Why doesn't the army put styker lav llls into the styker units kind of stuipid right they have a 25mm cannon it would come in handy like a bradely on wheels.
this is basicly a stryker that plays the role of tank destroyer. it supports the combat troops with anti tank support if allied tanks are not in the area or cannot assist. like all tank destroyers its not designed to face a tank head on but to out meneuver it, attack, and then get out of engagement. kind of like skirmisher infantry used to harass enemy positions.
How is this going to outmaneuver a tank? It has less mobility. A tracked vehicle can go to places a wheeled vehicle can't. Plus it can't even fire while on the move, something every true combat vehicle can.
105mm is obsolete in taking out tanks.
This thing is only usefull for low-risk peacekeeping.
If you want a good wheeled tank destroyer then get Centauro 120.
But its better to get M8 AGS Thunderbolt or Stingray II.
@NationalSniper first equiped with the 105mm it can fire and move, equiped with the 120mm it can not fire and move because of stability issues. second with 8 wheels it has proven it can traverse much of the same terrain a tracked vehicle can. it is way faster than a tracked vehicle and can run circles around them. surprising a tank, firing, and using its speed to disengage before being engaged. third a sobot round can pierce any armor even DU plating which was proven back in the golf war
@357223308 gulf war.... short for pursian gulf war, were iraq invaded kuwait.... so i put a O instead of a U, i was typing fast. i nethier require nor want your sarcasm.
make sarcasm about this "what is science fiction yesterday, is fact today, and obselete tomorrow"
everything will change weather you want it to or not. stryker is just something new.
lol i cant figure out what this things are for. drive into combat on a well paved road , hope there are no mines on the obvious path, shoot a few rounds till the frame breaks, call it a day? why not use a recoil less rifle on it? oh yeah because i guess the company that made them figured they could sell all the old abrams 105mm barrels at new probably highr prices.no im sure their bosses would never do that too them lol. im sure the guy that approved this got a job at the company.
lol i cant figure out what this things are for. drive into combat on a well paved road , hope there are no mines on the obvious path, shoot a few rounds till the frame breaks, call it a day? why not use a recoil less rifle on it? oh yeah because i guess the company that made them figured they could sell all the old abrams 105mm barrels at new probably highr prices.no im sure their bosses would never do that too them lol. im sure the guy that approved this got a job at the company thames them .
in my amatuer opinion (i am by no means a qualified professional) the chassis over time will need refurbishment, alot of inertial displacement going down to the wheelbase, also i love the shell dispenser but i think it should rather use combustable shells from the abrams, dont hate, im just saying
The Striker is the most powerfull weapons, and troop transport. It is better then a tank and cant take IEDs. It is the only thing i felt safe in when in Iraq.
@hepalee dude your retarded more powerful? you know its 105mm right? it can take ieds? which ones? you were in one ? i doubt it. what were you gunner, commander, or driver? it only holds three people. so i doubt you were just riding in it.
let me tell yall being in that driver seat when it goes off is insane im 6'2 and if i dont brace myself i hit my head off the vision blocks i love that vehicle 19k all day
Of course Wolverine it is Polish name (Rosomak) on produced in Poland Patria AMV. It is new in Wikipedia write KTO Rosomak. If You want to see video then here:
everyone give a big hoahh for my best friends brother thats in afgan, that got married in january, and will be back in July......Sgt. Dutcher yeah hes in one of these beautiful babys........HOAHH, SEMER FI, HOORAH SUPPORT ARE MILATARY NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH IT TREASURE IT!!!!!!
PFC Lavena Johnson 19 raped and murdered by colleagues in Iraq.
The Army has continued to insist that the LaVena committed suicide by pointing her rifle with her non-dominant hand at the side of her head and set herself on fire, all after she beat herself up and poured acid on her genitals (since their was no apparent investigation into whatever happened there). Oh, and there was a trail of blood leading away from the tent where her body was found.
it's an infantry support vehicle, it's not meant to be a tank replacement. the addition of the 105mmm cannon merely gives the Stryker class vehicles a wider range of tactical options / responses; opening up more choices for the stryker commander.
MTD, a 20-30mm cannon, with the right rounds, will go through any structural wall you care to name, explode on the far side like a high velocity hand grenade & _stop_, right there. You can mount that light cannon on something like a Wiesel which can truly go anywhere (2 in the back of a CH-53) & point high enough to engage anything. You can R-Gator it & fit it with reactives & APS for urban. Anything else gets 10-15km guided NLOS, 'cause I don't want to play 4km LOS games in a 105 thin skin.
This 105mm Stryker is intended to kill infantry(30/40mm bushmaster II is far better in that) or to kill APC/IFVs? (35/50mm bushmaster III is far better in that) or to fight with tanks? are there sane in Pentagon? fighting with tanks with weak gun and nearly no armor?? whats the reason of 105mm Stryker to exist?...
I agree with you.....why is a Stryker sporting a 105mm? It would be better as a high rate of fire high caliber weapons platform.....bushmaster is the ticket!
@ozzy1351 usually is armed with 50 cal or mk19 but there are some mgs strykers in each troop for reasons....some units dont know how to use them but when you know how to use the big gun, it can be handy....such as making doorways where there isnt supposed to be a doorway, blowing up shit....etc
@ww2footage: No its not intended for anti Infantry. Its intended to be used as a support weapon system. It supports the infantry commander and gives him a better set of tools to use. Its a support weapon, not made to go toe to toe with a tank, but I can take on medium and light armored targets, as well as drop buildings a sniper is hiding in.
Please do some research before you make something up. I spent 8 years and 27 months with 3/2 SBCT (the 1st stryker brigade)
@crazyheeb ...Sorry but that is a crap,M82 can kill light armored targets, Spikes can kill medium (and light too)armored targets, air burst SMAWs can drop whole building too .. Stryker is propably good road-bound APC(compared to Humwee) but that is all, this MGS is propably all about corruption and contractors provisions and it is result of some kind of warfare-socialism ...
@ww2footage, Well think what you want, 8 years on Strykers, 27 months spent in combat. When they get stuck, it takes all of 5 minutes to self recover. When we went to NTC, we went places no one had ever been.
Believe what you want, I know better I have served on them, I trust my life with them.
@crazyheeb ... well, I agree that these Strykers are good enough against some half retarded sandniggers equipped by some 50 years old AK-47/RPG-7 but in real game(against regular army equipped by Kornets etc.) these Strykers will be 20ton death traps
Still wish we'd chosen the M8 Armored Gun System over this in the assault gun role. As far as Stryker goes, M113/MTLV with some available 3rd-party components, would have exceeded the M1126 capabilities and STILL have made the requirements without fudging figures (example being, able to be transported inter-theater via C-130...Stryker can do it if you get hinky with the standards).
jep, but the problem is that there is no IFV version of the m8 coz the engine is in the back. so, as a compromise, they chose the piranha and made the stryker out of it
Well the M8 AGS program was years before the Stryker. And I've never been a fan of the Stryker either. There were better platforms, especially in the inventory, to build off of. And while I appreciate commonality, when it comes at the price of effectiveness and expedience then I can only just shake my head.
In 2003? The Stryker went up agains tthe M113 for 6 months of testing at Fort Lewis and Yakima Training Center. The Soldiers testing both vehicles were from 1st Brigade 25th ID, at that time they were Light Fighters...Give a Light Fighter a vehicle, tell him to drive it like he stole it, and the truth comes out. Vehicle crews, and dismounts all said the same thing. M113 was not so great, Stryker with some modifications was outstanding.
Course that was with a baseline M113. You have the stretched MTVL-variant, and there are a number of existing upgrades out on the market specifically for the M113 which upgrades it's capabilities. For more information, I'd recommend reading an obscure but very interesting book titled Air-Mech Strike.
These type of vehicles come under lots of different names, like Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) or Light Armoured Vehicle, none which say tank too me.
Would a country rather spend millions developing a single MBT or making a fast air-mobile vehicle that can act as a transport, moblie gun, medevac, mortar carrier and AA vehicle all in one?
How about both: something modular like the Stryker for immediate action, and specialized vehicles for their intended roles. MBT's, AAA,'s,APC's, etc. Those MRAP's are nice too. After all, a jack of all trades is a master of none.
Thats a good point. Poorer countries may want a cheaper vehicle though and if you don't know who you may be at war with, it maybe good to have all variaties of threats covered.
actullly.... they have several centimeters of passive armor... and usally have cage armor above that 2 protect from shaped charge warheads and grenades
@TheGreenSmoke But the bad thig is that they are way to heavy to be air-droped ill go whit the BMD-3 if im in the airbone dessant.And dont stand near this thing in a fire fight becouse if the rpg dosnt kill you the defencive AR shrapnels will .
GS, the problem is you seldom need to drop a house when dealing with insurgents & that is all 105mm (or any HV tube) is good for. And if you are dealing with tanks (MGS being the only wheeled AFV light enough to make the 96hr deployment target w/ IBCTs) it lacks the mobility, ballistic range & front sector protection that an M8 would have given. If I want heavy infantry support, I want it NLOS from a mortar, no matter were I am at, inside or out, of a city. AMOS does that, MGS doesn't.
@TheGreenSmoke ok, but if that was the point, why did they put such an overpowered and oversized gun on it? wouldn't a BMP-3-ish low velocity 100/105mm gun have fared better?
Do you have any references to back it up? It does not even look like the french machine. Tanks on wheels were around for a looong time. Ever heard about the Soviet BT-7 tank (1935 design) which could move about on wheels without tracks on roads? Is the French tank a copy of the Soviet tank?
I love it think its fucking sweet. Saw them talking about this on the military channel and they were talking about where the line between being a IFV and being and a anti tank weapons system starts and end.
The original striker with only .50 is only good for carrying troops, not good for support role. This one definitely will provide troops some useful fire support.
A friend of mine has absolutely no idea what a Stryker is, and I barely know, so I am trying to explain it to him. From what I have heard, it is a tank that has tires instead of tank treads and can carry more than 10 soldiers. Is this right?
I have to laugh at almost all of you. You don't get it. But it doesn't matter. Those of us who KNOW the MGS and why we have it DO get it. Problems exist with every new idea. Sleep tight tonight knowing that there are people fixing all the problems with new things. From the airplanes that fly you around to the docs that perform your heart bypass, someone is always working to make it better. That's how we achieve. Never perfection, but something better than what the other guy has. Dopes.
Just listen to you pussies, TBR would tare that box in no time. By the way why isnt there videos of your tanks and all that shit in action like the videos or Russian weapons? Let me tell you why, its because your fucking Abrams isnt capable of going under water or jumping like T-90. T-90 been through jungles and survived. your abrams is just good for shitting inside in the middle of a fucking desert.
after reading a lot of replies to army vehicles on the 'net, its obvious how many people are armchair engineers that have little to no knowledge of the facts and inner workings of the vehicles. its actually quite sad, as someone may actually read this garbage and take it as the truth.
I understand your criticism, but there is more to this tank than you see. If you haven't noticed, the tank can support itself with that large cannon, seeing as it can actually bend and create a sort of artillery piece. Of course, there is the thing about mobile firing, yet there is always the machine gun, and you'll have to consider that the forces that we are fighting don't even have tanks. And as for the time? The time doesn't matter, for we have time. And money, it's not a waste of money.
I don't know why canada spending million on this tank, and don't know why us gouvernement acquired this tank. Is a waste of money canada acquired only 66x Stryker Gun (On LAV-III) for many reason :
- The 105mm canon are very huge so made the tank unstables
- The Armour are so light they can't resist against IED and High explosive anti-tank warhead (HEAT)
The basic idea was for canadian forces (Not U.S army) the LAV-MGS was for remplaced old Leoaprd C2 fleet, and still used old CC-130
Canadian gouvernment spending million on a project for remplacement of the Leopard C2, because the Leopard can't be deployed on a C-130 ( To heavy and can't fit ). Canadian minister of defence acquired 66x LAV-MGS and the reaction in canada was incredible, the LAV-MGS are so light they can't remplaced Leopard 2 or M1 (U.S army) this tank are a waste of money ,and waste of time to product
The basic idea of a fast arial deployement was very good, but for the 105mm main canon is a huge mistake...why not a 80mm or 40mm canon, only for Support in combat like the LAV-III does in Afghanistan ( and work with only a 2.5cm canon ) the 2.5cm from LAV-III can destroyed a car, trucks and destroyd some house with cheap wall.
The 105mm was a huge mistakes, made this vehicle unstables ( I saw this vehicule in action in 2000's, scuks some huge cock really )
This is not a tank...and the government has 2O Leopard II's (A6) from Germany and I think are getting 60 nearly new (low km's) of Dutch A5 Leo's II. As far as I know nothing was offical for the MGS. They were considerigng 66 MGS but after they decided to send the Leopard C2's into Afghasitan and decided on getting Leo II's the MGS idea was either shelved or totaly forgotten?
Each regiment (R22eR,PPCLI ect) , have two armoured regiment with approximately 40 Leopard 1 and 2 each, but is not enough and anyway canada have much more soldiers and need more vehicule.
In November 17, canada planing acquired for 2 Billion dollar newer and better LAV-III called LAV-H (better hull protection) canadian LAV-III fleet is around 650 to 700 (unconfirmed still in secret) and anyway in afghanistan the LAV-III has a short life in Afghanistan (8 months before to be scraped)
The future canadian forces between 2008-2017: - 60x another leopard 2A6M - 12x Province Class Destroyer (2010) - 17x CC-130J-30 (2011) - 6x CH-47D (2008) and 16x CH-47F (2011) - 2x C-17A or B globe master III - Modernization of SSK Victoria class - modernization of Halifax class - retirement of Iroquois class (2010) - retirement of Protecteur class (2010) - 3x JSS (2010, is in waiting) - 4x Amphibious assault ship (2010) - CH-146 upgrade for combat (2008) - 65-100x F-35 (2017)
The future canadian forces between 2008-2017: - 40x M777 Howitzer (2008-2009) - 20x C27J spartan (2010 for SAR) - 40x P-8 Poseidon (2012) - 6-8x new submarines, not sure because since we have the submarines they're always in reparation... - 12x icebreaker with small armaments (2010) - 8x heavy armed icebreaker: missiles,57mm gun ect (2012) - retirement of the CH-124 seaking(2009) - CH-148 cyclone (2009) - 40x LAV-MMEV (ADATS on LAV chassi) (2010) - 66-100 LAV-MGS (2010) And many more
Can anybody let me see a STRYKER firing aside ??? Voices say it would turn upside down. I repeat, Iveco-Oto Melara Centauro fires aside also while moving, it also has a stabilized 120mm gun, it has a troop transport version, it is built in a NATO nation... Stryker= How to waste a lot of dollars... Sorry for you
Ive been in Afghanistan and it woult do good in a infantry suport role.Most of the time there are no MBTs around.
C-17 coult carry it a good thing.
Its has nothing to do whit the MBTs.
It woult fit in to an infantry battalion.
Forefil its role up there not whit the cavelry.Efective in the overwatch when the Infantry is doing its thing and needs some backup. Its armour must be upgrated give it an active armour like the trophy defence system. Dutch INF AHOOWA!!
For all of you dumbasses that think this is replacing the Abrams tank IT IS NOT! This is a support vehicle for fire fights and an armoured personnel carrier to get the troops into the battle without having to walk, I've been in one of those and I'll tell you its a hell of a lot better than fucking walking through insurgent fire.
hows the armour on those things? I mean tires are good for transport vehicles, even armoured transport vehicles but not for a combat support vehicle...
the armor IS supposed to be able to stop 8/11 RPG attacks with the railing around it that isn't on it in this video. But I've been in a stryker before and I'd have to say it's really reliable and i can depend on it to get me where i need to be.
Dude your half right about the run flats. BUT due to the limited weight capacity of the run flats, only the 2 front and 2 rear tires are run flats. Also, when these run flats catch on fire, the solid core is EXTREMELY flammable. Now if you can find me a war where you don't encounter fire, then you have found ideal conditions.
Honestly a molotov coctail could take thist hing out.
Did you ever see the MGS firing on the move while on a slope? i bet you haven't!
No, I haven't. I, thank God, wasn't in the Army. I was a Navy Corpsman attached to the 3rd Battalion, 1st MarDiv. I did however, witness Strykers in action, they're fast and extremely quiet. Armored Vehicle design has always been about compromise. If they built the kind of protection everybody would like, it would hardly move at all. Also, the heavy Mech Divisions still use the Bradley.
You guy are giving me small comfort. I heard that this vehicle was supposed to replace the Abrams, I hope to GOD this is NOT the case. Jesus... I mean... JESUS!!
If it is an addition, then fine. I still say the Stryker has fatal flaws and those flaws start with inflated tires. Tracks are a tried and true technology. Everyone knows there are many circumstances that will blow out a tire. It's NOT an all terrain vehicle, it needs roads that are clear of debris in order to operate. GOD DAMMIT!
Not replacing the abrams my fiend, don't worry. This video's title is wrong, the stryker with the 105 gun is a combat support vehicle, meaning its designed to provide fast moving fire support, not engage armour like the abrams is.
im a marine corps tanker and i agree, this is a peice of shit not even tha LAV can hold its own against a tank and the stirker was supposed to of had a 120MM just like a abrahms but when they fired it over the side it knocked it over on its lid, Tried and true is right, you want it destroyed over night call a USMC tank batallion
Bro this vehicle was not made to shell out 120MM rounds like the M1A1 Abram's tank simply because it is a support vehicle and and armoured personnel carrier. By the way I'm in the Marine Corps to and I've seen what an Abram's can do, you dont need a battalion to take out that especially since the Abrams tank is unmatched by any other tank in the world.
Yeah dude totally. There isn't any single tank i can think of on the face of the earth that burns more fuel, weighs more, costs more, and is built from more outsourced equipment (that means from countries that aren't the USA) than the M1A2. Totally unmatched. Now if you think of Protection, the Chally2 is protected more in the front and top than M1, and the Leopard2 A6M is protected more in the underbelly. Also, the Leo2 A6 uses the same German gun that M1 uses.
Dude stryker's can ride on flat's and can not be pierced very easily and hell no it's not going to replace the M1A1 abram's tank its just an armoured personnel carrier.
Where in the Hell did you hear that? This is the MGS version of Stryker, it's intended as heavy gunfire support for the infantry, NOT for taking on tanks. It doesn't need roads, its perfectly capable off road, and its very fast. I was a corpsman with 1st MarDiv, every time we were going in, the Army was headed the other direction, so I've seen how fast they can go.
I guess you forgot what unit did all the leg work for the Marines building up to Falluja.
Ohh thats right...That was my Stryker Infantry Battalion, which was relieved in place by another Stryker battalion. The only reason we pulled out for Falluja, is because we started to refit and cycle back to the US. Something marines do every 6 months, but we do every 12 to 15.
its a light tank, not really a tank in my view, a armored gun platform nonetheless. this probably will not replace the m1a2Abrams, it would probably make a nice addition to the us ground forces arsenal, and lighter gun platforms, means that the government wont have to pay so much on fuel costs, which would be a smart move.
God help us all. This vehicle is C.R.A.P! This is supposed to replace the Abrams? Inflated tires? Oh Jesus, we are done for. Who was the lame brain who thought it would be a good idea to have a tank with tires? Better yet, who was the traitor? "Sorry sir, we cannot move to the objective, our tires have been blown to shit!" WTF!?!?!
So this is what they want to replace the M1A2 with huh? Hmmmm, looks a little be too heavy for the Stryker platform (you can see the back wheels sinking a little).
I guess we will see...I'm not to keen on the wheels, but who knows, maybe they can prove to be useful.
This has been flagged as spam show
Why doesn't the army put styker lav llls into the styker units kind of stuipid right they have a 25mm cannon it would come in handy like a bradely on wheels.
39Mcintosh 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALERT: GOVERNMENT is COUNTERFEITING MONEY for SLAVERY..!!!
bankers+lawyers+police+judge+politicians+criminals+etc = DIRTY CAPITALIST SCUM PIGS.
BANKERS & DRUGLORDS screwed life & society in human history.
BANKERS & DRUGLORDS screwed life & society in human history.
-- copy & paste WE ARE THE 99% FREEMAN --
BURN DRUG LORDS ALIVE & OCCUPY THE WORLD..!!!
BURN DRUG LORDS ALIVE & OCCUPY THE WORLD..!!!
"GOD HANG the LANDGRABBER PIG CAPITALIST ROYAL LAZY FAMILY"
SAVE the ANIMALS & NATURE. END THE DEBT.
kopellhinex 1 month ago
could they make the stryker a anti air vehicle?>
Silvah14 1 month ago
in soviet Russia, Army strykes you!
jake062490 3 months ago
I'm so glad Canada scrapped the MGS plan and went with Leopard II's.
NovaScotiaNewfie 5 months ago
This is like fitting Bruce Willis on Scarlet Johansson
formontor 6 months ago
CV90120 is cooler imo
HinFoo 7 months ago
These are not tanks. These are tank destroyers or assault guns. Although
Its not new either, its a variant of the Swiss Piranha, a vehicle from the 1970s.
US has great combat vehicles but this is crap. Can't even fire on the move, poor mobility and have very light armor.
If they wanted light combat vehicle they should get M8 AGS, Stingray II or upgun a Bradley with 105mm or 120mm (it can be done with CV90).
If you want good wheeled vehicle with gun: get Centauro.
NationalSniper 7 months ago
this is basicly a stryker that plays the role of tank destroyer. it supports the combat troops with anti tank support if allied tanks are not in the area or cannot assist. like all tank destroyers its not designed to face a tank head on but to out meneuver it, attack, and then get out of engagement. kind of like skirmisher infantry used to harass enemy positions.
frightner24 8 months ago
@frightner24
How is this going to outmaneuver a tank? It has less mobility. A tracked vehicle can go to places a wheeled vehicle can't. Plus it can't even fire while on the move, something every true combat vehicle can.
105mm is obsolete in taking out tanks.
This thing is only usefull for low-risk peacekeeping.
If you want a good wheeled tank destroyer then get Centauro 120.
But its better to get M8 AGS Thunderbolt or Stingray II.
NationalSniper 7 months ago
@NationalSniper first equiped with the 105mm it can fire and move, equiped with the 120mm it can not fire and move because of stability issues. second with 8 wheels it has proven it can traverse much of the same terrain a tracked vehicle can. it is way faster than a tracked vehicle and can run circles around them. surprising a tank, firing, and using its speed to disengage before being engaged. third a sobot round can pierce any armor even DU plating which was proven back in the golf war
frightner24 7 months ago
@frightner24
"third a sobot round can pierce any armor even DU plating which was proven back in the golf war"
The "golf war"? When was that? Right after the tennis war and before the baseball war?
357223308 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@357223308 gulf war.... short for pursian gulf war, were iraq invaded kuwait.... so i put a O instead of a U, i was typing fast. i nethier require nor want your sarcasm.
make sarcasm about this "what is science fiction yesterday, is fact today, and obselete tomorrow"
everything will change weather you want it to or not. stryker is just something new.
frightner24 6 months ago
@357223308 The Persian GULF WAR....Operation Desert Shield/Storm
NatedogJr 6 months ago
the tourret is similar than tha amx 13 ?
druisteen2 8 months ago
everytime it shoots, it poops out a shell =P
zweefseef 9 months ago
@zweefseef yeah?
bigshow1fan 8 months ago
Stryker = Variant of Mowag Piranha = Switzerland
;D
TheFanBF2 9 months ago
@TheFanBF2 Well ya man, the Swiss make really good shit.
gearbox011 9 months ago
This would be fun with beehive rounds.
tru7hmnb 10 months ago
slowly but surely the Army is getting the idea that ground forces
need heavy artillery to survive. what's the choice?
be there with a heavy machine gun if you were assigned one
to your squad or a 105mm shooting at distant targets outside their
range to return effectively against you?
pensive69 1 year ago
howitzers are better
henry19981000 1 year ago
get some
rolficus 1 year ago
dont tell me...
this will kick someones ass zzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZ
JoyDivisionSouth 1 year ago
Kind of looks like a Halo Scorpion...
Litlekalsoy 1 year ago
@Litlekalsoy wow u would think of a fukin video game
hahahahha156 1 year ago
@Litlekalsoy get a grip on reality you twit
StunnedMutha 1 year ago
مدولبه عقيمه لا تتمتع بالمرونه فى الحركه
hady770 1 year ago
lol i cant figure out what this things are for. drive into combat on a well paved road , hope there are no mines on the obvious path, shoot a few rounds till the frame breaks, call it a day? why not use a recoil less rifle on it? oh yeah because i guess the company that made them figured they could sell all the old abrams 105mm barrels at new probably highr prices.no im sure their bosses would never do that too them lol. im sure the guy that approved this got a job at the company.
whiterchocolate 1 year ago
lol i cant figure out what this things are for. drive into combat on a well paved road , hope there are no mines on the obvious path, shoot a few rounds till the frame breaks, call it a day? why not use a recoil less rifle on it? oh yeah because i guess the company that made them figured they could sell all the old abrams 105mm barrels at new probably highr prices.no im sure their bosses would never do that too them lol. im sure the guy that approved this got a job at the company thames them .
whiterchocolate 1 year ago
I like how it Farts out the empty round
Flaggedagain 1 year ago
imagine if this thing had a 120 mm gun this thing thing would lift off of the ground.
m1a2abrams100 1 year ago
1:25
Iit pood, haha!
TheBigTittyTwister 1 year ago
Hmm interesting, no treads? is it because wheels are better for that terrain?
VikingRage7 1 year ago
this thing has more capabilities than the t90. very sad for the t90
nunchuck19 1 year ago
in my amatuer opinion (i am by no means a qualified professional) the chassis over time will need refurbishment, alot of inertial displacement going down to the wheelbase, also i love the shell dispenser but i think it should rather use combustable shells from the abrams, dont hate, im just saying
spectre2776 1 year ago
Doesn't look like a very stable platform for a 105mm. I remember some Congressional reports claiming the same problem.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
The Striker is the most powerfull weapons, and troop transport. It is better then a tank and cant take IEDs. It is the only thing i felt safe in when in Iraq.
hepalee 1 year ago
@hepalee dude your retarded more powerful? you know its 105mm right? it can take ieds? which ones? you were in one ? i doubt it. what were you gunner, commander, or driver? it only holds three people. so i doubt you were just riding in it.
whiterchocolate 1 year ago
@noobsmoke13 well your dads going 2 get captured and raped by iraqis, because the stryker is a deathtrap
101andrewj 1 year ago
@101andrewj, it isn't meant to be impossible to destroy. Stryker does it's roles very well
USSOCOMpower 1 year ago
@101andrewj you're a pussy
crazyguy67 1 year ago
@101andrewj you are a prick and need to be hung for treason
duffelbag84 10 months ago
the projectils looks like shit from ass
Alexones1 1 year ago
usally the stryker usses a 50 cal for quick mobliatay
Projectreality1 1 year ago
Still can't fire on the move and/or with the gun at 90 degrees to the body.
OccultusGladius 1 year ago
@OccultusGladius yeah it can, search up "MGS Stryker" Intro on youtube...
weipeiwu2000 1 year ago
@OccultusGladius It can do both at the same time, actually.
Traece 1 year ago
@OccultusGladius
yes it can shithead
TheProjektcc 1 year ago
How do I order one?
ribtor 1 year ago
let me tell yall being in that driver seat when it goes off is insane im 6'2 and if i dont brace myself i hit my head off the vision blocks i love that vehicle 19k all day
TheReed610 1 year ago
The best armored army vehicle is AMV Patria = Polish Rosomak (Wolverine) There is nothing better then this war machine! :-)
GregorMar 1 year ago
@GregorMar m.b. russian BTR-82?
Goldrag 1 year ago
@Goldrag No Wolverine is better. Why You can even suppose that BTR is better? Do you know Wolverine's capabilities?
GregorMar 1 year ago
@GregorMar i hear about wolwerine first time. do you have video about him?
Goldrag 1 year ago
@Goldrag
Of course Wolverine it is Polish name (Rosomak) on produced in Poland Patria AMV. It is new in Wikipedia write KTO Rosomak. If You want to see video then here:
/watch?v=mGYAO_8xhjg&playnext_from=TL&videos=1hWjt_6knQ0
/watch?v=W8bGO04bDnQ&playnext_from=TL&videos=UUN_ZPrI94M
/watch?v=TSzCuVtk5CQ&playnext_from=TL&videos=D5xHyvQ4xJM
those video's are made by Patria but you may see there Polish Wolverine (Rosomak), we have those vehicles in Afghanistan. They are great!
GregorMar 1 year ago
It's can't compare to that of an Abrams but I bet it could definitely pack a punch with that 105
LtLethal1 1 year ago
everyone give a big hoahh for my best friends brother thats in afgan, that got married in january, and will be back in July......Sgt. Dutcher yeah hes in one of these beautiful babys........HOAHH, SEMER FI, HOORAH SUPPORT ARE MILATARY NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH IT TREASURE IT!!!!!!
lookdudemycar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PFC Lavena Johnson 19 raped and murdered by colleagues in Iraq.
The Army has continued to insist that the LaVena committed suicide by pointing her rifle with her non-dominant hand at the side of her head and set herself on fire, all after she beat herself up and poured acid on her genitals (since their was no apparent investigation into whatever happened there). Oh, and there was a trail of blood leading away from the tent where her body was found.
lesdoyle2000 1 year ago
a hole, its not a freakin tank
KINGD1991 1 year ago
oh man it s fantastic !! XD it s similar to italian CENTAURO but it soo old than this one : (
danieleriver 2 years ago
it's an infantry support vehicle, it's not meant to be a tank replacement. the addition of the 105mmm cannon merely gives the Stryker class vehicles a wider range of tactical options / responses; opening up more choices for the stryker commander.
melvinthedeathless 2 years ago 22
@melvinthedeathless but they can if they had to right?
YFZ450Kid09 1 year ago
MTD, a 20-30mm cannon, with the right rounds, will go through any structural wall you care to name, explode on the far side like a high velocity hand grenade & _stop_, right there. You can mount that light cannon on something like a Wiesel which can truly go anywhere (2 in the back of a CH-53) & point high enough to engage anything. You can R-Gator it & fit it with reactives & APS for urban. Anything else gets 10-15km guided NLOS, 'cause I don't want to play 4km LOS games in a 105 thin skin.
Mixelplic 1 year ago 2
How heavy is the Impact of the Recoil on the Chassis and can it fire with the gun in a 90 Degree Angle to the Chassis ?
limpy37 2 years ago
This 105mm Stryker is intended to kill infantry(30/40mm bushmaster II is far better in that) or to kill APC/IFVs? (35/50mm bushmaster III is far better in that) or to fight with tanks? are there sane in Pentagon? fighting with tanks with weak gun and nearly no armor?? whats the reason of 105mm Stryker to exist?...
ww2footage 2 years ago
WW2,
I agree with you.....why is a Stryker sporting a 105mm? It would be better as a high rate of fire high caliber weapons platform.....bushmaster is the ticket!
ozzy1351 1 year ago 3
@ozzy1351 usually is armed with 50 cal or mk19 but there are some mgs strykers in each troop for reasons....some units dont know how to use them but when you know how to use the big gun, it can be handy....such as making doorways where there isnt supposed to be a doorway, blowing up shit....etc
mac001texas 2 months ago
@ww2footage: No its not intended for anti Infantry. Its intended to be used as a support weapon system. It supports the infantry commander and gives him a better set of tools to use. Its a support weapon, not made to go toe to toe with a tank, but I can take on medium and light armored targets, as well as drop buildings a sniper is hiding in.
Please do some research before you make something up. I spent 8 years and 27 months with 3/2 SBCT (the 1st stryker brigade)
crazyheeb 1 year ago
@crazyheeb ...Sorry but that is a crap,M82 can kill light armored targets, Spikes can kill medium (and light too)armored targets, air burst SMAWs can drop whole building too .. Stryker is propably good road-bound APC(compared to Humwee) but that is all, this MGS is propably all about corruption and contractors provisions and it is result of some kind of warfare-socialism ...
ww2footage 1 year ago
@ww2footage, Well think what you want, 8 years on Strykers, 27 months spent in combat. When they get stuck, it takes all of 5 minutes to self recover. When we went to NTC, we went places no one had ever been.
Believe what you want, I know better I have served on them, I trust my life with them.
crazyheeb 1 year ago
@crazyheeb ... well, I agree that these Strykers are good enough against some half retarded sandniggers equipped by some 50 years old AK-47/RPG-7 but in real game(against regular army equipped by Kornets etc.) these Strykers will be 20ton death traps
ww2footage 1 year ago
Still wish we'd chosen the M8 Armored Gun System over this in the assault gun role. As far as Stryker goes, M113/MTLV with some available 3rd-party components, would have exceeded the M1126 capabilities and STILL have made the requirements without fudging figures (example being, able to be transported inter-theater via C-130...Stryker can do it if you get hinky with the standards).
MorganKeyes 2 years ago
jep, but the problem is that there is no IFV version of the m8 coz the engine is in the back. so, as a compromise, they chose the piranha and made the stryker out of it
midgetman2142 2 years ago
Well the M8 AGS program was years before the Stryker. And I've never been a fan of the Stryker either. There were better platforms, especially in the inventory, to build off of. And while I appreciate commonality, when it comes at the price of effectiveness and expedience then I can only just shake my head.
MorganKeyes 2 years ago
@MorganKeyes
In 2003? The Stryker went up agains tthe M113 for 6 months of testing at Fort Lewis and Yakima Training Center. The Soldiers testing both vehicles were from 1st Brigade 25th ID, at that time they were Light Fighters...Give a Light Fighter a vehicle, tell him to drive it like he stole it, and the truth comes out. Vehicle crews, and dismounts all said the same thing. M113 was not so great, Stryker with some modifications was outstanding.
crazyheeb 1 year ago
@crazyheeb Sorry but I do not beleive you in that(or may be they took some old "near dead" underpowered M113 so Stryker "won")
watch?v=u_E25Yyv0ZE
ww2footage 1 year ago
Course that was with a baseline M113. You have the stretched MTVL-variant, and there are a number of existing upgrades out on the market specifically for the M113 which upgrades it's capabilities. For more information, I'd recommend reading an obscure but very interesting book titled Air-Mech Strike.
MorganKeyes 1 year ago
god i want that stryker
sirstikay69 2 years ago
yep after watching this video and all that sand - happy I am out.
Drunkgrenadier 2 years ago
it looks like its farting when the round comes out the back.
WaffleMaster4 2 years ago
How many MGS will the u.s. army get.
N1cholas240 2 years ago
as many as they need.
MAGUIRE160 2 years ago
These type of vehicles come under lots of different names, like Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) or Light Armoured Vehicle, none which say tank too me.
Would a country rather spend millions developing a single MBT or making a fast air-mobile vehicle that can act as a transport, moblie gun, medevac, mortar carrier and AA vehicle all in one?
Paranomasia12 2 years ago
How about both: something modular like the Stryker for immediate action, and specialized vehicles for their intended roles. MBT's, AAA,'s,APC's, etc. Those MRAP's are nice too. After all, a jack of all trades is a master of none.
Konraden 2 years ago
Thats a good point. Poorer countries may want a cheaper vehicle though and if you don't know who you may be at war with, it maybe good to have all variaties of threats covered.
Paranomasia12 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
they better strike and run cause there is no armour protection. a full metal jacket will go right through it.
konistiger 2 years ago
actullly.... they have several centimeters of passive armor... and usally have cage armor above that 2 protect from shaped charge warheads and grenades
TheGatman101 2 years ago 2
thanks for the information gatman. i still believe in armour though.or should i say it would be even better up armoured
konistiger 2 years ago
people, these MGS Strykers aren't meant to duke it out with tanks, they are used to provide the infantry with direct fire support!
TheGreenSmoke 2 years ago 45
@TheGreenSmoke But the bad thig is that they are way to heavy to be air-droped ill go whit the BMD-3 if im in the airbone dessant.And dont stand near this thing in a fire fight becouse if the rpg dosnt kill you the defencive AR shrapnels will .
BGSlopy 1 year ago
GS, the problem is you seldom need to drop a house when dealing with insurgents & that is all 105mm (or any HV tube) is good for. And if you are dealing with tanks (MGS being the only wheeled AFV light enough to make the 96hr deployment target w/ IBCTs) it lacks the mobility, ballistic range & front sector protection that an M8 would have given. If I want heavy infantry support, I want it NLOS from a mortar, no matter were I am at, inside or out, of a city. AMOS does that, MGS doesn't.
Mixelplic 1 year ago
@TheGreenSmoke
Well is these SBCT encounter tanks, they won't have much choice will they??
gosciu555 11 months ago
@gosciu555
Then they will get butchered. Every tank has better protection, firepower and mobility then this.
You don't want to be in a Stryker when you face tanks unless you have a deadwish.
NationalSniper 7 months ago
@TheGreenSmoke ok, but if that was the point, why did they put such an overpowered and oversized gun on it? wouldn't a BMP-3-ish low velocity 100/105mm gun have fared better?
MatoVuc 5 months ago
@TheGreenSmoke Dosen't mean they can't though, whos to say they couldn't be outfitted with sabot rounds in a desperate situation.
JamesHusky21 3 months ago
The advantage of the Stryker with the 105 gun is it can be airlifted into action in quantity until the M1A2s slowly come into play at one per plane.
Merlin5x5 2 years ago
Canadian army trail testing this platform and opted for the new Leo 2A6M MBT.....but the stryker is very cool.....
racecardriver467 2 years ago
wow america can't be beaten... especially with these new tanks and shit
FunnyManDudeGuy 2 years ago
This is a copy of the french tank amx 10rc
essai75 2 years ago
Do you have any references to back it up? It does not even look like the french machine. Tanks on wheels were around for a looong time. Ever heard about the Soviet BT-7 tank (1935 design) which could move about on wheels without tracks on roads? Is the French tank a copy of the Soviet tank?
redwolftide77 2 years ago
Lol difference is you shitty French retards would try to use this as your MBT.
RuthlessZabusa 2 years ago
This, plus our new Abrams canister round really make us unparalleled in urban combat these days.
OptimusGonzoo 2 years ago
so a any main battle tank can take this out in flames with 1 shot
tadhaskew 2 years ago 2
I love it think its fucking sweet. Saw them talking about this on the military channel and they were talking about where the line between being a IFV and being and a anti tank weapons system starts and end.
swiftandeadly 2 years ago 2
Is it just direct fire or can it be used for indirect fire too.
marcdavis1970 2 years ago
indirect 2
TheTeddyguy 2 years ago
Its actually a HEAT round sorry fellas KE round here
BTL47 2 years ago
Yeah ,just a slightly smaller gun(by 15mm). Its an APV not an MBT isn't it?
Truthfinda 2 years ago
120 mm- 15mm equals....
105 mm *proud* :D
95predator 2 years ago
Well done.
Truthfinda 2 years ago
yeah!
95predator 2 years ago
Any advantage to this platform as opposed to a good old Abrams?
CapitalNick 2 years ago
Can be deployed more rapidly,and crarried by plane and airdropped.
tatersalad29 2 years ago
Now if only they armored it enough to withstand the blast of a cherry bomb.
redmunkee 2 years ago
is it true?; I heard that these are basically "body guards" for other more troop transport oriented stryker variants of similar speed.
asianiinvasion 2 years ago
Shit-hot! Can't wait till British army get the Piranha V's! (what the Stryker is based on)
NewtMessiah60 3 years ago
Don't stand behind it or that brass is gonna get yeah.
swedishvolvo 3 years ago
It reminds me of the German Puma during WWII
jackzero99 3 years ago
this is armoured vehicle.
infiltratorr 3 years ago
What if someone put a grenade in where the Shell goes out...
Veenker 3 years ago
If someone is that close, there are major problems anyway.
DwightPruitt 3 years ago 2
I'll try
Unifotm64 3 years ago
If someone is there, you fire a round, and the brass will hit him down. Try it.
zhonghh 3 years ago
would you like me to put grenade in your ass?
johnson2324 2 years ago
You cannot really call these Tanks, as they are not track/tread driven. More armoured personal carrier with B.F.G. attachment.
NAMZR160 3 years ago
The original striker with only .50 is only good for carrying troops, not good for support role. This one definitely will provide troops some useful fire support.
zhonghh 3 years ago
Lol, the only thing I know about these vehicles is from video games. Looks pretty cool.
Howardyt 3 years ago
check out the "future weapons" stryker video. it has a lot of basic Info.
tomham08 3 years ago
My cousin was part of a stryker tank division.
These things are really cool.
shredhead713 3 years ago
A friend of mine has absolutely no idea what a Stryker is, and I barely know, so I am trying to explain it to him. From what I have heard, it is a tank that has tires instead of tank treads and can carry more than 10 soldiers. Is this right?
SemperFidelius34 3 years ago
I have to laugh at almost all of you. You don't get it. But it doesn't matter. Those of us who KNOW the MGS and why we have it DO get it. Problems exist with every new idea. Sleep tight tonight knowing that there are people fixing all the problems with new things. From the airplanes that fly you around to the docs that perform your heart bypass, someone is always working to make it better. That's how we achieve. Never perfection, but something better than what the other guy has. Dopes.
tmont007 3 years ago 2
Just listen to you pussies, TBR would tare that box in no time. By the way why isnt there videos of your tanks and all that shit in action like the videos or Russian weapons? Let me tell you why, its because your fucking Abrams isnt capable of going under water or jumping like T-90. T-90 been through jungles and survived. your abrams is just good for shitting inside in the middle of a fucking desert.
verTuos1 3 years ago
you sound like a fucking terrorist, take your stupid ass back to where you came from if you don't like our shit move on YOU FUCKING LOSER.
mpw200373 3 years ago
so glad we replaced the old track apc's with these suckers...Strykers, bradleys, they make the world a better place ;)
Cloudfallz 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why do so many people think sexuality cant be talked about! i love sex visit my page y
aymen28 3 years ago
as first stryker is not a tank it is a multifunction apc
as second all these soo caled net engeneers have no knowledgeabout weapons and weapon systems at all
soo you sucker guys that are thinking im knowing all best are stupid non studyed idiots
AizenSosuke34 3 years ago 2
after reading a lot of replies to army vehicles on the 'net, its obvious how many people are armchair engineers that have little to no knowledge of the facts and inner workings of the vehicles. its actually quite sad, as someone may actually read this garbage and take it as the truth.
MSUICEMAN 3 years ago 2
Ask a tanker what he thinks of a Stryker. It's something akin to a half baked abortion.
amishmike1 3 years ago
I understand your criticism, but there is more to this tank than you see. If you haven't noticed, the tank can support itself with that large cannon, seeing as it can actually bend and create a sort of artillery piece. Of course, there is the thing about mobile firing, yet there is always the machine gun, and you'll have to consider that the forces that we are fighting don't even have tanks. And as for the time? The time doesn't matter, for we have time. And money, it's not a waste of money.
Solamentuno 3 years ago
I don't know why canada spending million on this tank, and don't know why us gouvernement acquired this tank. Is a waste of money canada acquired only 66x Stryker Gun (On LAV-III) for many reason :
- The 105mm canon are very huge so made the tank unstables
- The Armour are so light they can't resist against IED and High explosive anti-tank warhead (HEAT)
The basic idea was for canadian forces (Not U.S army) the LAV-MGS was for remplaced old Leoaprd C2 fleet, and still used old CC-130
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
Canadian gouvernment spending million on a project for remplacement of the Leopard C2, because the Leopard can't be deployed on a C-130 ( To heavy and can't fit ). Canadian minister of defence acquired 66x LAV-MGS and the reaction in canada was incredible, the LAV-MGS are so light they can't remplaced Leopard 2 or M1 (U.S army) this tank are a waste of money ,and waste of time to product
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
The basic idea of a fast arial deployement was very good, but for the 105mm main canon is a huge mistake...why not a 80mm or 40mm canon, only for Support in combat like the LAV-III does in Afghanistan ( and work with only a 2.5cm canon ) the 2.5cm from LAV-III can destroyed a car, trucks and destroyd some house with cheap wall.
The 105mm was a huge mistakes, made this vehicle unstables ( I saw this vehicule in action in 2000's, scuks some huge cock really )
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
This is not a tank...and the government has 2O Leopard II's (A6) from Germany and I think are getting 60 nearly new (low km's) of Dutch A5 Leo's II. As far as I know nothing was offical for the MGS. They were considerigng 66 MGS but after they decided to send the Leopard C2's into Afghasitan and decided on getting Leo II's the MGS idea was either shelved or totaly forgotten?
NovaScotiaNewfie 3 years ago
Canada have 226 leopard 1A5 and 2A6 our fleet:
- 20 lease-to-buy leopard 2A6M from germany
- 40 2A6 from germany
- 80 2A5 from netherland (will be modernized)
- 20 2A4+ from netherland (training)
- 66 Leopard 1A5 (C2)
The 66 leopard 1A5 will be delivered in 2015 for Afghanistan army (ANA)
The 2A4+ is a 2A5 with a L55 main gun (the lasted used on the 2A6) and is only for training not for combat.
The 80x Leopard 2A5 from netherland army will be upgrade in 2A6M.
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
Each regiment (R22eR,PPCLI ect) , have two armoured regiment with approximately 40 Leopard 1 and 2 each, but is not enough and anyway canada have much more soldiers and need more vehicule.
In November 17, canada planing acquired for 2 Billion dollar newer and better LAV-III called LAV-H (better hull protection) canadian LAV-III fleet is around 650 to 700 (unconfirmed still in secret) and anyway in afghanistan the LAV-III has a short life in Afghanistan (8 months before to be scraped)
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
dam holms you no your stuff.
Jcashrulez 3 years ago
I'm from vandoo's , don't be a foolish
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
Oh wait i made mistake...i think you said" damn holms you don't no your stuff"
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
Can anybody let me see a STRYKER firing aside ??? Voices say it would turn upside down. I repeat, Iveco-Oto Melara Centauro fires aside also while moving, it also has a stabilized 120mm gun, it has a troop transport version, it is built in a NATO nation... Stryker= How to waste a lot of dollars... Sorry for you
ziobrik 3 years ago
So is this thing used for artillery support, direct fire, or both?
dokaw 3 years ago
The turret doesn't look stabilized to my novice eyes. Does anyone know if it is?
blogegog 3 years ago
Gun is to big!!! 40mm and +4 soldiers on bord.
zbijacz07muly 3 years ago
It looks efective.
Ive been in Afghanistan and it woult do good in a infantry suport role.Most of the time there are no MBTs around.
C-17 coult carry it a good thing.
Its has nothing to do whit the MBTs.
It woult fit in to an infantry battalion.
Forefil its role up there not whit the cavelry.Efective in the overwatch when the Infantry is doing its thing and needs some backup. Its armour must be upgrated give it an active armour like the trophy defence system. Dutch INF AHOOWA!!
Dutchcrimes 3 years ago
For all of you dumbasses that think this is replacing the Abrams tank IT IS NOT! This is a support vehicle for fire fights and an armoured personnel carrier to get the troops into the battle without having to walk, I've been in one of those and I'll tell you its a hell of a lot better than fucking walking through insurgent fire.
aznxwarlock 3 years ago
hows the armour on those things? I mean tires are good for transport vehicles, even armoured transport vehicles but not for a combat support vehicle...
Mustang1204 3 years ago
the armor IS supposed to be able to stop 8/11 RPG attacks with the railing around it that isn't on it in this video. But I've been in a stryker before and I'd have to say it's really reliable and i can depend on it to get me where i need to be.
aznxwarlock 3 years ago
Believe me, the tires aren't a weak point. They're run flats, and the vehicle can still run at 55 mph, on the road, with all of them punctured.
NJHCRevEdge 3 years ago
Dude your half right about the run flats. BUT due to the limited weight capacity of the run flats, only the 2 front and 2 rear tires are run flats. Also, when these run flats catch on fire, the solid core is EXTREMELY flammable. Now if you can find me a war where you don't encounter fire, then you have found ideal conditions.
Honestly a molotov coctail could take thist hing out.
Did you ever see the MGS firing on the move while on a slope? i bet you haven't!
mattmatt115 3 years ago
No, I haven't. I, thank God, wasn't in the Army. I was a Navy Corpsman attached to the 3rd Battalion, 1st MarDiv. I did however, witness Strykers in action, they're fast and extremely quiet. Armored Vehicle design has always been about compromise. If they built the kind of protection everybody would like, it would hardly move at all. Also, the heavy Mech Divisions still use the Bradley.
NJHCRevEdge 3 years ago
You guy are giving me small comfort. I heard that this vehicle was supposed to replace the Abrams, I hope to GOD this is NOT the case. Jesus... I mean... JESUS!!
If it is an addition, then fine. I still say the Stryker has fatal flaws and those flaws start with inflated tires. Tracks are a tried and true technology. Everyone knows there are many circumstances that will blow out a tire. It's NOT an all terrain vehicle, it needs roads that are clear of debris in order to operate. GOD DAMMIT!
Yeshua001 3 years ago
Not replacing the abrams my fiend, don't worry. This video's title is wrong, the stryker with the 105 gun is a combat support vehicle, meaning its designed to provide fast moving fire support, not engage armour like the abrams is.
Captaindamn85 3 years ago
im a marine corps tanker and i agree, this is a peice of shit not even tha LAV can hold its own against a tank and the stirker was supposed to of had a 120MM just like a abrahms but when they fired it over the side it knocked it over on its lid, Tried and true is right, you want it destroyed over night call a USMC tank batallion
jdmbeaner86 3 years ago
Bro this vehicle was not made to shell out 120MM rounds like the M1A1 Abram's tank simply because it is a support vehicle and and armoured personnel carrier. By the way I'm in the Marine Corps to and I've seen what an Abram's can do, you dont need a battalion to take out that especially since the Abrams tank is unmatched by any other tank in the world.
aznxwarlock 3 years ago
Yeah dude totally. There isn't any single tank i can think of on the face of the earth that burns more fuel, weighs more, costs more, and is built from more outsourced equipment (that means from countries that aren't the USA) than the M1A2. Totally unmatched. Now if you think of Protection, the Chally2 is protected more in the front and top than M1, and the Leopard2 A6M is protected more in the underbelly. Also, the Leo2 A6 uses the same German gun that M1 uses.
Unmatched, right....
mattmatt115 3 years ago
yes this in no way could hold off a Main Battle Tank, a pesky Tactical or Bunker on the other hand...
amartinez8420 3 years ago
Dude stryker's can ride on flat's and can not be pierced very easily and hell no it's not going to replace the M1A1 abram's tank its just an armoured personnel carrier.
aznxwarlock 3 years ago 2
Where in the Hell did you hear that? This is the MGS version of Stryker, it's intended as heavy gunfire support for the infantry, NOT for taking on tanks. It doesn't need roads, its perfectly capable off road, and its very fast. I was a corpsman with 1st MarDiv, every time we were going in, the Army was headed the other direction, so I've seen how fast they can go.
NJHCRevEdge 3 years ago
@NJHCRevEdge:
I guess you forgot what unit did all the leg work for the Marines building up to Falluja.
Ohh thats right...That was my Stryker Infantry Battalion, which was relieved in place by another Stryker battalion. The only reason we pulled out for Falluja, is because we started to refit and cycle back to the US. Something marines do every 6 months, but we do every 12 to 15.
crazyheeb 1 year ago
its a light tank, not really a tank in my view, a armored gun platform nonetheless. this probably will not replace the m1a2Abrams, it would probably make a nice addition to the us ground forces arsenal, and lighter gun platforms, means that the government wont have to pay so much on fuel costs, which would be a smart move.
Fall3nSoul21 3 years ago
God help us all. This vehicle is C.R.A.P! This is supposed to replace the Abrams? Inflated tires? Oh Jesus, we are done for. Who was the lame brain who thought it would be a good idea to have a tank with tires? Better yet, who was the traitor? "Sorry sir, we cannot move to the objective, our tires have been blown to shit!" WTF!?!?!
Yeshua001 3 years ago
This is not supposed to replace the Abrams.
Kanamena 3 years ago 4
u know i think army got ripped off here this thing doesnt look like a good idea the reall not a fan os Stryker at all
lklinga 3 years ago
So this is what they want to replace the M1A2 with huh? Hmmmm, looks a little be too heavy for the Stryker platform (you can see the back wheels sinking a little).
I guess we will see...I'm not to keen on the wheels, but who knows, maybe they can prove to be useful.
Spartan2552 3 years ago