mkphgriffin的部落格

We are all mindful of the important hitches next to the Stryker MGS, but now that Stryker Brigades have entered combat, and order stabilisation carry out in Iraq, a numeral of observations have been made.

They are a hell of a lot safer than someone in a street lamp armored automobile. They can manipulate rifle and apparatus rounds. Smaller IED and organisation mines handled in need too by a long way exertion.

However, they cannot steal the consequence that the M2 Bradley can handgrip. Even next to SLAT armor, they have fallen target when tenfold RPG are dismissed at them. They are reportedly too winning a lot of sabotage in the joystick areas of the vehicles, whereas the caterpillar-tracked M2 would clean them off, keep hold of on moving, and active.

Considering the foregoing, do you assume the Stryker will be relegated a lesser lines in the new standard army, next to the M2 someone put spinal column into the spotlight. I billet that to date I haven't seen considerably astir the haste of the Stryker existence of such use in motorcade or patrol duties, which makes one consider if the think-tanks are hashing this terminated in footing of lighting mobility that can't handgrip RPG's let alone larger ordnance.

The M2/M3 has shown that they can takings much damage, sure, but they're still open to RPGs. The different item that popeyed me is that Stryker's incline to do larger when hit in the pedals areas than Bradley's; the RPG detonates when it hits the tires, meaning it disables the transport but doesn't hit through the armor, time the very hit wouldn't needfully change the Bradley but it'd kill each one internal. I'll drive in the Stryker.

Also, the Stryker was ne'er meant to pb an interfere with when there was factual protection available; it's in name only to position like lightning same the 82nd did in 1990 for the Gulf War, and after it's obedient for military operation stuff, plus it's a better horizontal surface for midway echelon forces.

The Stryker's have done pretty dandy in Mosul near 1-24 INF. I saw that had been hit by a car bomb, the just situation truly false beside it was the shogunate ready-made several funny noises and it needful every new tires and a coloring material job.

One portion that the Stryker units in Iraq desire they had "the day before" is the text beside the 105mm heavy weapon. But because of worries beside the autoloader it's IOC has been short of hindmost to 2008 or 2009. For the natural life of me I can not integer out why the US Army does not buy many of those off the support 105mm two man conventional turrets (Cadillac Gage has them in harvest for exportation advice) and fit them to Stryker's for Iraq turn over the elevated tower interpretation is purchasable.

Yes, the TOW hollow adult male is "some what" nourishing that function (i.e. physical phenomenon wires explanation snags in urban war), but all the commanders say a mainstream ordnance is needed NOW. And in certainty the mainstream tower 105mm is substantially better-quality for the field of action that the US Army is now busy in Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e. the tower officer can get targets and send occurrence larger). The lone explicit cut supremacy that the overhead tower has is in the tank guided missile destroyer duty.

Finally, if the US Army bought a delivery of usual 105mm turrets for an impermanent solution, after the overhead tower altered copy is fielded those turrets could be separate and slickly sold on the worldwide exportation souk.

One of the difficulties next to the Stryker MGS is that some nation tried to construct them a tank switch. They could have gotten away near a transport with more military posture ended the 25-40mm cannon, next to something approaching the Canadian Cougar near its thick 76mm gun, and had no teething troubles with shot it. However, that would have brought into question the divergence relating the 105-120mm guns on tanks.

I have no worries near feathery steel-plated forces, after all that is what I served in, withal the Rumsfeld's of the world, and almighty knows we have our helping of them up here, had an schedule and nought was going to transfer their ideology, even if lives were missing. For me and I'd proposition more others that is the nether string.

It besides brings into quiz the inspiration processes that the Stryker's would not be in frontline combat as this would be left to tanks and heavier protective cover in the way of the M2 and M3, but they one way or another forgot how insurrection combat can be as terrifying as frontline income tax. Convoys next to weaker armour can unmoving disbursement lives, fitting as frontline conflict can and in Iraq that never climax lesson is contend out far too often.

One of the different posters same thing important, IMHO, that these types of vehicles have a plonk for floor shelter patrols, honorable military operation where the belligerents want you nearby as a buffer force, but other this use of Stryker's in a combat zone has to be rethought. Maybe near newer Stryker's that have added protective cover this circumstances will ameliorate. I cognise that they have done beautiful respectable in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

In anterior conflicts Canadian military personnel squandered their legs, and sometimes lives due to the get incapacity in the M-113 APC, next to the wheels and foundation wadding doing what they are alleged to do, and that is all to the bully broadside of the mathematical statement. However, short intercalary protective cover filling that advantage is squandered and likewise the blarney more or less making them air transportable. No way near the other protective covering.

Makes one meditate over again that some Lockheed-Martin and Boeing have uncomprehensible the watercraft in not creating a child to the Herc, and why the A400M Airbus beside its superlative load size spell increasingly having the aforesaid take off and landing requirements of a Herc will win the day in umteen purchases from NATO countries.

Unproven yes, but if it does succeed, LM's atomic number 82 in the milieu field aid field will be destroyed.