I drive one of these unfortunately... ICV 2-2 4-23 B CO. I hate them. Always breaking down, RWS always has faults. And those nifty little "Text Messages" they can send often are received 10 mins after it's sent so no one knows where or what to do. I HATE THESE THINGS!
@ckkabramz and you do realize that the most BTR-90 versions have a 100mm and 30mm canon from the BMP-3... and BTR-80s have ATGMs that could destroy your stryker from twice the distance your MGS could destroy a BTR. The Cubans also made a BTR version with a 100mm rifled gun, Google Image search "BTR-60 with 100mm gun" and you'll see they have hundreds of those...
@zerocker45 well we have the Bradley that has a 25mm chaingun and it also can be armed with ATGMs and stinger missles and we have thousands of them...
@ckkabramz Russians have the BMP-2 30mm auto-cannon, ATGMs, Igla-S, is amphibious, lower profile and there are more numbers. And am not even saying the BMP-3 which is WEIGHT better than the BMP-2 because there are not very much of them...
@zerocker45 well we also have the marines and they have the LAV-25A2 also 25mm chaingun but more lightweight then the Bradley but they pack one good punch, also the AAV-7A1 its quit heavy being almost 30 tons but its armed with a 40mm automatic grenade launcher a m2 50cal heavy machine gun so it cant stand up to heavily armed vehicles but it has the protection though. we can both say that both America and Russia have great vehicles but in my opinion i think America is better.
@ckkabramz United States is better because if its capacity of producing vehicles, its higher economy and number of soldiers. BTW America is a continent not a country.
If you say america you are saying Brazil, USA, Mexico, Haiti, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Cuba, all of those countries. North America isn't either USA, North America is Mexico and Canada as well.
@zerocker45 BTRs are a POS, you could put a 1000mm cannon on them with an 20 missiles and they would still be junk. U.S. fire control systems and night vision/infrared are far superior to anyone elses. A Bradley would kill a BTR or a BMP before they even knew the Bradley was there. Oh and btw, the Stryker comes in multiple different variants that fire TOW missiles or the MGS system that would blow any Soviet crap to smoking pieces with ease.
@macgc4 Soviet weapons are old, and most countries that own them have modernized them with similar fire control system and Russian Nightvision systems. Russian BTR-90/80s are far superior to the Stryker. This vehicles have diferent varians as well. The BTR-90 has a 30mm gun and Kornet ATGMs. BMPs have superior weapons and logistic capabilities than Bradleys. The BMP have pin-poin accuracy missiles better than TOW and 30mm gun and BMP-3 have that weaponry plus a 100mm gun.
@macgc4 The Cuban MGS BTR-70 system is very similar to the American Bradley. It has protection against 12.7mm bullets and 23mm in the frontal arc. It has a highly maneuverable turret with a 100mm cannon. Another version which is a BTR-60 has a 73mm gun, 7.62mm machine gun, 30mm AGS-17 granade launcher, 3 ATGMs and can transport same amount of troops the BTR-60 can. There is no way a Bradley is better than a BMP-2/3 or that a Stryker is better than any BTR-60/70/80/90. in any version
It's all catch 22 with the m1 abrams and stryker, yes abrams has big gun but slow speed and carries about 4 comfortably, the stryker is speed with adaptability for doffernet weapons systems and technogical systems its another armored offensive and defensive apc. Abrams is tank, stryker is armored, weaponized apc
Most of you on here are missing the point. I served with the 1st Stryker Brigade. Nothing in any Army matches it's variants, speed, mobility and lethal abilities with troop dismount. Heavy armor has too big of a logistical footprint to keep them going. The Stryker Brigade can cover vast amounts of area that heavy armor just can't. It complements each other. We lost 28 in our Brigade in one year. Compare that to one year in any other war and I'd say hands down it's safe and lethal.
I've fought from un-armored M998's, from up-armored M1114's, from M113's, M2's, MRAPS & from NVT's. Of all those vehicles give me the Stryker. It's not perfect, but it's the best. It's the most comfortable, the most versatile, carries the ideal number of Soldiers. No vehicle is perfect for every tactical situation. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. I've been to combat four times. I felt safest in a Stryker. The gun sucks, though. Put in a Bushmaster 25mm.
@BaconTV123 1) It shouldn't have an auto-cannon, that would cause far too much collateral damage in the places it is designed to go.
2) If the Canadian LAV-III didn't have slat armor like the Stryker, then it's basic armor would absolutely be penetrated by an RPG hit.
5) There are many Stryker variants.
6) There is also the TOW equipped vehicle. Also, every Stryker ICV has a 9 man squad equipped with the Javelin missile. So it is very capable of anti-armor purposes.
@BaconTV123 The steel fence is a good thing! Reactive armor and slat armor, dude! :p
But the stryker is stronger, has amazing survivability against IEDs, and is made with advanced electronics for digital warfare. Probably alot better than the LAV; eventhough the LAV's Bushmaster cannon IS pretty cool.
MGS-lets turn our tanks in and put a gun that is the samew in an Abrham tank to fight against other tanks. Of course, npw they are sayong they will get rid of Strykers and in ten yrs-will be designing a new vehicle. So much for expeditionary war fare in the Army. Great vehicles until they figured nout they did not have enough planes to fly a Brigade as opposed to a whole division-this is where it becomes counter intuitive
@NatedogJr yep even tested it wiht the 7.62x39 and had the same results . and guess what. them vulcanized tiers it has burns so easy. and $10K a piece :D
also i heard from a friend of mine that some kid in somewhere in Iraq if i can remember, successfully planted a home made bomb behind the stryker just chucked it on the rear compartment and boom. and this is because the stryker had no windows at the back.
Hezbollah showed the world the IDF and Merkeva MBT is not invincible to a determined guerrilla force. 49 MT's were hit in 2006 Lebanese War. Palestinian guerrilla's also destroyed 2 MBT with IED's. The key is finding the vulnerable spot to hit
@AccordGTR Hahah Even worse. A documentary showed that some merkavas where destroyed by simple Rpg-7s they even interviewed one of the terrorist who did it.
@BordoEnes Yes I think I saw that...the sudied the online diagrams of the Merkeva and found out there is a weak spot in the rear door so they hid and waited until the tank turned their back to them and calmly shot it point blank with an RPG. Takes freakin balls to do that to the IDF who were there to kill them
The Stryker is an infantry carrier. It gives the light infantry more lethality and survivability. It was designed to bridge the gap between light infantry and heavy armor, not replace it. All of you that get it confused with heavy armor. I've seen it in action in Iraq and believe me...if you were on the receiving end of its power, mobility, stealth and lethality...you would be dead. Do your research before posting. I did my senior thesis on the Stryker..months of research.
@MrCraig57 It kinda confuses me why people bash this vehicle. I mean, this is a something I rather ride in than the HUMVEE. It's a big upgrade for those vulnerable troops.
@Wes2299 Oh yeah. The HUMVEE is primarily used for cargo transport (logistics) and troop transport, which is a light utility vechicle. Can be used for non-combat roles such as for Military Police or an ambulance
It can also be a Light Armored Car. Some used Up Armored kits used for small arms protection. Unfortunately it can still be destroyed by an RPG and IED.
Most Modern APC's can still be destroyed today by rpg's.
The increase of Armor shouldn't be the only counter against threats such as Rpg's or mines.
Improvements on suspensions, kits, and other counters have to developed. My country has adquired some HUMMWV from the US, and they're performing well even in afghanistan, with some basic armor kits and mine protection kits.
They've been adopted to perform a mission that they're not meant to do, but they're performing acceptable
Then you probably should have compared it to a more cost effective solution which the US army posseses in large quantities, has trained professional crews on it, has thousands in storage and which would only need to have the .50 cal on it upgraded to a powered remote weapons station. Guess what is it?
These are perhaps one of the worst vehicles for the US Army. If the Army really wanted to go all-wheeled there were far superior choices in the V-150/300/and 600 series,and they're all American and American built as well.
@jeank2352 The tires are built to survive when it's hit by a road side bomb when a road side bomb explodes near the tires the other rear tires can still control and drive the stryker when hit by a road side bomb.
@gorillagirlgorilla What? No, the Russian did not. The Swish deployed the first model, which the Stryker is based off, in the 1980s. The Stryker survive numerous RPG-7 hits and two thousand pounds of IED. Of course, the Stryker would not survive TOWs and other anti-tank missiles but even today modern tanks would be destroyed if hit.
@916ppl a thousand pound IED would spread pieces of it several hundred feet around...even ~200 lb is more then enough to kill the crew of any modern tank, the stryker has no chance...heck, even a concrete bomb with the JDAM package will smash a tank, the stryker would be in two pieces...
as for RPGs - only because of the "cage" addon, without it, the crew would be severely wounded or dead...
@MRWALKER500000 The cage armour is used to reduce the effectiveness of shaped charge-tipped missiles. If an Explosively Formed Penetrator hits the hull, it cuts right through and makes a mess inside. If the EFP hits the cage first, then the gap between the cage and the slat armour helps dissipate the charge and the slat armor is more likely to protect the occupants.
@azimuth361 oh, but say Post-Iraq/Afghanistan, the stryker brigades are the first wave of any U.S intervention forces. Say if you go into Iran (Not saying you will), the Iranians will not send in green draftees like those encountered in Afghanistan, they will deploy T-72's, BMP's and tandem warhead RPG's and all stryker has is a .50 or 40ml GMG with a few MGS units sprinkled throughout? how do you think the SBCT's will fair in a high intensity battle?
@MRWALKER500000 That brings me back to my point. No vehicle is perfect, but I'd still prefer to fight from this one. It's an IFV. It's not meant to lock horns with tanks. Oh, sure. If we get eyes on first & can kill it with CAS, arty or my guys on the ground with rockets, we will. Of course, you don't fight the war you want. You fight the war you get. If I have to fight a tank I will. And I just may win. Don't forget, a Swordfish crippled the Bismark.
@azimuth361 But what if the enemy deploys effective countermeasures against CAS (Remember the A-10 is slow) all that will be left that could counter enemy Armour would be effective but vulnerable FGM-172 and AT-4 one shot anti tank weapons, and remember Infantry dont stack up well in a fast moving mechanized or even CBRN battlefield. The MGS and TOW carrier could have been replaced by a single more effective vehicle, the M8 Buford
@azimuth361 Ok then, if you are satisfied with the Stryker, im not going to argue with a seasoned vet, but what i do say that the stryker does not and will not fair good in a high intensity warfare scenario. The worlds opposing armies will have learned from desert storm, in fact the Chinese army pissed themselves post iraq because their army was modeled on similar lines with the Iraqis. In short, future US enemies will be much more capable
@916ppl You are wrong... the stryker never survived RPG-7 hits. The soldiers weren't killed but the vehicle was disabled... I can give you pictures. The projectile broke through the Slat Armor and through the MEXA balistic layer and inside the vehicle.
@916ppl If it hit the slate armour, I might agree with you. But if it didn't hit the slate armour. Any RPG-7 warhead would tear the Stryker up. It has really thin armour.
lol this a nice piece of propaganda, on the other hand it would be too hilarious if that guy started pointing out at the weaknesses, and say stuff like "as you can see who designed did not think about this situation so it useless, millions of dollars for this piece of shit." Jokes apart, i dont think you can really evaluate these vehicles until they are tested against real enemies that are well equipped and proper trained.
lol did any of you notice 1.50 caliber machine gun version of the stryker is the exact same one as in the GAME MW2 it so realistic compared to the one in the game..
@Hornetman777 who the fuck cares about some noob game like mw2? And of course its more realistic because its real-life. Play a real war game you pussy kid
Stryker needs a redesign: under-powered, bad sensors, poor unstabalised firepower and terrible mine protection. They tried so hard to make it fit into the C-130 and failed, what is left does not address the key issues. VBCI may be heavier, but it is everything Stryker needs to be.
@NAVYSEALS777 Once you get to know some US Soldiers you only say good stuff about them BTW is you guys go to war with North Korea you got the Canadians on your side.
@shevah2 do you know why they don't drop the humvee but not produce more badass tanks? not because of assembly? But because the badass tank's such as the abrams, sheridan, any light armoured vehicles etc. is because anyone with a license can drive a humvee. sure you have to take a drivers license for it but it's not long and the humveee is more cheaper and more versitle. oh and you can put add-ons that would be just as effective agains indirect rpg fire, anti personal mines and small arms fire.
Patria AMV and Polish "Rosomak" (Wolverine) is much more better! We have them in Afganistan and Talibans are fucking afraid of them!!! When they see that in column going Wolverine they do not attack! Even American solders are astonished when they see it!
@TankNutDave Thanks. You know our Wolverine survive even few IED's traps made by Talibans and no one didn't die. But last time they use over 300 kilograms of explosive materials and unfortunately driver was killed but the rest of crew alive without any wounds. It is very, very good weapon and I think it is the best combat vehicle supporting solders that was ever build. I think that we should change only OtoMelara turret on RCWS 30.
Yeah but thats because its has the hitfist turret. Besides, it was mean as a vehicle that could handle 22 tons unlike the Stryker. Despite of all that wheeled vehicles are highly handicapped and they're not good combat machines. Both countries would be much better off going with light tracked platforms not this wheeled bullshit.
Yeah and one more things, both are NOT TRANSPORTABLE in a C-130 if you want to actually fly somewhere, father than they would go under their own power for example (sic).
@gosciu555 What? You mean Patria AMV (Wolverine) is not transportable in a C-130??? IT IS TRANSPORTABLE it was one of condition that it must fit and be transportable by C-130 and how do you thing how we transported our Wolverines to Afghanistan? We used C-130 Hercules.
You can physically fit it in a take off BUT, as you approach the max TOW of a plane, its range decreases dramatically. With a 15ton cargo you can fly a couple of thousand kilometers, with a 20ton cargo like Stryker or Rosomak you can only fly +-500km, which is not useful since they can go that far by themselves.
"how we transported our Wolverines to Afghanistan? We used C-130 Hercules."
I doubt it, maybe with Air-to-Air refueling, Where is your info coming from?
@gosciu555 That our Wolverines are transported by C-130? Simple it was one of main condition for Patria before we bought those vehicles we wanted that this vehicle was constructed under our specification, bcoz we bought also 5 C-130 from USA and we use them to transport Wolverines to Iraq and now to Afghanistan.
Yeah but like the Stryker IT FAILED in its Key Performance Parameter for being air transportable. Its all pretend. Like I said, it can fit into a C-130 and take off, but its transport range is not useful. Show me where you got the info on Rosomak being transported to Afgh on a plane. Polish contingent also has Dana howizters which for sure didn't go by air, so I'm guessing they both went by sea.
@gosciu555 Of course I didn't say that all only few first and rest of vehicles were transported by the Sea but few first vehicles we transported by air bcoz we needed them there quick and rest was transported on ships it is more economic way of course.
@gosciu555 But tell me why you think that wheeled vehicles are highly handicapped and they're not good combat machines I don't understand... For example good armored Wolverine may stand even 30 mm round? So it is much faster then for example Bradley... Write me why you think in this way? and if we change this Otomelara thing on RCWS then we may transported even 10 people inside beside 3 crew!
Because they get stuck ALL THE TIME, especially in mud/soft ground, tires are uber vulnerable even to small arms, and even despite runflat. What do you think will happen to a wheeled vehicle under artillery bombardment? Its tires are going to be shredded. Combat is demanding and if something is flimsy, you don't mess with it. They are inefficient in terms of protection to size and weight. Compare a Stryker to an MTVL, for a comparable protection level, Stryker weighs 20 tons vs 15.
@gosciu555 Oh sometimes yes but not all the time, and they can float and this is very important capability if you want to outflank the enemy. Then you need no sapper units only such vehicles as Patira AMV (Polish Wolverine) but in tires is special rubber mix and bulletproof inserts. You know I can say only about Wolverine bcoz I know it pretty well I can't say nothing more about Striker. So maybe You right. But Wolverine is very tough not flimsy and our solders JUST LOVE THEM
I know they are well like BUT the commanders job is to get the biggest combat power for the money, not what makes the soldiers happy. A better option would be to get light tracked platforms like LPG from HSW, M113 or BWP-1 to serve where Rosomak is serving now and put real money into a proper IFV or HIFV. With wheels you lose A LOT of flexibily, reliability and robustness. Every vehicle has its limits, but tracked vehicles have much higher limits.
@gosciu555 Yes You're right and that is why our soldiers just love this vehicle bcoz it has power, good armour and it is well protected against IED! Talibans are afraid of our vehicles and in they always run away when they see that our solders have them in combat. And solders are always happy where they may trust in their combat vehicles right?
"For example good armored Wolverine may stand even 30 mm round? "
Pfff!?! Buahah, maybe 30mm AP on a small section in the front but 30mm APFSDS no way. Besides you can say that about many vehicles, so what? An uparmored BMP-1 could have the same protection, what your point?
"So it is much faster then for example Bradley... "
Buahah, right in a 1/4 mile drag race maybe but not in the field.
@gosciu555 Oh NO! No there is no comparison between BMP-1 and Wolverine. BMP-1 cant stand 12,7mm Gun from sides and Wolverine in standard can stand 14,5mm gun and tin the front 30mm and if you will put more armour plates then it stand 30mm round from sides
As for which is faster, Wolverine may going 100km/h on road and 80 km/h in terrain and 10km/h in water! It is very good result and have potential to go even faster if there will new engines put into vehicle, its construction is also modular
Well the up armored Rosomak can't swim, and it DOESN'T have 14.5mm protection in its standard form, only 7.62mm. The 14.5mm protection is in the form of modular MEXES armor which you can install on a BWP if you want. You cannot uparmor the Rosomak to take 30mm from the sides are you crazy? It wouldn't handle the weight, look at the Puma, its 40 tons. Rosomak doesn't have 30mm in the whole front, only on the top glacis where the additional armor is.
@gosciu555@gosciu555 In standard protection in STANAG 4569 looks like that: In the front it is 4 and from sides it is 3+ and that was parameters for main AMV Patria in 2004 now we were producing our own new armor in steelworks Stalowa Wola which is much lighter and tougher then armor from Swedish steel which was in main vehicles. And that is why I want that change Otomelara turret it's too heavy and RCWS30 no.I will write You more about armor on Private Message
NOBODY drives a 100km/h in a war zone, and definitely not 80km/h on terrain, thats nonsense. Besides, you're going 0km/h if you get stuck, and wheeled vehicles are stuck often. With tracked vehicles you can move offroad *with assurance* in tough conditions which you can't do with wheels. If you're afraid to go off road for fear of being stuck then in essence you don't have true off road capability. Going from place to place, tracked are faster, combat isn't a drag race.
@gosciu555 I'm sorry... But... I don't understand WHY nonsense? You drive as fast you can bcoz thanks to this enemy can't tract you on his backsight. But even trucked vehicle can stuck also did you saw pictures of stuck German tanks into Russian mud during II WW? Of course combat isn't a race but if you going fast then enemy can't track you and you may use also this speed to surprised the enemy! And surprise is very important trump on battle field. You know this.
@gosciu555 You're right. Driving at that 100km/h speed would mean that you place yourself and the crew of the AFV at risk of speed related accidents like the dubious rollover. Even if you could safley drive that fast,it wouldn't matter because the enemy could just add more lead to his shot.
watch?v=uTlvmC1rIUA&feature=relate was 40 km from my home but does means nothing at first you have to see how other vehicles act in such requirements... This was usual rally for people and old military equipment and army rent out Wolverine just for fun for those people that they see how its working in the field. And I think even tank which is much heavier wouldn't not manage with this. And old cars with 6 weals are much lighter about 8 tons not 22.
@gosciu555 It might even be possible to adapt the explosive reactive armour of the BMP-3 to a BMP-1 chassies which would give protection against said 30mm rounds. As for that 60mph speed,all Strykers have a speed cap on them which limits the speed to 45mph. This cap was further reduced to 35mph because older Strykers were loosing their tires.
@TankNutDave A new tank to replace the M1A2? AFAIK they're working to upgrade its systems further. IMO all they need to do is give it a diesel like what the Aussies did. Logistics(Fuel)/Maintenance are really the only weak points that bad boy has.
@CaptainMorgan32 Well the M1A2 was replaced by the SEPV1 now SEPV2 and AIMSA is still on going. US Curently is running the BCT Ground Combat Vehicle Program, which is said to be the new M1A3 Abrams. As for the Australians, they still use the same gas turbine engine as the US, however they use diesel fuel rather than the jet fuel like the US does.
@TankNutDave Oh interesting so its like a diesel turbine? Guess thats the only way they can use diesel and still generate horsepower on par with the gas version.
@CaptainMorgan32 No mate, NATO have standardisation agreements called STANAG's and one of those back in the 50/60's was that NATO tanks had to be multi fuelled, which the Abrams AGT engine is, it can run on several fuels, its just by choice due to ease of supply what each nation wishes to use, be it diesel or jet fuel. Does that make sense? :-)
@CaptainMorgan32 diesel has more power than gas in the form of stump pulling torque. It wouldn't make sense to put a gas engine in something as big as a Stryker.
@slarmas The comment about the diesel engine was in reference to the Australians using diesel fuel with their M1A1 Abrams tanks. I thought that they used a diesel engine but in fact (TankNutDave corrected me on this) their tanks use the same gas turbine that Americans use.
I agree it wouldn't make sense to put a gas engine in a Stryker, plus diesel engines are much more fuel efficient and easier on logistics chains.
Those mortar carriers certainly proved their worth when I was serving. They could come in, set up, lob a few shells, then get up and go before counter-battery fire could find them.
Starting at 4:00 is the spin.... yeah it can be put on a C-130 but because of the weight the C-130 can only make it a very short range....and without the Mel-Gibson road warrior cage... as for manuverability, it is limited to where wheeled vehicles can go...
@Torak101 Well douche fag, maybe you should stop believing the hype and ride into combat in one of these...27 months spent in Iraq with 1-23 IN and there is no other vehicle I would rather have supporting me. Its actually a lot harder to get stuck then you think, and they can self recover quick as hell.
I'm a Cav Scout, and I can hang rounds better than that Fister, lmfao.
nohopepope2187 2 days ago
cv-90 all the way much better than the stryker
The123456asian 2 weeks ago
@The123456asian Diffren't jobs.
SpiritOffAdventure22 1 week ago
Calemiller79 have you seen the LAV?
IShallNotFall 1 month ago
I drive one of these unfortunately... ICV 2-2 4-23 B CO. I hate them. Always breaking down, RWS always has faults. And those nifty little "Text Messages" they can send often are received 10 mins after it's sent so no one knows where or what to do. I HATE THESE THINGS!
calemiller79 1 month ago
Bull shit. BTR-80/90 can kick this thing's ass... just a little gay toy for the us army...
zerocker45 2 months ago
@zerocker45 you do realize that the styker can be armed with a 105mm auto cannon. so a BTR wouldn't stand a chance against the m1128 stryker MGS
ckkabramz 1 month ago
@ckkabramz and you do realize that the most BTR-90 versions have a 100mm and 30mm canon from the BMP-3... and BTR-80s have ATGMs that could destroy your stryker from twice the distance your MGS could destroy a BTR. The Cubans also made a BTR version with a 100mm rifled gun, Google Image search "BTR-60 with 100mm gun" and you'll see they have hundreds of those...
zerocker45 1 month ago
@zerocker45 well we have the Bradley that has a 25mm chaingun and it also can be armed with ATGMs and stinger missles and we have thousands of them...
ckkabramz 1 month ago
@ckkabramz Russians have the BMP-2 30mm auto-cannon, ATGMs, Igla-S, is amphibious, lower profile and there are more numbers. And am not even saying the BMP-3 which is WEIGHT better than the BMP-2 because there are not very much of them...
zerocker45 1 month ago
@zerocker45 well we also have the marines and they have the LAV-25A2 also 25mm chaingun but more lightweight then the Bradley but they pack one good punch, also the AAV-7A1 its quit heavy being almost 30 tons but its armed with a 40mm automatic grenade launcher a m2 50cal heavy machine gun so it cant stand up to heavily armed vehicles but it has the protection though. we can both say that both America and Russia have great vehicles but in my opinion i think America is better.
ckkabramz 1 month ago
@ckkabramz United States is better because if its capacity of producing vehicles, its higher economy and number of soldiers. BTW America is a continent not a country.
If you say america you are saying Brazil, USA, Mexico, Haiti, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Cuba, all of those countries. North America isn't either USA, North America is Mexico and Canada as well.
zerocker45 1 month ago
@zerocker45 well thats cool and i know but most of the time when people say america most people mean the USA, have a good day
ckkabramz 1 month ago
@zerocker45 BTRs are a POS, you could put a 1000mm cannon on them with an 20 missiles and they would still be junk. U.S. fire control systems and night vision/infrared are far superior to anyone elses. A Bradley would kill a BTR or a BMP before they even knew the Bradley was there. Oh and btw, the Stryker comes in multiple different variants that fire TOW missiles or the MGS system that would blow any Soviet crap to smoking pieces with ease.
macgc4 4 weeks ago
@macgc4 Soviet weapons are old, and most countries that own them have modernized them with similar fire control system and Russian Nightvision systems. Russian BTR-90/80s are far superior to the Stryker. This vehicles have diferent varians as well. The BTR-90 has a 30mm gun and Kornet ATGMs. BMPs have superior weapons and logistic capabilities than Bradleys. The BMP have pin-poin accuracy missiles better than TOW and 30mm gun and BMP-3 have that weaponry plus a 100mm gun.
zerocker45 4 weeks ago
@macgc4 The Cuban MGS BTR-70 system is very similar to the American Bradley. It has protection against 12.7mm bullets and 23mm in the frontal arc. It has a highly maneuverable turret with a 100mm cannon. Another version which is a BTR-60 has a 73mm gun, 7.62mm machine gun, 30mm AGS-17 granade launcher, 3 ATGMs and can transport same amount of troops the BTR-60 can. There is no way a Bradley is better than a BMP-2/3 or that a Stryker is better than any BTR-60/70/80/90. in any version
zerocker45 4 weeks ago
Like compareing the m16 to the buffalo eods use
soap7771 2 months ago
It's all catch 22 with the m1 abrams and stryker, yes abrams has big gun but slow speed and carries about 4 comfortably, the stryker is speed with adaptability for doffernet weapons systems and technogical systems its another armored offensive and defensive apc. Abrams is tank, stryker is armored, weaponized apc
soap7771 2 months ago
Most of you on here are missing the point. I served with the 1st Stryker Brigade. Nothing in any Army matches it's variants, speed, mobility and lethal abilities with troop dismount. Heavy armor has too big of a logistical footprint to keep them going. The Stryker Brigade can cover vast amounts of area that heavy armor just can't. It complements each other. We lost 28 in our Brigade in one year. Compare that to one year in any other war and I'd say hands down it's safe and lethal.
MrCraig57 2 months ago
I've fought from un-armored M998's, from up-armored M1114's, from M113's, M2's, MRAPS & from NVT's. Of all those vehicles give me the Stryker. It's not perfect, but it's the best. It's the most comfortable, the most versatile, carries the ideal number of Soldiers. No vehicle is perfect for every tactical situation. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. I've been to combat four times. I felt safest in a Stryker. The gun sucks, though. Put in a Bushmaster 25mm.
azimuth361 3 months ago
copied from the BTR-60. Soviet technology of the 60's.
fantomazer70 3 months ago
@fantomazer70 BTR is copied from D1mark1,. British technology from 1916.
GlacierCodfish 3 months ago
There is a reason why I like the Canadian LAV-III better.
#1) It has a 25mm auto-cannon not a .50cal
#2) It DOES NOT have a add steel fence on the side for armour witch adds 3ft amd a couple of tons to it
#3) Its lighter
#4) More mobile
#5) it can also suit mulitiple roles
#6) it can attack armor without having to wait for the MGS
BaconTV123 4 months ago
@BaconTV123
you really think a 25mm cannon is going to take out any real armor, thats what the M2A3 is for
SaintsSpecOps 4 months ago
@SaintsSpecOps not full blow MBTs but like BMPs of such type...but really 25mm autocannon - .50cal
BaconTV123 4 months ago
@SaintsSpecOps The 25 mm gun of the Bradley fired APDS-T rounds in OIF & was able to penetrate parts of T-55's. I would say it's pretty capable.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@BaconTV123 1) It shouldn't have an auto-cannon, that would cause far too much collateral damage in the places it is designed to go.
2) If the Canadian LAV-III didn't have slat armor like the Stryker, then it's basic armor would absolutely be penetrated by an RPG hit.
5) There are many Stryker variants.
6) There is also the TOW equipped vehicle. Also, every Stryker ICV has a 9 man squad equipped with the Javelin missile. So it is very capable of anti-armor purposes.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@BaconTV123 The steel fence is a good thing! Reactive armor and slat armor, dude! :p
But the stryker is stronger, has amazing survivability against IEDs, and is made with advanced electronics for digital warfare. Probably alot better than the LAV; eventhough the LAV's Bushmaster cannon IS pretty cool.
GlacierCodfish 3 months ago
@GlacierCodfish slat and reactive armor yes but i still dont like the idea of 3ft add to the sides
BaconTV123 3 months ago
@BaconTV123 Too big? I think it makes it look unconventional and modern.
GlacierCodfish 3 months ago
@GlacierCodfish lol .. but in a urban area you might have to go down a ally and being big then a 80's police car wont help much
BaconTV123 3 months ago
@BaconTV123 Maybe not if it's a car you have,. But a Stryker would probably smash that ally up good, since its so strong :p
GlacierCodfish 3 months ago
MGS-lets turn our tanks in and put a gun that is the samew in an Abrham tank to fight against other tanks. Of course, npw they are sayong they will get rid of Strykers and in ten yrs-will be designing a new vehicle. So much for expeditionary war fare in the Army. Great vehicles until they figured nout they did not have enough planes to fly a Brigade as opposed to a whole division-this is where it becomes counter intuitive
daveme7 4 months ago
@daveme7
MGS is a 105 with downgraded ammo - nowwhere near the 120mm full power smoothbore.
52111centrumcz 2 months ago
in soviet Russia Army strykes you!
jake062490 4 months ago
pffft. strykers... just fire at the lower hull part in between the tires you get a sure penetration... with a weapon as small as a .45 pistol
Lazar MRAPS is a better choice or even a BMP-3 >.>
Giganaut233 5 months ago
@Giganaut233 Have you tried shooting a .45 ACP at a Stryker's lower hull between the tires?
NatedogJr 5 months ago
@NatedogJr yep even tested it wiht the 7.62x39 and had the same results . and guess what. them vulcanized tiers it has burns so easy. and $10K a piece :D
also i heard from a friend of mine that some kid in somewhere in Iraq if i can remember, successfully planted a home made bomb behind the stryker just chucked it on the rear compartment and boom. and this is because the stryker had no windows at the back.
i'd rather be in a Lazar MRAP
Giganaut233 5 months ago
FNSS Pars is a Better APC......
BordoEnes 6 months ago
Hezbollah showed the world the IDF and Merkeva MBT is not invincible to a determined guerrilla force. 49 MT's were hit in 2006 Lebanese War. Palestinian guerrilla's also destroyed 2 MBT with IED's. The key is finding the vulnerable spot to hit
AccordGTR 6 months ago
@AccordGTR Hahah Even worse. A documentary showed that some merkavas where destroyed by simple Rpg-7s they even interviewed one of the terrorist who did it.
BordoEnes 6 months ago
@BordoEnes Yes I think I saw that...the sudied the online diagrams of the Merkeva and found out there is a weak spot in the rear door so they hid and waited until the tank turned their back to them and calmly shot it point blank with an RPG. Takes freakin balls to do that to the IDF who were there to kill them
AccordGTR 6 months ago
This concept is copy of Czechoslovakian/Polish OT-64 SKOT.. the end of story..
PanHustej 7 months ago
is this calvary scouts because i just want to know or another infatry div
123nypd 9 months ago
made and designed in Canada
TheJesseMD 9 months ago
@TheJesseMD
Incorrect
CaptainAmerica322 9 months ago
I'm looking at becoming an officer soon. What job should I look at the command a stryker brigade?
voteforalan 10 months ago
@voteforalan join the US Marine Corps. The USMC Has had the LAV/LAR?LA family of vehicles since the 80's to the Marines they are old now...
TheLincnlvr 7 months ago
The striker was designed by Canada
TheCFarmy 10 months ago
they replace the hmmvees against the mrapv
MrShane1996si 11 months ago
The Stryker is an infantry carrier. It gives the light infantry more lethality and survivability. It was designed to bridge the gap between light infantry and heavy armor, not replace it. All of you that get it confused with heavy armor. I've seen it in action in Iraq and believe me...if you were on the receiving end of its power, mobility, stealth and lethality...you would be dead. Do your research before posting. I did my senior thesis on the Stryker..months of research.
MrCraig57 11 months ago
@MrCraig57 It kinda confuses me why people bash this vehicle. I mean, this is a something I rather ride in than the HUMVEE. It's a big upgrade for those vulnerable troops.
Wes2299 10 months ago
@Wes2299 Oh yeah. The HUMVEE is primarily used for cargo transport (logistics) and troop transport, which is a light utility vechicle. Can be used for non-combat roles such as for Military Police or an ambulance
It can also be a Light Armored Car. Some used Up Armored kits used for small arms protection. Unfortunately it can still be destroyed by an RPG and IED.
NatedogJr 9 months ago
@NatedogJr
Most Modern APC's can still be destroyed today by rpg's.
The increase of Armor shouldn't be the only counter against threats such as Rpg's or mines.
Improvements on suspensions, kits, and other counters have to developed. My country has adquired some HUMMWV from the US, and they're performing well even in afghanistan, with some basic armor kits and mine protection kits.
They've been adopted to perform a mission that they're not meant to do, but they're performing acceptable
cheers
Antunez99 8 months ago
@MrCraig57
Then you probably should have compared it to a more cost effective solution which the US army posseses in large quantities, has trained professional crews on it, has thousands in storage and which would only need to have the .50 cal on it upgraded to a powered remote weapons station. Guess what is it?
52111centrumcz 2 months ago
These are perhaps one of the worst vehicles for the US Army. If the Army really wanted to go all-wheeled there were far superior choices in the V-150/300/and 600 series,and they're all American and American built as well.
VickersIndependent 11 months ago
The strker was named after my great great unle robert strker if u look him up on google u will fine him
zonedout45 11 months ago
Amazing how this bald dude has just eaten the US Army's bullshit hook, line, an sinker. Check out The Real Stryker series here on You Tube.
Shocking how bad this vehicle is.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
A bit to lightly armed. A 50cal is not much use when u come across a BTR-90 with a 30mm cannon or any other armour on the battlefield !
tipex12 1 year ago
what about the tires?
jeank2352 1 year ago
@jeank2352 The tires are built to survive when it's hit by a road side bomb when a road side bomb explodes near the tires the other rear tires can still control and drive the stryker when hit by a road side bomb.
Flying3803 1 year ago
in my opinion this tanks are useless,because you can blow him up with a single rpg.
linuxpowerification 1 year ago
Psyched that i get to go for training on these in 12 days, not to mention getting to drive them ;) Excited not to have to hoof it everywhere i go...
tylerthorne711 1 year ago
Didn't the russian deployed Stryker class APC since the early 60s?
So whats really new about these? I mean any shoulder fired anti tank would waste one of these.... so there isnt any real major leap here.
I think the integrated digital system might be the only thing work looking into.
gorillagirlgorilla 1 year ago
@gorillagirlgorilla What? No, the Russian did not. The Swish deployed the first model, which the Stryker is based off, in the 1980s. The Stryker survive numerous RPG-7 hits and two thousand pounds of IED. Of course, the Stryker would not survive TOWs and other anti-tank missiles but even today modern tanks would be destroyed if hit.
916ppl 1 year ago 13
@916ppl
you are playing too much cod.
linuxpowerification 1 year ago
@916ppl a thousand pound IED would spread pieces of it several hundred feet around...even ~200 lb is more then enough to kill the crew of any modern tank, the stryker has no chance...heck, even a concrete bomb with the JDAM package will smash a tank, the stryker would be in two pieces...
as for RPGs - only because of the "cage" addon, without it, the crew would be severely wounded or dead...
AKAtheA 8 months ago
@916ppl I have two words for you Patria AMV
MrFinCraft 4 months ago
@916ppl if they stop RPG's, why do you see them with bar armour
MRWALKER500000 3 months ago
@MRWALKER500000 The cage armour is used to reduce the effectiveness of shaped charge-tipped missiles. If an Explosively Formed Penetrator hits the hull, it cuts right through and makes a mess inside. If the EFP hits the cage first, then the gap between the cage and the slat armour helps dissipate the charge and the slat armor is more likely to protect the occupants.
SSG P. OIF I, OIF III, OIF VII.
azimuth361 3 months ago
@azimuth361 oh, but say Post-Iraq/Afghanistan, the stryker brigades are the first wave of any U.S intervention forces. Say if you go into Iran (Not saying you will), the Iranians will not send in green draftees like those encountered in Afghanistan, they will deploy T-72's, BMP's and tandem warhead RPG's and all stryker has is a .50 or 40ml GMG with a few MGS units sprinkled throughout? how do you think the SBCT's will fair in a high intensity battle?
MRWALKER500000 3 months ago
@MRWALKER500000 That brings me back to my point. No vehicle is perfect, but I'd still prefer to fight from this one. It's an IFV. It's not meant to lock horns with tanks. Oh, sure. If we get eyes on first & can kill it with CAS, arty or my guys on the ground with rockets, we will. Of course, you don't fight the war you want. You fight the war you get. If I have to fight a tank I will. And I just may win. Don't forget, a Swordfish crippled the Bismark.
azimuth361 3 months ago
@azimuth361 But what if the enemy deploys effective countermeasures against CAS (Remember the A-10 is slow) all that will be left that could counter enemy Armour would be effective but vulnerable FGM-172 and AT-4 one shot anti tank weapons, and remember Infantry dont stack up well in a fast moving mechanized or even CBRN battlefield. The MGS and TOW carrier could have been replaced by a single more effective vehicle, the M8 Buford
MRWALKER500000 3 months ago
@MRWALKER500000
fgm 148
SaintsSpecOps 3 months ago
@azimuth361 Ok then, if you are satisfied with the Stryker, im not going to argue with a seasoned vet, but what i do say that the stryker does not and will not fair good in a high intensity warfare scenario. The worlds opposing armies will have learned from desert storm, in fact the Chinese army pissed themselves post iraq because their army was modeled on similar lines with the Iraqis. In short, future US enemies will be much more capable
MRWALKER500000 3 months ago
@916ppl
I'd like to see ANY video or text evidence from the military of a stryker surviving more than one RPG-7 hit.
52111centrumcz 2 months ago
@916ppl You are wrong... the stryker never survived RPG-7 hits. The soldiers weren't killed but the vehicle was disabled... I can give you pictures. The projectile broke through the Slat Armor and through the MEXA balistic layer and inside the vehicle.
zerocker45 2 months ago
@916ppl What,it survived 2000 pounds of IED.You are wrong,even a tank cannot survive 2000 pounds of IED(it would turn to scrap).
sscaero15 1 month ago
@916ppl If it hit the slate armour, I might agree with you. But if it didn't hit the slate armour. Any RPG-7 warhead would tear the Stryker up. It has really thin armour.
Failcard 1 month ago
so what happens to the battlefield data in the stryker if the satellite was destroy?
bunny153649 1 year ago
i drive a stryker
crypt2090 1 year ago
@crypt2090 and i fix them if you break it
srcdisaster 1 year ago
this show is so fuckin stupid.... made for 12 year old CoD players...
Hatinonthehaters 1 year ago
this kind of segments should show on Discovery Channel Philippines, i'm miss this kind of shows!!
6digit 1 year ago
lol this a nice piece of propaganda, on the other hand it would be too hilarious if that guy started pointing out at the weaknesses, and say stuff like "as you can see who designed did not think about this situation so it useless, millions of dollars for this piece of shit." Jokes apart, i dont think you can really evaluate these vehicles until they are tested against real enemies that are well equipped and proper trained.
thebasileus1 1 year ago
lol did any of you notice 1.50 caliber machine gun version of the stryker is the exact same one as in the GAME MW2 it so realistic compared to the one in the game..
Hornetman777 1 year ago
@Hornetman777 who the fuck cares about some noob game like mw2? And of course its more realistic because its real-life. Play a real war game you pussy kid
snipski0894 1 year ago
Stryker needs a redesign: under-powered, bad sensors, poor unstabalised firepower and terrible mine protection. They tried so hard to make it fit into the C-130 and failed, what is left does not address the key issues. VBCI may be heavier, but it is everything Stryker needs to be.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
USA have good taste
:)
-Canadian infantry
PcGamerPaul 1 year ago
@PcGamerPaul Holy **** let me die of shock and roll of in my grave someone thats not from the U.S.A. didn't say anything bad about us
NAVYSEALS777 1 year ago
@NAVYSEALS777 Once you get to know some US Soldiers you only say good stuff about them BTW is you guys go to war with North Korea you got the Canadians on your side.
PcGamerPaul 1 year ago
Why does he whisper?
Aonexia 1 year ago
artillery shrapnel? Aren't rpg's the main threat?
krap101 1 year ago
they should replace hmmvees but not the badass tanks
shevah2 1 year ago 11
@shevah2 they actually are planning to replace humvees.
PitbuyllGamingHounds 1 year ago
@shevah2 do you know why they don't drop the humvee but not produce more badass tanks? not because of assembly? But because the badass tank's such as the abrams, sheridan, any light armoured vehicles etc. is because anyone with a license can drive a humvee. sure you have to take a drivers license for it but it's not long and the humveee is more cheaper and more versitle. oh and you can put add-ons that would be just as effective agains indirect rpg fire, anti personal mines and small arms fire.
MarineMike97 1 year ago
isnt humvee not in production anymore?
AmericanMan44 1 year ago
@shevah2 they are replacig them with an armored truck or apc
kotorfan100 11 months ago
@shevah2 they're not replacing tanks; these are in their own brigades.
TheGreenSmoke 11 months ago
@shevah2 They have been doing that for the past three years smart ass...
peterhawkfan 9 months ago
@shevah2 they are replacing the hummvee with MRAP line of armored vechicles
texasrangersr1 5 months ago
Mac meant to say the first armored vehicle since the Bradley in the 80's. The Abrams was made before that.
CASSGO93 1 year ago
If the two super power nations, America and Russia ever went to war against each other America would win hands down.
ReaperxRsKx 1 year ago
@ReaperxRsKx
Russia is not super power.
MokomaSusi 1 year ago
I'm happy with my LAV. USMC 2147 OORAH
KevinJohnShea24 1 year ago
bionic legs? I think iron man is needed lol
FutureMarine246 1 year ago
Awesome to know these are made in my home town.
Sccuba182 1 year ago
@stahlwerke ???
TankNutDave 1 year ago
@stahlwerke ???
TankNutDave 1 year ago
Patria AMV and Polish "Rosomak" (Wolverine) is much more better! We have them in Afganistan and Talibans are fucking afraid of them!!! When they see that in column going Wolverine they do not attack! Even American solders are astonished when they see it!
GregorMar 1 year ago
@GregorMar Totally agree with you, Patria is a much better vehicle, modular design gives it a great advantage for future requirments in armour design
TankNutDave 1 year ago
@TankNutDave Thanks. You know our Wolverine survive even few IED's traps made by Talibans and no one didn't die. But last time they use over 300 kilograms of explosive materials and unfortunately driver was killed but the rest of crew alive without any wounds. It is very, very good weapon and I think it is the best combat vehicle supporting solders that was ever build. I think that we should change only OtoMelara turret on RCWS 30.
GregorMar 1 year ago
@GregorMar
Yeah but thats because its has the hitfist turret. Besides, it was mean as a vehicle that could handle 22 tons unlike the Stryker. Despite of all that wheeled vehicles are highly handicapped and they're not good combat machines. Both countries would be much better off going with light tracked platforms not this wheeled bullshit.
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555
Yeah and one more things, both are NOT TRANSPORTABLE in a C-130 if you want to actually fly somewhere, father than they would go under their own power for example (sic).
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555 What? You mean Patria AMV (Wolverine) is not transportable in a C-130??? IT IS TRANSPORTABLE it was one of condition that it must fit and be transportable by C-130 and how do you thing how we transported our Wolverines to Afghanistan? We used C-130 Hercules.
GregorMar 1 year ago
@GregorMar
You can physically fit it in a take off BUT, as you approach the max TOW of a plane, its range decreases dramatically. With a 15ton cargo you can fly a couple of thousand kilometers, with a 20ton cargo like Stryker or Rosomak you can only fly +-500km, which is not useful since they can go that far by themselves.
"how we transported our Wolverines to Afghanistan? We used C-130 Hercules."
I doubt it, maybe with Air-to-Air refueling, Where is your info coming from?
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555 That our Wolverines are transported by C-130? Simple it was one of main condition for Patria before we bought those vehicles we wanted that this vehicle was constructed under our specification, bcoz we bought also 5 C-130 from USA and we use them to transport Wolverines to Iraq and now to Afghanistan.
GregorMar 1 year ago
@GregorMar
Yeah but like the Stryker IT FAILED in its Key Performance Parameter for being air transportable. Its all pretend. Like I said, it can fit into a C-130 and take off, but its transport range is not useful. Show me where you got the info on Rosomak being transported to Afgh on a plane. Polish contingent also has Dana howizters which for sure didn't go by air, so I'm guessing they both went by sea.
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555 Of course I didn't say that all only few first and rest of vehicles were transported by the Sea but few first vehicles we transported by air bcoz we needed them there quick and rest was transported on ships it is more economic way of course.
GregorMar 1 year ago
@gosciu555 But tell me why you think that wheeled vehicles are highly handicapped and they're not good combat machines I don't understand... For example good armored Wolverine may stand even 30 mm round? So it is much faster then for example Bradley... Write me why you think in this way? and if we change this Otomelara thing on RCWS then we may transported even 10 people inside beside 3 crew!
GregorMar 1 year ago
@GregorMar
Because they get stuck ALL THE TIME, especially in mud/soft ground, tires are uber vulnerable even to small arms, and even despite runflat. What do you think will happen to a wheeled vehicle under artillery bombardment? Its tires are going to be shredded. Combat is demanding and if something is flimsy, you don't mess with it. They are inefficient in terms of protection to size and weight. Compare a Stryker to an MTVL, for a comparable protection level, Stryker weighs 20 tons vs 15.
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555 Oh sometimes yes but not all the time, and they can float and this is very important capability if you want to outflank the enemy. Then you need no sapper units only such vehicles as Patira AMV (Polish Wolverine) but in tires is special rubber mix and bulletproof inserts. You know I can say only about Wolverine bcoz I know it pretty well I can't say nothing more about Striker. So maybe You right. But Wolverine is very tough not flimsy and our solders JUST LOVE THEM
GregorMar 1 year ago
Comment removed
gosciu555 1 year ago
@GregorMar
I know they are well like BUT the commanders job is to get the biggest combat power for the money, not what makes the soldiers happy. A better option would be to get light tracked platforms like LPG from HSW, M113 or BWP-1 to serve where Rosomak is serving now and put real money into a proper IFV or HIFV. With wheels you lose A LOT of flexibily, reliability and robustness. Every vehicle has its limits, but tracked vehicles have much higher limits.
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555 Yes You're right and that is why our soldiers just love this vehicle bcoz it has power, good armour and it is well protected against IED! Talibans are afraid of our vehicles and in they always run away when they see that our solders have them in combat. And solders are always happy where they may trust in their combat vehicles right?
Regards :-)
GregorMar 1 year ago
@GregorMar
"For example good armored Wolverine may stand even 30 mm round? "
Pfff!?! Buahah, maybe 30mm AP on a small section in the front but 30mm APFSDS no way. Besides you can say that about many vehicles, so what? An uparmored BMP-1 could have the same protection, what your point?
"So it is much faster then for example Bradley... "
Buahah, right in a 1/4 mile drag race maybe but not in the field.
Look 60mph Strykers going 0mph
watch?v=u_E25Yyv0ZE
watch?v=uTlvmC1rIUA&feature=related
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555 Oh NO! No there is no comparison between BMP-1 and Wolverine. BMP-1 cant stand 12,7mm Gun from sides and Wolverine in standard can stand 14,5mm gun and tin the front 30mm and if you will put more armour plates then it stand 30mm round from sides
As for which is faster, Wolverine may going 100km/h on road and 80 km/h in terrain and 10km/h in water! It is very good result and have potential to go even faster if there will new engines put into vehicle, its construction is also modular
GregorMar 1 year ago
@GregorMar
Well the up armored Rosomak can't swim, and it DOESN'T have 14.5mm protection in its standard form, only 7.62mm. The 14.5mm protection is in the form of modular MEXES armor which you can install on a BWP if you want. You cannot uparmor the Rosomak to take 30mm from the sides are you crazy? It wouldn't handle the weight, look at the Puma, its 40 tons. Rosomak doesn't have 30mm in the whole front, only on the top glacis where the additional armor is.
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555 @gosciu555 In standard protection in STANAG 4569 looks like that: In the front it is 4 and from sides it is 3+ and that was parameters for main AMV Patria in 2004 now we were producing our own new armor in steelworks Stalowa Wola which is much lighter and tougher then armor from Swedish steel which was in main vehicles. And that is why I want that change Otomelara turret it's too heavy and RCWS30 no.I will write You more about armor on Private Message
GregorMar 1 year ago
@gosciu555 And look on this photo it is after 14,5 rounds fire test and like You see it can stand ti :-)
Ehhh :-( I can't gave this link here so I will send it to You also on PM :-(((
GregorMar 1 year ago
@GregorMar
NOBODY drives a 100km/h in a war zone, and definitely not 80km/h on terrain, thats nonsense. Besides, you're going 0km/h if you get stuck, and wheeled vehicles are stuck often. With tracked vehicles you can move offroad *with assurance* in tough conditions which you can't do with wheels. If you're afraid to go off road for fear of being stuck then in essence you don't have true off road capability. Going from place to place, tracked are faster, combat isn't a drag race.
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555 I'm sorry... But... I don't understand WHY nonsense? You drive as fast you can bcoz thanks to this enemy can't tract you on his backsight. But even trucked vehicle can stuck also did you saw pictures of stuck German tanks into Russian mud during II WW? Of course combat isn't a race but if you going fast then enemy can't track you and you may use also this speed to surprised the enemy! And surprise is very important trump on battle field. You know this.
GregorMar 1 year ago
@gosciu555 You're right. Driving at that 100km/h speed would mean that you place yourself and the crew of the AFV at risk of speed related accidents like the dubious rollover. Even if you could safley drive that fast,it wouldn't matter because the enemy could just add more lead to his shot.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@gosciu555 Haha I saw this Striker stuck 3 times hahaha :-P
See some about Wolverine it is Patria's movie but you will see there Polish Wolverine on field tests for Polish army:
watch?v=W8bGO04bDnQ
watch?v=TSzCuVtk5CQ
GregorMar 1 year ago
@gosciu555
And this:
watch?v=mGYAO_8xhjg
GregorMar 1 year ago
@gosciu555 BTW this
watch?v=uTlvmC1rIUA&feature=relate was 40 km from my home but does means nothing at first you have to see how other vehicles act in such requirements... This was usual rally for people and old military equipment and army rent out Wolverine just for fun for those people that they see how its working in the field. And I think even tank which is much heavier wouldn't not manage with this. And old cars with 6 weals are much lighter about 8 tons not 22.
GregorMar 1 year ago
@gosciu555 Look the same Borne Sulinowo in 2008 even old tank T-55 didn't manage with even smaller hole with sand in 2:28
watch?v=iE_lV0JK7uA&feature=related
GregorMar 1 year ago
@gosciu555 It might even be possible to adapt the explosive reactive armour of the BMP-3 to a BMP-1 chassies which would give protection against said 30mm rounds. As for that 60mph speed,all Strykers have a speed cap on them which limits the speed to 45mph. This cap was further reduced to 35mph because older Strykers were loosing their tires.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
I think its made too replace tanks beusace its fast and can drive i rough enviorment
knibis95 1 year ago
@knibis95 No its not, the US is currwently working on the development of a new tank to replace the M1a1 / M1A2 series
TankNutDave 1 year ago
@TankNutDave A new tank to replace the M1A2? AFAIK they're working to upgrade its systems further. IMO all they need to do is give it a diesel like what the Aussies did. Logistics(Fuel)/Maintenance are really the only weak points that bad boy has.
I certainly hope they don't replace it soon!
CaptainMorgan32 1 year ago
@CaptainMorgan32 Well the M1A2 was replaced by the SEPV1 now SEPV2 and AIMSA is still on going. US Curently is running the BCT Ground Combat Vehicle Program, which is said to be the new M1A3 Abrams. As for the Australians, they still use the same gas turbine engine as the US, however they use diesel fuel rather than the jet fuel like the US does.
TankNutDave 1 year ago
@TankNutDave Oh interesting so its like a diesel turbine? Guess thats the only way they can use diesel and still generate horsepower on par with the gas version.
CaptainMorgan32 1 year ago
@CaptainMorgan32 No mate, NATO have standardisation agreements called STANAG's and one of those back in the 50/60's was that NATO tanks had to be multi fuelled, which the Abrams AGT engine is, it can run on several fuels, its just by choice due to ease of supply what each nation wishes to use, be it diesel or jet fuel. Does that make sense? :-)
TankNutDave 1 year ago
@CaptainMorgan32 diesel has more power than gas in the form of stump pulling torque. It wouldn't make sense to put a gas engine in something as big as a Stryker.
slarmas 1 year ago
@slarmas The comment about the diesel engine was in reference to the Australians using diesel fuel with their M1A1 Abrams tanks. I thought that they used a diesel engine but in fact (TankNutDave corrected me on this) their tanks use the same gas turbine that Americans use.
I agree it wouldn't make sense to put a gas engine in a Stryker, plus diesel engines are much more fuel efficient and easier on logistics chains.
CaptainMorgan32 1 year ago
@knibis95. Not a chance. Its made to replace the older APCs like the M113. A weeled APC can never replace real tanks and IFVs in a pitched battle.
thenoobfactor 1 year ago
I love this vehicle
AC130EMPYREAL 2 years ago
this thing fuckin scares me...
carth101 1 year ago
Us canuks can make pretty good apc's!
USMCjunior117 2 years ago
stryker units kill more taliban then, marine lav units trust.
Californianboy626 2 years ago
Just one question, how effectiv can stryker be against another apcs like btr 3? and are they not wulneable against emps?
grumman84 2 years ago
Those mortar carriers certainly proved their worth when I was serving. They could come in, set up, lob a few shells, then get up and go before counter-battery fire could find them.
Warhero32 2 years ago
@Warhero32 cab a stryker survive an rpg hit?
cedricalien 2 years ago
@cedricalien Yes with cage armor.
RaptureandZune 1 year ago
@RaptureandZune I mean without cage armour. will the troops be ok?
cedricalien 1 year ago
@cedricalien Can't be sure but at least it won't burn like an aluminum M113.
RaptureandZune 1 year ago
The Stryker has many new modifications right?,Ever since the War in Iraq some of them have been changed right to withstand Ieds?
15thsquadron01 2 years ago
Starting at 4:00 is the spin.... yeah it can be put on a C-130 but because of the weight the C-130 can only make it a very short range....and without the Mel-Gibson road warrior cage... as for manuverability, it is limited to where wheeled vehicles can go...
231x2 2 years ago
Actually, if you listen to the man, you'll notice he says "We can move in WITHIN THEATER on C-130s and across large distances using the C-17"
Warhero32 2 years ago
combining a LAV with extreme fire powr is one of th bes thing the u.s militay has ever done
xWHOPPERxJRx 2 years ago
I see these things everyday.
They have a LOT of issues. They have a super high silhouette - not something a PC should have, and a high center of gravity.
They tip over easily on rough terrain and have a much slower terrain speed then a tracked vehicle.
Yes, they are very fast...on roads/flat solid ground.
In addition because its wheeled, it can not carry as much armor as a track.
A new tracked IFV would have been a better investment.
But we are stuck with it now...
torak101 2 years ago
@Torak101 Well douche fag, maybe you should stop believing the hype and ride into combat in one of these...27 months spent in Iraq with 1-23 IN and there is no other vehicle I would rather have supporting me. Its actually a lot harder to get stuck then you think, and they can self recover quick as hell.
crazyheeb 2 years ago
TV Hosts are always such fags.
zapwatt 2 years ago
most stryker APCs in the middle east have a slat armor barrier around the vehicle to protect against those pesky RPG troopers.
internaut2 2 years ago
Cool.
othur 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stryker/LAV's are great for RPG target practice exercises. OOPS my bad, the bad guys use RPG's. LOL
nevsky1961 2 years ago