Military Review

Upgraded Strikers Delivered to Europe

48
Divisions of the US Army, stationed in Europe, received the first upgraded armored personnel carriers. According to the portal defense-blog.com, the Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle Dragoon (ICVD) combat vehicles took part in military exercises that took place at the Grafenwer military base in the German city of the same name.


Upgraded Strikers Delivered to Europe


The first Stryker ICVD armored personnel carriers received the 2 Cavalry Regiment of the US Army, stationed in the town of Vilsecq (Bavaria). In the basic version, the Strikers are equipped with 12,7 mm caliber machine guns, but the US Defense Department considered that for the European theater of military operations the combat capabilities of the rifle weapons may be few. Therefore, it was decided to equip the armored personnel carriers with uninhabited turrets with an XM30 813-mm gun manufactured by ATK.

This gun can fire single shots, as well as in automatic mode with a rate of fire of up to 200 projectiles per minute. The US Department of Defense believes that in this form, the Stryker will be able to withstand the Russian infantry fighting vehicles BMP-3 and Kurganets-25.

The uninhabited turret holds 156 30 × 173 mm shells and 200 7,62 mm ammunition for a coaxial machine gun. The tower operator controls its armament with an all-weather target detection and identification system. In addition, on the tower there are installations for shooting smoke grenades and, if necessary, ATGW can be mounted, reports "Warspot"
Photos used:
defence-blog.com
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dr. Barmaley
    Dr. Barmaley 28 February 2018 11: 31
    +1
    The US Department of Defense believes that in this form, Stryker will be able to withstand Russian infantry fighting vehicles BMP-3 and Kurganets-25.


    Will the 30 mm gun confront the 100 mm gun and ATGM?
    1. siberalt
      siberalt 28 February 2018 11: 46
      +3
      Cheap advertising, however. Look, Gennady Malakhov also rubs “horsepower” into his lap every day, and what's the point? Maybe rubbing it in the wrong place? winked
      1. just exp
        just exp 28 February 2018 14: 19
        +1
        in vain you laugh, they have a pretty decent gun, even with 30mm it has programmable fuses.
    2. seos
      seos 28 February 2018 11: 55
      +6
      This gun easily penetrates the armor of modern BMP-3 and Kurgan residents at a distance of 2 km .. We can’t make such a weapon .... more precisely, we lack the manufacturing technology of BOPS and the shitty quality of gunpowder ...
      In terms of energy, their 30 × 173 mm projectile corresponds to our 30X210V (the mass and speed of the projectile HE is equal), but the problem remains of the impossibility of creating a BOPS and that the 30X210V shell is not used in our country, because it was decided to use a universal 30X165 shell without modern BPS ...
      We have a BTS without a detachable pallet having funny characteristics ....
      But there is an opinion that we do not need 30 mm BOPS:
      1) The NATO armor standard for infantry fighting vehicles already contains the characteristics of armor penetration of a non-existent 30 mm BPS, which makes the plans for its development doubtful ...
      2) There are many tanks in our army at the storage bases, and we have more of these tanks than all European medium and heavy armored vehicles ... and the tank can easily cope with any cannon IFV ...
      3) ATGM is several times cheaper than a 30 mm gun and its ammunition, it is more profitable to put ATGMs on all suitable equipment (for some reason this is not taken into account ... 30 mm 2a72 gun for the Russian army costs 1.5 m., ATGM about 0.5 m .R)

      Moreover, there has been a transition to 57 mm guns, which duels with NATO tanks should win ...
      1. Lex.
        Lex. 28 February 2018 12: 04
        +3
        Moreover, there has been a transition to 57 mm guns, which duels with NATO tanks should win ...
        This 10 years will pass when it will put into service a simple example of BMP
        1. seos
          seos 28 February 2018 12: 20
          +1
          Now there are no problems with the destruction of NATO tanks ... in view of their absence (NATO tanks)
          And their infantry fighting vehicles are perfectly destroyed by obsolete tanks of the T-55 type, T-62 of which we have 19000 at storage bases ...
          1. Lex.
            Lex. 28 February 2018 12: 22
            +2
            And how many of them will pass all of them probably rust in the open sky and inoperative
            1. seos
              seos 28 February 2018 12: 25
              0
              We went very well in Syria ...
              Moreover, the factories are full, the tank is easy to manufacture and maintain, it will be quickly restored.
      2. Hiller
        Hiller 28 February 2018 22: 27
        0
        Armor BMP 3 as described in the "Operation Guide" bulletproof and anti-shatter. I can’t say anything about Kurganets. There is no data. I think you too. As well as about the defeat range of 2 km. BMP 3 uses guided missiles, which are included in the ammunition of a 100 mm gun, so the trio of 100mm + 30mm + SD are very effective. Especially with a quality crew. I will not argue about the cost - I have radically different information.
        1. seos
          seos 28 February 2018 22: 49
          0
          Yes, I turned down about Kurganets), I mean the Bomerang armored personnel carrier, similar to Staryker with ceramic armor and identical in weight ...
          I took the cost from news and public procurement: https://lenta.ru/news/2018/01/11/btr/
          1. Hiller
            Hiller 1 March 2018 01: 00
            0
            Unfortunately, the link does not work for me. It gives information about the burnt armored personnel carrier.))) But let the voiced be on their conscience.)
            1. seos
              seos 1 March 2018 11: 45
              0
              Link to the tape about the burnt armored personnel carrier for 28 m. - 0.5 m $ comes out ...
              Recently, news on the BMPD was about the Asians buying a Chinese armored personnel carrier with a 30 mm gun at 1.5 m. $ Per piece.
              The cost of armament is not a military secret .... especially in our country ... even on the government procurement website you can find open information about ICBMs (such as the fight against corruption) wassat
          2. Hiller
            Hiller 1 March 2018 01: 23
            0
            In my opinion, such information is not for open printing.)
    3. seos
      seos 28 February 2018 12: 17
      0
      Will the 30 mm gun confront the 100 mm gun and ATGM?

      Regarding the tank KUV (ATGM) - they have one significant drawback - they can penetrate the frontal armor of a modern tank only in weakened areas (lower frontal sheet, gun mask). It is necessary on their basis to develop a projectile attacking equipment from above, according to the TOW-2 type (flight with an excess above the line of sight and an attack into the roof)
      1. dvina71
        dvina71 28 February 2018 12: 21
        +1
        Quote: seos
        penetrate the frontal armor of a modern tank

        Stryker tank?
        1. seos
          seos 28 February 2018 12: 28
          +4
          I just brought a lack of domestic tank ATGMs ...
          And in the duel match of our BTR-82a or BMP-2, I would bet on the Stryker gun ... BMP-3 thanks to the ATGM has a better chance of winning, but the same is not a fact ... the optics of Stryker are probably better (more modern and more technologically advanced) .
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 28 February 2018 12: 31
            0
            Quote: seos
            probably better (more modern and more technologically advanced).

            I generally like your reasoning .. probably, apparently .. I think so ... a good way to talk about military equipment. It would be nice to operate with comparative data ..
            1. seos
              seos 28 February 2018 12: 40
              +4
              Probability of 95% will suit you more? Western electronics and optics are more technologically advanced and more advanced than ours ... Each modern western infantry fighting vehicle has excellent optics (but they are also worth $ 5-10m), given that this is a modern development ...
              1. dvina71
                dvina71 28 February 2018 15: 02
                +1
                Quote: seos
                Western electronics and optics are more technological and advanced than ours.

                What is your statement based on?
          2. Alexander War
            Alexander War 28 February 2018 12: 51
            +1
            In the BTR-82A duel, his rival, Striker, with a new cannon, regarding BMP-2, you need to look if the striker is in the red with Berezhka. Moreover, the US Department of Defense believes that Stryker will be able to withstand Russian BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles in this form and Kurganets-25. they will compare their armored personnel carrier against infantry fighting vehicles and they will compare their infantry fighting vehicles against tanks soon laughing
    4. gippernano
      gippernano 28 February 2018 16: 11
      +1
      Yes, this is so that at least something could be transported along the bridge and railway. And the fire musk is certainly impressive now, and you can’t beat armor with a stick. But this sneaky RPG-7, still spoils the mood, as it did 70 years ago.
  2. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 28 February 2018 11: 37
    +2
    The US Department of Defense believes that in this form, Stryker will be able to withstand Russian infantry fighting vehicles BMP-3 and Kurganets-25.
    But what kind of kurgan is there with behi? BTR-82a is enough for the eyes .. laughing
  3. faiver
    faiver 28 February 2018 11: 37
    0
    200 cartridges for a machine gun is not enough?
  4. Tuzik
    Tuzik 28 February 2018 11: 38
    +1
    200 rounds of machine gun? maybe 1200 or 2000?
  5. cats
    cats 28 February 2018 11: 40
    +1
    Land mine in your eye. laughing
  6. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 28 February 2018 11: 40
    +2
    received the 2nd cavalry regiment of the US Army,
    And the cavalrymen were reminded that the vehicle must be looked after like a horse - cleaned, fed (refueled), saddled correctly? And then they there in Bavaria on sausages with beer relaxed counteracting the "Russian threat"
    1. faiver
      faiver 28 February 2018 11: 50
      0
      outsourcing sir,
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 28 February 2018 17: 44
        0
        Quote: rotmistr60
        And then they there in Bavaria on sausages with beer relaxed counteracting the "Russian threat"
        If you relaxed, then this is definitely not about this regiment. "dragoon raids" on the roads of Eastern Europe it was their job. And before that there was an Iraqi campaign. In Iraq they went to the cutting edge of their 7th AK and by all accounts played an important role in defeating the elite Saddam division of Tavalkan. Then rearmament on "Strikers" and again Iraq, then the Afghan company. And now, as I said, they practice raids, develop a standard of rapid movements, so that they can then transfer their experience to other brigades that can really gobble up somewhere deep in the rear, on the American continent. U so their brigades and weapons are not so modern, and this regiment was the first to receive improved weapons.
  7. k_ply
    k_ply 28 February 2018 11: 49
    +3
    Equipping the armored personnel carrier of the DBM of the Norwegian prospect with a 30-mm gun turned it into an infantry fighting vehicle without loss of landing capacity (infantry unit of 9 people, including ATGM Javelin).
  8. gig334
    gig334 28 February 2018 13: 30
    0

    Therefore, it was decided to equip armored personnel carriers with uninhabited towers with a 30-mm gun XM813 manufactured by ATK.


    To frighten the Papuans and the nude Bandera, I think it will.
  9. Alexander War
    Alexander War 28 February 2018 13: 31
    0
    Here it is interesting whether they will put such a combat module with 4 ATGMs on the BTR-82A
    1. seos
      seos 28 February 2018 14: 37
      0
      Dope all these expensive modules and cardboard BTR ... the Americans fooled themselves by releasing a Stryker with a cannon module ..
      BTR-80 stock costs 5 m.
      BTR-82a with a 30 mm gun costs 28 m.
      gun cost 2a72 1.5 m.
      The cost of ATGMs from 300 tr to 500 tr
      Bottom line: it is much more profitable to re-equip all armored personnel carriers and MTLBs in the army with cheap, unstable combat modules on the principle that the cheaper the better (like a tower on an old BMP-2 only for 1 person or a crew without a crew but Deshmanov’s). Especially with ATGM can be done ...
      The bottom line: the armored personnel carrier was not created for battle and not for breaking through, not for suppressing the enemy ... its task is to deliver infantry and, if possible, support it with fire (not the main requirement)
      Now the army receives the BTR-82a unit and upgraded from the old BTR-80, BTR-82AM ...
      This is not an effective, too expensive modification, it would be better to upgrade the armor (there were projects), and they are fixing the module for 23 million ...
  10. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 28 February 2018 14: 01
    +2
    Quote: seos
    I just brought a lack of domestic tank ATGMs ...
    And in the duel match of our BTR-82a or BMP-2, I would bet on the Stryker gun ... BMP-3 thanks to the ATGM has a better chance of winning, but the same is not a fact ... the optics of Stryker are probably better (more modern and more technologically advanced) .


    It is interesting that the striker has this, which our BTR-82a does not have? He’ll calmly sort out our 30’s spare parts at a distance of 2 km, plus our gun more accurately. For optics, I think that it’s at least as good on the BTR-82a. It has 2 times less ammunition than our BTR-82a and 3 2 times less than BMP-10A. With BMP-2 ammunition, it can still compete, there is a 2 A42 gun, its accuracy leaves much to be desired, but a higher ammunition load minimizes this difference. 3 in general, the comparison is incorrect, one shell from a hundred parts at a distance of 5-6 km is enough for him, he will not even have time to drive up to the distance of using a thief No one will spend ATGMs on armored personnel carriers, so I don’t take them into account at all. Plus, even the version of a striker with a machine gun is 2 tons heavier than our BTR-82a with a gun and 3 tons heavier than BMP-2. And this is maneuverability and maneuverability .If a gun is mounted on it, then in mass it will approach tanks, with a corresponding even greater loss of maneuverability, maneuverability and range, on which it is already inferior to our cars. Well, he does not know how to swim. In general, Americans invent which we have long been armed with, only a worse option.
    1. seos
      seos 28 February 2018 14: 28
      +4
      It is interesting that the striker has this, which our BTR-82a does not have? He will calmly figure out the parts of our 30th at a distance of 2 km, plus

      BT 30 × 165 mm index 3UBR6 penetrates 2000 m 10 mm / 60 degrees (even the BTR-80 will not penetrate not just the Stryker, I think the Stryker can withstand this projectile from 500 m 25 mm / 60, the Stryker has high hardness steel armor + ceramic, our analogue of the BTR "Boomerang")
      BP “Kerner” 30 × 165 mm index 3UBR8 (I don’t know how widespread it is in the army) Stryker can withstand 1000m (28 mm / 60)
      The Stryker’s gun will penetrate the APC through the forehead through 2000 m.
      2A42 is a more accurate and more rapid-fire gun than 2A72, the advantage of 2a72 in small returns ... but according to information from an Internet there were problems with accuracy that were supposedly eliminated.
      Nobody will spend ATGMs on armored personnel carriers, so I don’t take them into account at all

      The most effective option to destroy Stryker is an ATGM or a large-caliber weapon
      About the weight of Striker 17.3 tons without a tower .... with a tower for 20 tons ... this is the weight of the promising Boomerang (developed in response to reports of the effectiveness of the Striker)
    2. AntiFREEZ
      AntiFREEZ 28 February 2018 17: 33
      +1
      Quote: Xscorpion
      plus our gun more precisely

      Especially 2A72 laughing laughing wassat
  11. AntiFREEZ
    AntiFREEZ 28 February 2018 17: 27
    +1
    with a 30-mm gun XM813 manufactured by ATK.

    How are we behind them in terms of programmable fuses recourse
    1. seos
      seos 1 March 2018 12: 16
      0
      125 mm tank, 100 mm for BMP-3 and 57 mm for BM Baikal missiles with air blasting were created ... There are also artillery mines and shells with blasting in the air above enemy positions.
      Our 30 mm with an explosion on the trajectory has not yet been created, and it is doubtful that they will be created in the near future because with such a caliber, the efficiency will be low, and the cost of astronomical ...
  12. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 28 February 2018 19: 11
    +1
    Quote: AntiFREEZ
    Quote: Xscorpion
    plus our gun more precisely

    Especially 2A72 laughing laughing wassat


    What do you dislike about this gun? The fact that you did not shoot from it in motion, or maybe never, even from a place?
    1. AntiFREEZ
      AntiFREEZ 28 February 2018 19: 28
      +1
      Quote: Xscorpion
      What do you dislike about this gun?

      For a long time already conversations go
      Then came the BMP-3, and on it was installed auth. 2A72 gun The operation of the gun’s automation is based on the use of barrel recoil energy during its long course, which sharply reduces the gas contamination of the carrier’s combat compartment, on which the gun is mounted, and significantly reduces the effect of powder gases on the crew ..... BMP-3 gun was paired and fixed with 100mm. she didn’t have problems with accuracy, although the rate of fire was “cut” to her. BUT, when they started trying to stuff her into the BTR-80, 82, her jambs began to get out, namely low accuracy of shooting, due to the barrel hanging like shit in an ice hole. Moreover, since it is installed in a non-residential module; its important dignity is the gas contamination of the fighting compartment.

      Taken from http://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/42/1413236.htm
  13. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 28 February 2018 19: 54
    +3
    Quote: seos
    It is interesting that the striker has this, which our BTR-82a does not have? He will calmly figure out the parts of our 30th at a distance of 2 km, plus

    BT 30 × 165 mm index 3UBR6 penetrates 2000 m 10 mm / 60 degrees (even the BTR-80 will not penetrate not just the Stryker, I think the Stryker can withstand this projectile from 500 m 25 mm / 60, the Stryker has high hardness steel armor + ceramic, our analogue of the BTR "Boomerang")
    BP “Kerner” 30 × 165 mm index 3UBR8 (I don’t know how widespread it is in the army) Stryker can withstand 1000m (28 mm / 60)
    The Stryker’s gun will penetrate the APC through the forehead through 2000 m.
    2A42 is a more accurate and more rapid-fire gun than 2A72, the advantage of 2a72 in small returns ... but according to information from an Internet there were problems with accuracy that were supposedly eliminated.
    Nobody will spend ATGMs on armored personnel carriers, so I don’t take them into account at all

    The most effective option to destroy Stryker is an ATGM or a large-caliber weapon
    About the weight of Striker 17.3 tons without a tower .... with a tower for 20 tons ... this is the weight of the promising Boomerang (developed in response to reports of the effectiveness of the Striker)


    In real life, these strikers made their way in Iraq and Afghanistan from sniper rifles and heavy machine guns. And the vaunted invulnerability in the forehead requires the installation of additional protective shields weighing more than 3 tons. But only in this case they are not transportable by the BTA. Even without armor, these strikers can be transported by plane only without ammunition. Even without armor, they get stuck in the sand and mud. There are many reviews about their use in the database zone and they are very unflattering. You take theoretical data from the Internet. Type of armor penetration at a range of 2000 m 10 mm of armor This is a guaranteed penetration. But in fact, similar results will be at a greater distance, just the percentage of penetration will decrease with distance. The RGD-5 grenade also has an effective radius of 12-15 meters, and in fact over 60 meters the fragments can cause serious injuries, I know about Chechnya. And do not forget that any reservation is not continuous, there are a lot of vulnerabilities even from the frontal projection. If there is a decent chance of not getting through a single projectile, then when shooting in bursts, a couple of shells will find a weak spot. that now bud I don’t say that it’s unrealistic to get a burst at long distances, I’ll answer that everything is real, personally at 1,5 km I put several bursts of 30 in a row in a decommissioned armored personnel carrier. If shooting from the place, it’s generally beauty, you don’t even aim at repeated queues. And for a slow target that goes straight at you, it’s a sin not to fall into it. If you maneuver, then the line will miss in the side with a guaranteed penetration. In the forehead you can also give the line of landmines so that the crew is a little depressed there. But all this is lyrics . In real life, much will depend on the offensive or the defense or counterclaim boy.Da and about artillery and tanks do not have to be such that zabyvat.Ne 2 armored personnel carriers rushed to each other at a distance of 2 km, and there is nobody around .tak that these disputes about anything.
    1. seos
      seos 1 March 2018 12: 06
      +1
      Congestion is an obvious drawback of Striker.
      The technical characteristics of Stryker claimed protection from 30 mm shells in the forehead and 14.5 mm in the side (possibly from 500 m)
      Regarding the possibility of penetrating it with a 12.7 mm machine gun ... there were rumors ... most likely there are weak spots in the armor (joints, welds, manhole doors). But technical solutions and photographs of Stryker’s ceramic armor are given and cannot be distinguished from photographs of the ceramic armor filling of our Boomerangs and Kurgan ...
      In general, there was a case of failure with a burst of 12.7 mm machine gun, the M1 Abrams tank in Iraq - a bullet pierced the airborne fenders and disabled the cooling system ...
      In real life, a lot will depend on whether the offensive is either defense or oncoming combat. Yes, you should not forget about artillery and tanks. It will not be such that 2 armored personnel carriers jumped at each other at a distance of 2 km, and there is nobody around. So these disputes about nothing.

      Exactly so, but do not forget that this modification of Stryker was created with only 1 goal and officially announced - the fight against Russian armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles ...
      1. k_ply
        k_ply 1 March 2018 20: 13
        +2
        Quote: seos
        In the technical characteristics of Stryker claimed protection against 30 mm shells in the forehead and 14.5 mm in board ...

        ??
        The declared resistance from 14,5x114 mm ammunition without question is possible.
        1. seos
          seos 1 March 2018 22: 41
          0
          All Russian-language sources indicate:
          A relatively powerful reservation allows you to protect the crew and troops from small arms fire of up to 14,5 mm caliber from the sides and stern, as well as from 30 mm shells from the forehead of the hull at distances of over 500 meters.

          https://topwar.ru/8231-kolesnyy-btr-strayker.html
          1. k_ply
            k_ply 2 March 2018 13: 46
            0
            Quote: seos
            https://topwar.ru/8231-kolesnyy-btr-strayker.html

            Hee hee hee!

            And why such links? My infa for nothing, without any intent.
  14. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 28 February 2018 20: 17
    +1
    By the way, the decision has not yet been made on boomerages and kurgan residents. The military reject them because of the high profile of the vehicles. If Kurgan still has a chance due to a variable clearance, and the fact that on its base there will be self-propelled guns, which are not critical for height, then the boomerang is worse but they are still waiting for technical solutions from the manufacturer. In terms of armament and security, they certainly surpass all our machines, then they are very inferior in terms of visibility on the battlefield and a higher probability of hitting them in battle.
    1. seos
      seos 1 March 2018 11: 53
      0
      Serial Kurgan will be reduced ....
      According to the BTR Boomerang - the military is happy with everything because it’s an armored transporter, where convenience and mine resistance are more important ..
      Boomerang review in Military Acceptance program coming soon
  15. k_ply
    k_ply 1 March 2018 20: 45
    +2
    Quote: Tuzik
    200 rounds of machine gun? maybe 1200 or 2000?



    30x173 mm gun...
    https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armame
    nt-systems / automatic-cannons-chain-guns / docs / MK44
    _Bushmaster_Fact_Sheet.pdf
  16. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 4 March 2018 17: 42
    +1
    Quote: AntiFREEZ
    Quote: Xscorpion
    What do you dislike about this gun?

    For a long time already conversations go
    Then came the BMP-3, and on it was installed auth. 2A72 gun The operation of the gun’s automation is based on the use of barrel recoil energy during its long course, which sharply reduces the gas contamination of the carrier’s combat compartment, on which the gun is mounted, and significantly reduces the effect of powder gases on the crew ..... BMP-3 gun was paired and fixed with 100mm. she didn’t have problems with accuracy, although the rate of fire was “cut” to her. BUT, when they started trying to stuff her into the BTR-80, 82, her jambs began to get out, namely low accuracy of shooting, due to the barrel hanging like shit in an ice hole. Moreover, since it is installed in a non-residential module; its important dignity is the gas contamination of the fighting compartment.

    Taken from http://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/42/1413236.htm


    These are conversations of ekperdov. I say from personal experience. Any soldier knows that the lower the return, the higher the accuracy. I can only say that in comparison with 2A42 accuracy when shooting with long bursts is worse. Just because of the effect voiced by you. But in otherwise, there are no complaints about the gun.