW missle has over 8 pounds of explosive to cut through think armor. Now we are saying the ERA package has so much explosive power that it can cut the tip off of a dense metal rod moving at about one mile a second? ERA does have some effects on all impacting rounds. The question is, "how effective is it?" That of course will depend on who you ask. The Russians saw how poor their armor packages are and needed to do something immediately to save military sales. ERA was designed to help defeat chemical energy rounds. Now they are also capable of defeating APDS too? The ERA packages have added metal plates in an effort to redirect the KE thus improving protestion. If the base armor package is poor the add on plates will be improved but still paltry. They are redesigning their turrets and surprisingly they are starting to look more like NATO designs. Hmmmmm.... Our military budget is greater than any in the world. If ERA was so effective why haven't we the Brits or the Germans fielded it? Hmmmm.... The Isrealis don't field it on their Merks either and they were the first "westernized" army to issue ERA. Hmmm...Me sees a pattern here.

91 Gulf war:
I'm sorry but I seemed to have lost the point. We won desert storm because we were better at preparation, equiping, communicating, maneuvering, supplying, leading, following, training, shooting, flying, etc... and your point is?

Each battle in each conflict has is "issues" that have to be overcome to gain victory. You deploy your equipment to take advantage of your threats weakness. Thats smart. To suggest that one tries to even the field for the sake of a good fight will find himself alone on the battlefield. The equipment that have been discussed in this posting are just as effective in an open field as in a village. The difference is the men in the vehicles.

Thanks ImaMikeGolf for clearing that up.
I have always thought that the Jane's weapons site was accurate more often than not. It was quoted as saying that ERA could reduce effectiveness of a sabot round and the shearing of the tip was part of the explanation.

The problem with ERA is that it adds weight to a vehicle that is probably already at its maximum weight armorwise. Additional weight
is going to compromise mobility as well as cause more wear and tear on the suspension.

I wonder if the explosive armor might not also create a shrapnel hazard that could injure supporting infantry?

On the other hand, applying ERA to an obsolete tank design is a lot cheaper than buying a modern tank like any of the western MBTs. And it has been used by the Israelis on the M60A3 until they could be replaced by Merkavas.

I think that as anti tank weapons catch up to the western armor standard we will reach a point where we may need to temporarily upgrade the current armor with ERA until improvements can be made to current armor to counter the antitank threat.

quote:

Originally posted by friarboy:
Thanks ImaMikeGolf for clearing that up.
I have always thought that the Jane's weapons site was accurate more often than not. It was quoted as saying that ERA could reduce effectiveness of a sabot round and the shearing of the tip was part of the explanation.

The problem with ERA is that it adds weight to a vehicle that is probably already at its maximum weight armorwise. Additional weight
is going to compromise mobility as well as cause more wear and tear on the suspension.

I wonder if the explosive armor might not also create a shrapnel hazard that could injure supporting infantry?

On the other hand, applying ERA to an obsolete tank design is a lot cheaper than buying a modern tank like any of the western MBTs. And it has been used by the Israelis on the M60A3 until they could be replaced by Merkavas.

I think that as anti tank weapons catch up to the western armor standard we will reach a point where we may need to temporarily upgrade the current armor with ERA until improvements can be made to current armor to counter the antitank threat.

I find Jane's to be hit or miss. Remember, these are the guys that indicated the T-72 was a real tank and we would have trouble punching through it. I do not believe sabot tips are being cut off. Is there enough force to creat a yaw effect? Perhaps. ERA maybe effective (a loosely used term now a days)against CE rounds but margional effects on KE rounds. The additional issue with ERA is it also degrades the base armor when it detonates. This isn't severe enough to be considered a liability on MBTs but possibly on IFVs. The US has been very hesitant to put reactive armor on Brads because the damage cause when they explode. Some argue that is still better than a RPG going through. Perhaps not. I believe ERA on A Slacker would be a waste of time and money.

The additional weight considerations seemed to be ignored by the crews occupying the Slackers today. Perhaps that in itself is testiment to the "confidence" level they have for the vehicle.

The Russians do have a "safety zone" (30m I think) for Infantry around ERA equiped tanks due to the blast radius. Of course the tanks crews are not going to wait or check if it is clear before they fire.

quote:

Our military budget is greater than any in the world. If ERA was so effective why haven't we the Brits or the Germans fielded it?

It looks like we may have to use ERA in a limited sense. Not on the frontal armor as in the russian tanks but on the less armoured sides of the tank.

If the MGS does go through, I wonder how it will hold up with the BMP3, with its dual 30mm/100mm setup,ampbious capability while still being able to carry a 7 man squad into combat.

These add ons, and a lot more, to the M1A1/A2 have been available for years but the Army doesn't buy them. Most of ones you have shown will never make it to production. Kind of like the concept car shows.

The BMP-3 will eat the slacker for lunch in a one on one duel. Remember, the MGS was not designed to fight?!?