Under a heroic name. The main armored personnel carrier of the American army


BTR "Stryker" in Mosul, Iraq. 2005 year


Combat buses. For several decades, the main armored personnel carrier of the American army remained the tracked armored personnel carrier M113. The machine was produced in various versions in a huge series, numbering more than 80 thousand units produced. Completely withdraw from service the M113 is expected around 2030. The veteran, designed at the turn of the 1950-1960s, is gradually being replaced by new military equipment.

In the XXI century, the main armored personnel carrier of the American army is the wheeled M1126 Stryker. This four-axis combat vehicle is in service with mechanized brigades of the ground forces and is the main means of transporting motorized rifles.

From Switzerland via Canada


A new wheeled armored personnel carrier reached the United States in an interesting way, starting against the backdrop of pacifying landscapes of alpine meadows. The entire family of Stryker four-axle wheeled combat vehicles is a further development of the Canadian LAV III armored personnel carriers. In turn, the Canadians created their armored personnel carrier based on the Swiss armored personnel carrier Piranha III with an 8x8 wheel arrangement. During all these alterations, the car was modernized by each side at its discretion, but the Swiss “heredity” did not go away. Cars are still outwardly similar to each other.

The US military began to think about creating a new wheeled armored personnel carrier in 1999, at the same time as adopting a plan to transform the ground forces, taking into account new realities and moving away from the strategies of the Cold War period. The new combat vehicle was supposed to have good mobility, the ability to easily transport to any corner of the world, while occupying a niche between the heavy Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and the lightweight armored Humvi SUVs. After sorting through several possible options already available on the market, the Americans drew attention to the technique of their geographical neighbor. The Canadian branch of General Motors Defense Canada invited General Dynamics to take as a basis the ready-made LAV III armored personnel carrier as a base for the new military wheeled vehicles of the American army.


Piranha III 8x8

In 2000, after several months of testing, the option of upgrading the Canadian LAV III armored personnel carrier became the main one. At the same time, a contract was signed providing for the construction of more than two thousand new wheeled combat vehicles. In 2002, full-scale serial production began, in the same year the new armored personnel carrier received the official name. And already in 2003, the first 300 cars were transferred to Iraq, where they took part in hostilities.

General Dynamics Land Systems is responsible for the production of Strikers. Serial production of these combat vehicles was completed in 2014. A total of 4466 "Strikers" were produced, most of them are presented in the version of the classic armored personnel carriers. But in all, about ten different options were created, including reconnaissance combat vehicles, communication vehicles, command and staff versions, medical vehicles, engineering vehicles, vehicles for carrying out RBMB reconnaissance, and also carriers of heavy weapons - 105-mm guns or 120-mm mortar. Most of the "Strikers" are in service with the US Army. The foreign operator of the M1126 armored personnel carriers is so far only Thailand, which received 60 such combat vehicles from the presence of the US Army after the repair.


LAV III

Technical features of the Stryker armored personnel carrier


The four-axle armored personnel carrier Stryker M1126 with an 8x8 wheel arrangement differs in the layout classic for western vehicles of this class. The scheme with all the drive wheels is suitable for off-road driving; on the highway, the Stryker driver can use the 8x4 scheme. In front of the armored personnel carrier on the left side there is traditionally a control compartment - here is the place of the mechanical drive. On the right side in the front of the housing is the engine-transmission compartment. Behind the driver is the seat of the commander of the combat vehicle. Above the crew seats there are two hatches in the roof of the hull. The middle and aft part of the combat vehicle is occupied by the airborne squad, which can freely accommodate up to 9 motorized rifles with full equipment and weapons. Landing and landing in the armored personnel carrier is carried out through the aft ramp door, you can also use the hatches in the roof of the hull above the landing compartment.

Working on a new armored personnel carrier for the American army, General Dynamics engineers used many of the best practices and technical solutions of their colleagues from the Canadian subsidiary of GMC. So the configuration of the hull and the general layout of the combat vehicle have not changed at all in comparison with the Canadian armored personnel carrier LAV III. At the same time, significant differences in the design of two combat vehicles of neighboring countries still exist. First of all, all experts pay attention to the difference in the size of the case. The M1126 Stryker is superior to its predecessors. The Americans went to increase the height of the combat vehicle to provide the most convenient accommodation for the crew, landing and transported ammunition.


The landing of the "Stryker"

The height is also affected by the use of a V-shaped bottom on a number of vehicles, which protects the crew and the landing force from being blown up on improvised explosive devices and mines. On the roof above the landing squad, the base American armored personnel carrier is 25-30 cm taller than its Canadian relatives. The increase in the height of the machine also affected changes in the design of the hull. On the American armored personnel carrier, the upper frontal part turned out to be longer, it is connected to the roof of the hull further than on the Canadian car.

The Americans paid serious attention to armored personnel carriers. The body is welded from armor plates up to 12 mm thick, located at rational angles of inclination. In the basic version without mounted armor, it provides circular protection from 7,62 mm armor-piercing bullets, and in the frontal projection from fire from a 14,5 mm rifle weapons. When using mounted ceramic armor, circular protection is provided from 14,5 mm armor-piercing bullets and fragments of 152 mm shells, and in the frontal projection the armor is able to withstand shelling from a 30 mm automatic gun from a distance of 500 meters. True, when using sets of mounted armor, the weight of the combat vehicle increases significantly - from the standard 16,5 tons to almost 20 tons.

The heart of the armored personnel carrier is a 7 hp Caterpillar C350 diesel engine. The engine works in conjunction with an Allison 3200SP automatic six-speed gearbox. When driving on a highway, an armored personnel carrier can reach speeds of up to 100 km / h. A fuel reserve of 215 liters is enough to overcome up to 500 km when driving on the highway. The armored personnel carrier does not know how to swim, but it has a good cross, including due to the clearance of 500 mm. The machine can overcome walls 0,6 meters high, ditches up to two meters wide, and also fords up to 1,2 meters deep.


RWS remotely controlled module with an M2 machine gun

The armament of most of the M1126 Stryker APCs is exclusively machine gun. Remote-controlled RWS weapons modules are installed on the vehicles either with a large 12,7 mm M2 machine gun (2000 rounds), or a single 7,62 mm M240B machine gun (4500 rounds), or a 40 mm Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher (448 grenades). Also, the RWS installation usually typically accommodates up to 4 units of four-barrel M6 smoke grenade launchers.

BTR Stryker is named after real military personnel


The American wheeled armored personnel carrier M1126, like the entire Stryker family of wheeled combat vehicles, is named after real American military personnel. It is very rare история in relation to armored vehicles. All Stryker wheeled armored vehicles are named after the two dead American soldiers who were posthumously presented for the highest American military award - the Medal of Honor. The value of the award is evidenced by the total number of awards - approximately 3,5 thousand for all years, of which 1,5 thousand awards fall during the Civil War in the United States in 1861-1865.

The Stryker family of wheeled combat vehicles is named after Private First Class Stuart S. Stryker and Private Robert F. Stryker. Stuart died at the age of 20 in Germany near the city of Wesel on March 24, 1945. The private 17th Airborne Division, Stuart Stryker, launched a platoon that was attacked by machine-gun fire from the enemy, inspiring his colleagues following him with a personal example. As a result of his personal courage and the actions of the platoon that had attacked, other units of the company were able to circumvent the well-fortified house occupied by the Germans and forced the enemy to surrender. About 200 enemy soldiers were captured, and they also managed to free three American pilots whom the Germans held captive in the house.


Arms control screen in Stryker

Private 1st Infantry Division Robert Stryker died in Vietnam at the age of 22 November 7, 1967 near the village of Lok Ning. The reconnaissance group, in which Stryker served, was ambushed in the jungle. The unit took the battle, during which Private Robert Stryker rescued six of his comrades from the striking elements of the Claymore mine, directed by the enemy, by covering it with his body.

Assessment of the M1126 armored personnel carrier


As we see, the Americans approached the choice of the name for their new wheeled armored personnel carrier with a fair amount of patriotism. As captain Vrungel said in the famous animated film: “As you call a yacht, it will sail.” The United States has definitely dealt with this task. But there are certain questions to the machine itself.

Unlike the first tracked M113 models and all Soviet / Russian armored personnel carriers of the BTR-80 family, the new American armored personnel carrier lost the ability to swim.

Also, experts attribute weak weapons to the shortcomings of an armored personnel carrier. It is clear that such vehicles are not called military buses for nothing, their main purpose is to bring the soldiers to the right point under the protection of armor. But if necessary, the Strykers can often support motorized rifles only with machine gun fire. Most vehicles have either 7,62 mm or 12,7 mm machine guns. There are also versions equipped with 40 mm automatic grenade launchers. Fighting such a set of weapons even with lightly armored enemy vehicles is almost impossible. At the same time, there are plans to strengthen the APC firepower. We are considering options for installing a turret with a 30-mm cannon and a remotely controlled module with the possibility of launching a Javelin ATGM.


BTR "Stryker" at the training center Fort Irwin

At the same time, the car has obvious advantages. One of them is a well-developed layout and a good base. The machine is a modernized version of the time-tested and well-proven MOWAG Piranha armored personnel carrier, which is in service with many countries of the world (more than 20 states). As in the vast majority of modern armored personnel carriers, the landing takes place through the ramp located in the rear of the hull, which provides the safest of all possible options when the infantrymen from the front are protected by the entire hull of the combat vehicle. Separately, a good level of armor protection can be distinguished, including through the use of additional mounted ceramic armor; powerful engine; high ground clearance; as well as good mine protection: some of the vehicles were modernized and received a V-shaped bottom with reinforced armor.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

125 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vasily Ponomarev 22 February 2020 06: 25 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    But if necessary, the Strykers can often support motorized rifles only with machine-gun fire. "- there are also such modifications, such as wheeled tanks

    PS: this armored personnel carrier is not a replacement for m 113, this giant is its replacement

    1. Lopatov 22 February 2020 08: 25 New
      • 9
      • 4
      +5
      Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
      But if necessary, the Strykers can often support motorized rifles only with machine-gun fire. "

      Well, yes, a very controversial statement. And the machine gun ... large, and at the company level, three self-propelled 105-mm guns and two 120-mm self-propelled mortars. This is apart from a wearable like nine Jewels, two 60-mm mortars and a large-caliber (.50) sniper rifle

      Our mouths on APCs are not so rich ...

      Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
      PS: this armored personnel carrier is not a replacement for m 113

      It is truth too.
      Not a replacement, but a new sample. Under which they created their tactics and their staff. Initially, the Stryker battalions, and now the Striker tactical groups
      Strange tactics in some places. It seems that the requirements for maintaining the air mobility of the Stryker units (why this is necessary with so many light infantry is unknown) well, all have their own cockroaches in their heads. Some are very large.
    2. Grigory_45 22 February 2020 20: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
      But if necessary, the Strykers can often support motorized rifles only with machine-gun fire. "- there are also such modifications, such as wheeled tanks

      only now it’s not an armored personnel carrier, but a wheeled tank (M1128 Mobile Gun System), which has completely lost the ability to transport troops.
      However, motorized rifles themselves can stand up for themselves - they have grenade launchers, and ATGMs, and MANPADS.
    3. Bad_gr 23 February 2020 14: 37 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      ....... landing occurs through the ramp located in the stern of the hull, which provides the safest of all possible options when the infantrymen from the front are protected by the entire hull of the combat vehicle ......

      Well, yes, the enemy always shoots directly in the forehead, strictly along the longitudinal axis of the machine.
      And the enemy also attacks columns of armored vehicles from the front (in the forehead)? And if the column of armored vehicles is attacked from the flank (which most often happens) is the feed exit the same, the safest?


      By the way, in Afghanistan, we had several operations, when the landing landed from the APC at night, and on the go. It is impossible to stop, as this would be fixed by the side of the enemy. Jumping from the side exit of the BTR-80 to the side of the road is not a problem. In such a situation, landing from the rear ramp is fraught with a fighter getting under the wheels of the rear APC, which comes with a dim light and does not see very well.
      1. Grigory_45 23 February 2020 22: 23 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Bad_gr
        In such a situation, landing from the rear ramp is fraught with a fighter getting under the wheels behind the APC,

        Do you have a close butt ??? Jumping off the ramp is also not a problem.

        Quote: Bad_gr
        An armored personnel carrier that comes with a dim light and does not see very well

        probably, now they put NVD on all cars, no? Still on the BMP-2, the TVNE-4B, operating in the passive mode, stood by the driver
        1. Bad_gr 24 February 2020 14: 12 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Gregory_45
          Now they put NVD on all cars, no?

          I drove with this NVD, so I know exactly what it is.
  2. Amateur 22 February 2020 06: 46 New
    • 5
    • 15
    -10

    The canisters are probably to illustrate the fairy tale "Burn-burn, it’s clear that it would not go out"
    1. Talgat 148 22 February 2020 12: 41 New
      • 13
      • 2
      +11
      The BTR-60, -70, -80 also provides for mounting 4 x 20 liter fuel cans!
      1. Amateur 22 February 2020 13: 17 New
        • 1
        • 10
        -9
        The BTR-60, -70, -80 also provides for mounting 4 x 20 liter fuel cans!

        So what? What exactly do you want to say with your comment?
        1. Nubia2 22 February 2020 17: 26 New
          • 10
          • 1
          +9
          it is obvious that your previous comment does not make sense. but only emotions.
          ahhh ... look, everything will burn out from them.
    2. V.I.P. 22 February 2020 18: 09 New
      • 9
      • 8
      +1
      Hmm .. Well, you remember not the "having an analogue" BMP-1 with gasoline in the aft doors ....
      1. Amateur 22 February 2020 18: 49 New
        • 4
        • 5
        -1
        BMP-1 with gasoline in the aft doors ....

        Sorry! With a solarium! As the saying goes "a big difference." But the same is not a gift.
        1. V.I.P. 22 February 2020 19: 05 New
          • 6
          • 4
          +2
          Wow)) ... He wrote in puffs)) .... But to see the speck in the eyes of others and not to see the beam in his own .. It is strange to hear criticism of the stranger, having his own and even worse .. This is my opinion ..
    3. Grigory_45 22 February 2020 21: 07 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Amateur
      The canisters are probably to illustrate the fairy tale "Burn-burn, it’s clear that it would not go out"

      This is normal practice, since the Second World War. Now it is found among us, and among Germans, and among Americans. That's only on our armored personnel carriers the canisters weigh on board, at the adversary aft.

      Would you put a canister in the troop compartment?
      1. Saxahorse 23 February 2020 22: 03 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: Gregory_45
        Would you put a canister in the troop compartment?

        Yes! And BMP-1 and BMP-2 and M-113 have a fuel tank directly in the landing compartment. wassat
        1. Grigory_45 23 February 2020 22: 18 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Yes!

          brilliant!

          Quote: Saxahorse
          M-113 have a fuel tank directly in the landing compartment

          on versions M113A3 and higher, the fuel tanks are brought out - on the sides of the aft ramp.
          On modern machines, tanks are designed and separated from the habitable compartment by a fire barrier.
          And the canister is not a tank.
          1. Saxahorse 23 February 2020 22: 44 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: Gregory_45
            On modern machines, tanks are designed and separated from the habitable compartment by a fire barrier.

            Are you talking about what "modern" cars are you talking about? Are they in service with our army?

            Quote: Gregory_45
            on versions M113A3 and higher, the fuel tanks are brought out

            Outside, they have additional tanks, such as barrels in our T-34. wink
            1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 10: 55 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Outside, they have additional tanks, such as barrels in our T-34

              no, the main tanks. Just look at the stern of the upgraded armored personnel carrier and cars of the early series.
              The M113A3 hull differs from its predecessors in the shape of the stern. On both sides of the ramp are two external armored fuel tanks. They replace the fuel tank, which was located inside the body of the armored personnel carriers of earlier models. The solution with the removal of fuel tanks from the hull increased the survivability of the crew and the landing force, as well as freed up the internal volume.



  3. The leader of the Redskins 22 February 2020 07: 13 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Thank you for the article. I never thought about the name of the BTR data. Did the Americans slightly depart from the tradition of calling armored vehicles "generals"? Already not Sherman, Patton or Walker Bulldog, but ordinary Stryker?
    1. Private-K 22 February 2020 10: 27 New
      • 5
      • 14
      -9
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Thank you for the article.

      Article low quality not giving the right finished view about this car.
      Simple positive description with pressure on emotion (title story).
  4. Lamata 22 February 2020 07: 51 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Wow, 113 still stand !!!! in service.
  5. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 22 February 2020 08: 07 New
    • 4
    • 34
    -30
    How can you praise American shit. Can’t swim! Naher then he is needed. Wait for the bridge to be built. Against the BTR-90 can’t stand .. An excellent target for our gunners! Armament and armor against the Papuans. Mass is, but no use.
    1. Lamata 22 February 2020 08: 13 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      But there are facts of clashes with armored personnel carriers?
      1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 22 February 2020 08: 17 New
        • 2
        • 22
        -20
        Are you naive or what? Ours are fighting, and the Americans? And with whom. Look at our technical characteristics. And everything will be clear.
        1. Lamata 22 February 2020 08: 18 New
          • 11
          • 3
          +8
          ahh, just look tth, yes !!! TTX and real and can vary greatly. Take afghani. And armored personnel carrier 60 TTX and realities.
          1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 22 February 2020 08: 21 New
            • 1
            • 30
            -29
            Praise America Further! Won Abrams with a machine gun knocked out, and this extra. Americans would only have to sell, and marriage is not a marriage. This is a business. With the coming of all men and I bow to those who fought.
            1. Lamata 22 February 2020 11: 12 New
              • 8
              • 4
              +4
              You surprise me !!!! And the Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, what are they doing? Do they give out cookies?
              1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 22 February 2020 11: 28 New
                • 1
                • 23
                -22
                Where did you see that the Americans really fought? Korea, Vietnam didn’t give them a hat. They are proud of their guys who land in Grenada. They even put a monument. The American soldier is the most cowardly in the world. All Iraqi generals were bribed to your information. They were not only bombed, but also allies. Until the land is burned out, the soldier’s foot doesn’t enter. What kind of cross can you speak of their forest if it cannot swim. The first task boron is the delivery of troops. To the place of battle. He is heavy. How it will move in the sands. Watch a video of the American landing on the coast where they drowned in the sand. Shorter coffin on wheels.
                1. Lamata 22 February 2020 11: 29 New
                  • 7
                  • 2
                  +5
                  that is, about 2000 amers killed in Afghanistan is not a war? sunday barbecue?
                  1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 22 February 2020 12: 10 New
                    • 1
                    • 19
                    -18
                    Why they die. A bad technique is the death of soldiers. I am sending do not forget about the terrorists. Their actions can not be predicted. Ours conducted full-scale left-wing actions, and the Americans are holed up at roadblocks.
                    1. V.I.P. 22 February 2020 18: 13 New
                      • 4
                      • 8
                      -4
                      Are Americans in Afghanistan longer than the USSR, but how many people have lost? Compare with the losses of the USSR. Well, how do you say that the Soviet Union’s technology is still in service with the Russian Federation and there’s nothing to change it for))) ... Shout out about no taxes ... .. how long are they in Iraq? In Syria, what are their losses and ours? ... ....
                      1. Bad_gr 23 February 2020 13: 51 New
                        • 3
                        • 4
                        -1
                        Quote: V.I.P.
                        The Americans in Afghanistan are longer than the USSR, but how many people have lost?

                        Ours controlled practically all cities and all roads of a strategic direction. Americans control only their habitat. Hence the difference in losses.
                        Here you can add that ours in Afghanistan also built something for the locals (power plants, schools, etc.), from military towns where there was an abundance of electricity, electricity was also supplied to the adjacent Afghan settlements, where, thanks to this, there was light at night there was a TV and you could watch, again, in many places only thanks to our television centers.
                        The Americans were not seen in such matters.
                        By the way, during their stay in Afghanistan, the number of drug laboratories increased by more than 200 times.
                      2. Bad_gr 25 February 2020 12: 49 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        Well, what are the cons? what do you disagree with? or is the mind lacking in arguments?
                        I was there 1983-1985 (Andropov times), so I write what I know about ours.
                        The photo where our citizens live without a weapon around the city is full, but try to find the Americans in the city: only with a crowd armed to the teeth.
                    2. carstorm 11 24 February 2020 02: 30 New
                      • 5
                      • 0
                      +5
                      as I understand it, you don’t know that the statistics of losses goes only to the military personnel of the state army. that's just most of the work, as well as losses, the Americans long ago transferred to PMCs. well, for understanding them there were more than 100 thousand at one time. and I’ll clarify that at the same time and not rotation. and their loss is a mystery. but they are by definition larger than those of the army. and the general figures of these losses will not be revealed to the general public for it will be a shock. as in Iraq itself. you again forget that in addition to the states, there are others involved and also suffer losses. if you want to compare, then you need to count them together.
                    3. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 24 February 2020 04: 25 New
                      • 2
                      • 5
                      -3
                      You are a pro-Western person. Once again I say that the Americans in Afghanistan are not fighting, but are sitting at block posts. They will be played when they help sell heroin made. The number of poppy crops increased with them. Only an American can praise America. Our technique showed. Himself in battles, not at checkpoints.
              2. Nubia2 22 February 2020 17: 28 New
                • 9
                • 3
                +6
                Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
                American soldier is the most cowardly in the world

                what a dumb common stamp
                1. Lamata 22 February 2020 20: 35 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  We see people judging by the Amer soldiers from somewhere they are some kind of movie, or cheap little books of patriotic cheers. Amerov’s soldiers are not cowards, their battle tactics are different and there is little heroism needed. The Amrs fought stubbornly, boldly and inventively with the japs ​​in the quiet ocean. Sgerry in Europe also did not give in, but the tactics and strategy are different, and those opportunities are different.
                2. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 24 February 2020 04: 27 New
                  • 1
                  • 7
                  -6
                  This is you about your comment. Repeat for stupid! The American soldier is the most cowardly in the world. To argue the opposite can only be inadequate ..
                  1. Vanches 28 February 2020 20: 02 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    The most cowardly in the world? yes from you carries fascism
                    1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 29 February 2020 01: 49 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      American henchman you.
              3. V.I.P. 22 February 2020 18: 35 New
                • 6
                • 5
                +1
                Where and when during the two Chechen wars, the conflict on the Donbass and in Syria, BMP and armored personnel carriers swam across the rivers and captured the bridgehead ??? There was an attempt by the Argun to cross and it is deplorable .... There are always fights over bridges. And floating cartons are only for reconnaissance vehicles. And even then in the age of drones ..... Do you need these? Armored vehicles should protect people. And I did not see that the people of foreign armies rode on armor as a BMP-1/3, BTR 80/82 to survive. Ready to get hit by bullets ... ... Yes, and why then, having seen enough of the foreigners, are they trying to sculpt Typhoons, Kurganets, Boomerang, BMP T-15? Well, spend money on analogues of bad, in your opinion, foreign armored vehicles ...
                1. Lopatov 22 February 2020 19: 25 New
                  • 5
                  • 3
                  +2
                  Quote: V.I.P.
                  There are always fights over bridges.

                  8))))
                  There is a struggle for time. Floating equipment significantly reduces this time.
                  1. V.I.P. 22 February 2020 20: 22 New
                    • 5
                    • 4
                    +1
                    That she would get ashore, it must be flat. I don’t know where, but the rivers that I saw, I will not allow to get out the equipment. But the ford and the beach will always be at gunpoint .... And I know how the tanks force the water underwater ... Concrete slabs are laid to the bottom so that the tanks would not get stuck in the silt. On them and crawl. And where and how during the battles to lay concrete slabs on the bottom of the river and who will give it to do .. A circle of worthless window dressing ....
                    1. Lopatov 22 February 2020 20: 51 New
                      • 3
                      • 1
                      +2
                      Quote: V.I.P.
                      That she would get ashore, it must be flat.

                      It is easier to prepare a crossing section on floating machines than to equip a section for underwater crossing and much, much easier than to prepare a ferry or bridge crossing.

                      Quote: V.I.P.
                      A ford and the beach will always be at gunpoint ...

                      Exactly.
                      And there will be no bridges at all. Given that their coordinates are known long before the start of the war.
                    2. Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 25 February 2020 23: 42 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      If you are about swimming, then any person swims with a circle.
              4. Bad_gr 23 February 2020 14: 05 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                Quote: V.I.P.
                And I did not see that the people of foreign armies rode on armor as a BMP-1/3, BTR 80/82 to survive.



                1. V.I.P. 23 February 2020 15: 25 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  This is how many decades ago? Vietnam
                  1. Bad_gr 23 February 2020 17: 08 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    Quote: V.I.P.
                    This is how many decades ago? Vietnam

                    I do not know. The top shot is not at all Americans, but Turks.
                    And what does that change?
                  2. V.I.P. 23 February 2020 20: 24 New
                    • 1
                    • 3
                    -2
                    The fact that modern realities and decades ago is a different time))). Modern technology to protect the personnel of others has gone ahead. And the creation of Typhoons, Boomerangs, Kurganians is an attempt to catch them ...... Well, if you are interested in ancient times, find the T-34 with infantry on the armor of 1942 and modern photos of 2020 of the Russian army. 75 years of difference doesn’t tell you anything?)))) Protection of personnel at the same level is NO.
                  3. Saxahorse 23 February 2020 22: 11 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    Have you ever driven in a box without windows on a dirt road? There, all the walls are paved ..
                  4. Bad_gr 23 February 2020 22: 19 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    Quote: V.I.P.
                    Modern technology to protect the personnel of others has gone ahead.

                    There are other reasons. On our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles there is the opportunity to sit on the armor and jump when necessary. The height of the armored personnel carrier allows (as with a cart). And sitting on the armor is calmer when the most likely enemy is a mine under the wheel. And when a landmine on the side of the road, or shelling from small arms, is more likely, then the people are sitting under the armor, including ours.
                    But try to sit on the armor and jump from this armored personnel carrier:

                    What will happen?
                  5. V.I.P. 24 February 2020 08: 48 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Watch a video of the battles in Yemen. There is plenty of video when an armored personnel carrier with normal mine protection is blown up, bounces, topple on its side, and then LIVE soldiers flee from there. The Hussites immediately came up and filmed. Not one killed and even inside the blood there! Empty armored personnel carrier. So everyone survived and were able to escape. In my opinion, this is Brontechnika .....
                  6. Bad_gr 24 February 2020 14: 09 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: V.I.P.
                    There is plenty of video when an armored personnel carrier with normal mine protection is blown up, bounces, fall on its side, and then LIVE soldiers run away from there.

                    With us, for example. the anti-tank mine of an armored personnel carrier only detaches the wheel and the crew is usually alive, often the armored personnel carrier can even creep on its own. With BMP worse, the driver dies with the rest in different ways. But on the roadsides in Afghanistan I met the remains of tanks, where the bottom was laid out, and the tower was lying about 50 meters (a dozen and a half tons). And what is this talking about? only that your armored personnel carrier only got a standard mine, and not a mine that was put on a bag of explosives smelted from unexploded bombs.
              5. Bad_gr 24 February 2020 14: 24 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Quote: V.I.P.
                And the creation of Typhoons, Boomerangs, Kurganians is an attempt to catch them ...
                There is a combined arms technique, and there is a technique (such as MRAP) for police operations. Previously, we paid little attention to the second direction, now they are making up.
                But do not be mistaken, equipment used for other purposes will be burned.
                Both the BMP, which was driven into mines, and the MRAP, which was kicked out to the front, blazes from the very first cumulative grenade.
      2. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 24 February 2020 04: 28 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        Baby talk. I won’t even answer.
  6. maidan.izrailovich 23 February 2020 12: 46 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    You surprise me !!!! And the Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, what are they doing?

    Protect the place under its fifth point. And not always successful.
  • Grits 22 February 2020 14: 40 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    Against BTR-90 will not stand

    I think the article would be much more interesting if a comparison with our BTR-80 were laid out on the shelves (82). Then the pros and cons would be visible.
    1. LastPS 2 May 2020 17: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The stern ramp, the amount of landing (the striker has 9 against our 8), armor protection (without mounted armor is about the same as the 82nd, with mounted it is simply incomparable - KPVT on board is serious), the number of modifications of the striker is amazing - a very flexible platform , the v-shaped bottom gives a serious gain in mine resistance, and even the four-wheel drive that is switched off is a good thing - it increases the range. The only thing the striker does not have is the ability to swim, but I don’t know how minus it is, in the West they have recently been choosing a high level of protection, although it seems that the original piranha was able to swim. Again, the ILC has amphibians.
  • Grigory_45 22 February 2020 21: 23 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    Can’t swim! Naher then he is needed.

    how relevant is modern light armored vehicles to be able to swim? How many times after World War II did they cross the water barriers? Isn't it better to increase the level of armor protection instead of this dubious quality?
    1. Operator 22 February 2020 22: 23 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      A promising solution is disposable rubber pontoons hung on armored vehicles with foam filling (injected and cured immediately before the water crossing), movement on the water with the help of track rewinding.
      1. Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 23 February 2020 01: 45 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Likely it can be even simpler - to stick around with something like polyurethane foam.
        1. Operator 23 February 2020 14: 00 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          It’s upset by hydrodynamics, therefore, a rubber-forming shell is required.
    2. carstorm 11 24 February 2020 03: 11 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      not better. you probably think that the fighting takes place in deserts or cities, but our theater is actually something else. the amount of water barriers is colossal. and our technique is done just for that. tonnage of bridges, road possibilities, etc. overcoming the water barrier is a whole epic if your technique does not have this opportunity. it's time and sacrifice. these are resources and lost opportunities. I can tell you about a dozen situations for our conventional theater that would require all armored but not capable of swimming equipment to be simply unnecessary and just bother. A dozen old infantry fighting vehicles will do it with ease. This balance has been and will remain one of the most important until our doctrine will be purely defensive.
    3. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 24 February 2020 04: 35 New
      • 1
      • 7
      -6
      Fuck then you can walk? Sit at a computer to earn money. They’ll bring food, on the Internet you will order. Out of where, why? It is possible on a wheelchair with a drive. And why do you need teeth? Drink the broth! The modern generation has degraded, about if age, then either brainwashed, or senility. Communicated became a resource. To prove to someone is to sink to their level of development.
  • Grigory_45 24 February 2020 19: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    Can’t swim! Fuck you then need him

    main tanks (MBT) can’t swim. Self-propelled guns do not know how. Most military air defense vehicles, too. Trucks accompanying the convoy (tankers, TZM, trucks with ammunition and food) - all the more not floating. In any case, you need to look for a bridge or cross the river. Does it mean that part of the connection has come forward?

    Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    Against BTR-90 will not stand

    BTR-90 in our army is not. And generally speaking. were there any clashes between armored personnel carriers?

    Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    Armament and armor against the Papuans

    be surprised, but this can be said about the vast majority of armored personnel carriers in the world. Almost all of them have weak armor and light weapons. An armored personnel carrier is an "armored bus" for motorized rifles, and not a full-fledged combat vehicle to get into the hell on it. The task of the machine is to deliver the compartment, the secondary - if possible to support the fire. All.
    1. Saxahorse 24 February 2020 20: 16 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Gregory_45
      tankers, TZM, trucks with ammunition and food) - all the more not floating. In any case, you need to look for a bridge or cross the river. Does it mean that part of the connection has come forward?

      Before crossing, you need to seize the bridgehead and drive the enemy away from this place.
  • Mountain shooter 22 February 2020 08: 24 New
    • 4
    • 7
    -3
    Reliable armored bus for transportation. IMHO the car is not too "combat" ... Our armored personnel carriers are, perhaps, better.
  • Private-K 22 February 2020 10: 24 New
    • 8
    • 16
    -8
    The armored personnel carrier does not know how to swim, but has a good cross

    I would ask the author of the article to present video and photo materials confirming this (no doubt FALSE thesis).
    Stricker possesses The worst permeability indicators and mobility in general, among all armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles of this class.
    In the best case, single cars are capable of overcoming puddles with a depth of 10-20 cm and then having previously dispersed. Movement on the field (except for rocky-sandy dry ones), exit / ascent from a road embankment, on wet soil - is impossible.
    The stricker, in fact, is a purely asphalt road vehicle - such as a crossover, SUV.

    The machine is too heavy for the base chassis.

    In fact, this is not a real combat armored personnel carrier, but a sort of semi-MPAP. At the same time, it is bad as a MRAP, and bad as an APC / BMP.

    Armament - there’s nothing to talk about.

    USA failed impose on anyone to sell this armored personnel carrier. All refused !!!. Only Thailand could not - for the debts vparil. This is an indirect, but very revealing fact that gives an understanding of realrather than the advertising characteristics of this machine.
    1. volodimer 22 February 2020 16: 03 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Colleague, why this anger ... caps, bold. Your opinion is understandable without this.
      It is enough to write that in stock it is mediocre, and with additional armor designed to protect against CPV and especially 30mm, it is a heavy iron ... But if it copes with the tasks, then FIG with its weight. (although they wrote about his problems on the roads of Iraq a very long time ago).
      The author provided a description of the technical means; I did not see in this article the imposition of ratings on its superiority, effectiveness, or something like that.
      The machine is too heavy for the base chassis.
      In fact, this is not a real combat armored personnel carrier, but a sort of semi-MPAP. At the same time, it is bad as a MRAP, and bad as an APC / BMP.
      Here is your thought ... with which I completely agree.
      1. Private-K 22 February 2020 20: 58 New
        • 5
        • 8
        -3
        I am angry at lying, at stupidity, at idle talk.
        Those who disagree with me are not capable of substantive discussion. They are capable of putting minuses to the Truth, like small bark mongrels.
        Only complete kretinos can consider an APC to be unable to drive off a paved road.
        Have you seen how already the third and fourth Amer MIRAPs are stuck in Syria trying to go around the fence? That will be the same with the Strikers.
        Here I am so pathetic. bully
        The author of the "article" wrote that the iron Stricker has a good cross. But this is not true. It's a lie. Its completely unsatisfactory cross-country ability and generally mobility (tactical, operational, ability to overcome standard obstacles, etc.) have been repeatedly indicated. The Americans themselves blaspheme it.
        The streaker cannot be commended. This is a bad platform.
    2. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 24 February 2020 04: 42 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Private thanks for koment. The only good adequate saying.
  • Operator 22 February 2020 12: 29 New
    • 6
    • 10
    -4
    Translated from English, striker is a drummer, striker, striker in American football, harpooner, hammer thief, etc. The word is often used for names of various military equipment in English-speaking countries.

    The striking-out door of the Striker’s landing squad, it’s also a ramp, sucks (a cargo cult item), and BMP-1/2 swing doors with a retractable step are much better.

    The 5 ton axle load is the level of an all-terrain army truck.

    In the future armored vehicles are driving on a rubber-cord caterpillar track.
    1. Lopatov 22 February 2020 12: 43 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      Translated from English striker

      BTR "Stryker" and not "Striker"

      Quote: Operator
      much better swing doors BMP-1/2 with a retractable step.

      Not too much either.
      Ideally, like a BMPV-64, with a short ramp
      1. Operator 22 February 2020 13: 37 New
        • 2
        • 6
        -4
        Indeed, y instead of i.

        There is a risk of slipping on the ramp when you enter the airborne compartment from wet clay soil. On the frame step - on the contrary, you can clean the sole of clay.
        1. Lopatov 22 February 2020 13: 59 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Operator
          when you enter

          The main thing is the convenience of dismounting. Ease of entry is secondary.
          And just for dismounting on the go, the ramp is preferable. But there is a problem of a "fire bag". Which is decided by a short ramp and a lifting section
          1. prodi 22 February 2020 14: 55 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            ideally, on a ramp, four people and a ride could
            1. Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 23 February 2020 01: 49 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Ideally, planting a person is safer immediately lying down. Spread like a seal.

              Yes, and take on board, too, without getting up. Throw him a cable and tighten something.
          2. Bad_gr 23 February 2020 15: 03 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Spade
            The main thing is convenience of dismounting




            In my opinion, our BMP-3, even lasia through the motor, will be more comfortable than with this ramp.
            This is the BBC VBCI, France, the "striker" it is much lower.
            1. Saxahorse 23 February 2020 22: 18 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Bad_gr
              In my opinion, our BMP-3, even lasia through the motor, will be more comfortable than with this ramp.

              Yes of course! Shooting two targets appearing alternately is a standard exercise in infantry shooting training. From the front corners, the BMP-3 landing can be fired back without any problems. Heads would unscrew these Kurgan clever people .. am
          3. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 24 February 2020 04: 45 New
            • 1
            • 8
            -7
            What are you all talking shit about? What did the State Department pay you?
          4. Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 25 February 2020 23: 45 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Spade
            The main thing is the convenience of dismounting.


            Let's dream. The APC slowly drives off, and its bottom ... remains in place. Lies on the ground, and paratroopers on it. Here is such a landing all at once.
  • bk0010 22 February 2020 13: 18 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    If the armored personnel carrier does not swim, then why was it necessary to fence a garden with cardboard armor (16 tons)? They would do it right away with normal (which holds the fragments of 152 mm), save weight (it would be not 20 tons, but 18.5-19).
    Since whole brigades are doing on the Strikers, why didn’t they put a turret from Bradley? The states have a lot of money, comparable tasks are assigned to technology, the silhouette is still a barn (because of the V-shaped bottom), what did they expect with this machine gun?
    And the engine would not have been more powerful than the 100 horses — it would have to be dragged 20 tons off-road, so it would have been 20 horses per ton.
    1. Lopatov 22 February 2020 14: 00 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: bk0010
      If the armored personnel carrier does not swim, then why was it necessary to fence a garden with cardboard armor (16 tons)? Would do right away with normal (which holds the 152 mm fragments)

      Hercules will not pull.
    2. God save the king 22 February 2020 14: 22 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      If the armored personnel carrier does not swim, then why was it necessary to fence a garden with cardboard armor (16 tons)
      the combat weight is still 17,5 tons, and together with the landing it leaves for 20, i.e. 2,5 tons per wheel, which is already a lot. By far not all armored personnel carriers complete hinged armor, moreover, wagering in the mass of hinged plates of spaced armor in comparison with the built-in will be minimal, but obviously not tons, as you wrote.
      why not put a turret from Bradley
      because it’s overweight, and the car is still not for open battle. At the same time, to shoot from any sabotage groups, 12,7 Browning is quite enough.
      And the engine would have been more powerful than the 100 horses
      but about the engine, this is really a disgrace. Not only is the engine weak, it is also highly revving.
    3. Private-K 22 February 2020 21: 38 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      If the armored personnel carrier does not swim, then why was it necessary to fence a garden with cardboard armor (16 tons)? Would do right away with normal (which holds the 152 mm fragments)

      And this is IMPOSSIBLE for the base chassis and the form factor of the Piran-2 case that was used to create the Stricker. Especially when the designers unreasonably overestimate the height of the hull for a larger internal volume of the landing compartment.
      In sacrifice the convenience of the paratroopers, in Stricker, other basic BASIC characteristics of the armored vehicle were sacrificed.
      VBCI and Boxer are examples of how modern wheeled vehicles should be done.
      1. prodi 23 February 2020 07: 11 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        and where did you get the idea that VBCI and Boxer are the right wheels because of their lower height? With a weight of 30t, no four-axle platform, in principle, can provide decent cross-country ability, except to try the articulated scheme
        1. Private-K 23 February 2020 12: 27 New
          • 2
          • 6
          -4
          It's not about the height of the hull as such, but how this hull is designed, what it and the chassis are designed for!
          Pirana-2 was originally designed for a much lower weight, lower center of gravity, under the outdated (today) shape of the hull. 1980s what to say. But in the basic version (the same LAV-25 and Canadian Grizzlies), having the usual advantages and disadvantages of wheeled combat vehicles, they turned out to be quite suitable for normal use. But when designing the Stricker, MISTERS were allowed in the unnecessary, harmful side, of course, with the best intentions - to improve habitability and protect from mines. So it turned out the car, which can be used as an asphalt armored bus, in no way a full-fledged armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle.
          But VBCI and Boxer were initially designed for other parameters that are different from those for which Pirana-2 was made. In addition, their designers paid MUCH attention to mobility (operational and tactical), including and patency of vehicles, without reducing their levels of protection, including from min In short: VBCI and Boxer, unlike Stricker, are designed from scratch with the right parameters in them. And Stricker is a degraded alteration to the new requirements of a conceptually outdated machine. If Russian designers would try to make an armored personnel carrier with the Boomerang requirement on the basis of the BTR-90, it could have turned out like with Stricker.
    4. Grigory_45 22 February 2020 21: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: bk0010
      If the armored personnel carrier does not swim, then why was it necessary to fence a garden with cardboard armor (16 tons)? Would do right away with normal (which holds the 152 mm fragments)

      perhaps it’s all about air transport. BTA aircraft take the car in the basic configuration, additional reservation is delivered separately and mounted on the spot.
      A similar concept (the ability to increase the level of armor protection to the required, often in 2, 3 versions) now has many cars - from the German Puma to the Russian Kurgan.
  • honest people 22 February 2020 13: 41 New
    • 16
    • 4
    +12
    Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    How can you praise American shit. Can’t swim! Naher then he is needed. Wait for the bridge to be built. Against the BTR-90 can’t stand .. An excellent target for our gunners! Armament and armor against the Papuans. Mass is, but no use.

    1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 24 February 2020 04: 50 New
      • 1
      • 9
      -8
      This is you to yourself. Because the American praise. In Russia, these are not needed. The defenders of all of ours.
  • Operator 22 February 2020 14: 11 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    Quote: Spade
    The main thing is convenience of dismounting

    I don’t see difficulties when dismounting with support on the frame step, which is advanced forward and down synchronously with the opening of the swinging leaves of the door of the airborne compartment.
    1. Lopatov 22 February 2020 19: 29 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      swing wing doors of the airborne squad.

      There is a problem of their reliable fixation
      In addition, the ramp is still faster. Both dismounting and back landing.
      1. Operator 22 February 2020 22: 11 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Fixing the swing wings in the open state is a solved issue, for example, with the help of a closer.
        1. svp67 23 February 2020 04: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Operator
          Fixing the swing wings in the open state is a solved issue, for example, with the help of a closer.

          Yes, usual LATCHES, as on BMP -1,2
          1. Operator 23 February 2020 13: 59 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            This meant guaranteeing the process of fixing the swing wings.
      2. svp67 23 February 2020 04: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Spade
        In addition, the ramp is still faster.

        I will use the more familiar "ramp", and so it is also perfectly suitable for loading and unloading various cargoes.
    2. Grigory_45 22 February 2020 21: 44 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      I don’t see difficulties when dismounting with support on the frame step, which is advanced forward and down synchronously with the opening of the swinging leaves of the door of the airborne compartment

      Have you tried it personally? I tried (BMP-2, BMP-3, Kurganets), and, in my opinion, dismounting from the ramp is faster and safer.
      1. Operator 22 February 2020 22: 07 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Where are the BMP-2, BMP-3 and Kurganets retractable frame steps?

        I have personal experience using retractable footrests when boarding passenger cars from the low platform of the train station.
        1. Grigory_45 22 February 2020 22: 16 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          On BMP-3 - reclining footboards
          BMP-2 is given to compare all three vehicles for this indicator. The most uncomfortable.
          1. Operator 22 February 2020 22: 40 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            BMP-3 is an incorrect example, it does not have a passage, but a climb to the airborne squad


            And the steps are not frame, but platform, in addition, they do not extend from the inside (as in a passenger carriage), but recline from the outside.
            1. svp67 23 February 2020 04: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Operator
              BMP-3 is an incorrect example, it does not have a passage, but a climb to the airborne squad

              Yes, rather a "transition", and even on the engine ...
            2. Grigory_45 23 February 2020 08: 56 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Operator
              BMP-3 is an incorrect example, it does not have a passage, but a climb to the airborne squad

              we kind of spoke for the convenience of dismounting, comparing swing doors and a ramp, no? On BMP-1/2/3 - doors, on Kurganets - a ramp.

              Quote: Operator
              And the steps ... recline outside

              But did I say otherwise?

              Quote: Gregory_45
              On BMP-3 - reclining footboards

              what is your passage ???
              1. Operator 23 February 2020 13: 50 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Only the ramp and the footboard are compared (the fact that the folding door of the airborne compartment is used as a ramp does not apply to comparison). It was about the fact that the surface of the ramp becomes slippery when exposed to clay soil in wet weather, but the frame footboard does not.

                The footboard is used because of the high floor height of the BMP / BTR airborne compartment from the ground - from 45 to 50 cm (BMP-3 case is not considered because of its anecdotal). The footboard serves for a normal step up / down to a height of ~ 25 cm.
                1. Grigory_45 23 February 2020 14: 30 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Operator
                  It was about the fact that the surface of the ramp becomes slippery when exposed to clay soil in wet weather, but the frame footboard does not.

                  far-fetched problem, in my opinion. Firstly, the ramp in most cases is not an absolutely smooth sheet of metal, secondly, the slope (even in the max. Open position) is quite small, thirdly, if necessary, what prevents it from equipping it with devices for increasing adhesion (ordinary ramps were seen ? with antiskid covering, with hooks, etc.)
                  1. Operator 23 February 2020 14: 37 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    The anti-slip coating of the ramp will not help against wet clay, the protrusions - hooks will increase the risk of tripping and injuring your legs (as well as accumulating dirt from the soles), so the retractable frame - the footboard is exactly what you need.
          2. svp67 23 February 2020 04: 25 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: Gregory_45
            The most uncomfortable.

            If anyone wants to know what is "inconvenient", then it would not hurt to get acquainted with the loading and unloading process on our BTR-60 and 70 ...
            1. Grigory_45 23 February 2020 08: 58 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              If anyone wants to know what is "inconvenient", then it would not hurt to get acquainted with the loading and unloading process on our BTR-60 and 70

              if you were a little more attentive, you would have noticed that it was a question of cars with aft landing, through swing doors or a ramp. Such exotic as side hatches on domestic armored personnel carriers were not even considered - here, and the child understands that this is a perversion.
              1. prodi 23 February 2020 20: 14 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                theoretically, on four axles, two side doors to the side, between the second and third, third and fourth wheels, two people to the door - well, you can, probably ...
      2. Zufei 23 February 2020 08: 53 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        Bmp Landing on the go. The door did not lock. The driver stopped in front of the snag. No legs. In full calculation, you will not push through the opening. And this is my weight of 64 kg. And in the mass of people are later than me. I am for the ramp and the normal height.
        1. Operator 23 February 2020 13: 57 New
          • 1
          • 5
          -4
          But no need to land on the go. In any case: no leg - no mechvod.
          1. Grigory_45 23 February 2020 21: 03 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            But no need to land on the go.

            the machine must be appropriate to the conditions, not customized.

            If you follow your logic and go further. then:
            1. Weak armor? And you do not need to come into contact with the enemy. They will not shoot at the car - it will not receive damage
            2. Can't swim? A nefig to climb into the water, look for a bridge or direct crossing!
            3. Small cross? And ride only on the asphalt! And comfortable, and fast, and eats less fuel!
            4. Difficult to maintain? Put in the box, and hang the sign "do not touch with bunches!"
            5. Darling? So do not buy, save taxpayer money.

            PS Both landing and dismounting from a car moving at low speed should be normal. There is no need to produce artificial restrictions.
            1. Operator 23 February 2020 23: 59 New
              • 1
              • 5
              -4
              BMPs even on the basis of MBTs are no more than APCs, since the reserved volume of BMPs is two times greater than that of MBTs, and, consequently, BMP armor protection is always twice as bad.

              Therefore, the BMP is needed only for transporting infantry to the battlefield, where they operate on foot. BMP at the same time provide exclusively fire support from the rear. So there should be no landing on the move.

              PS It is absolutely not required to swim BMPs on their own (there are pontoons and floating bridges for this) for a simple reason - tactical combat groups also include self-propelled guns, MBTs and IMRs, which do not swim by definition. And to capture the riverhead with the aim of organizing the crossing, high-speed small-sized boats with outboard motors are more effective.
          2. Zufei 23 February 2020 21: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Cherry on the cake. Who knows where and how the senior shooter in BMP-1,2 sits?
        2. Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 25 February 2020 23: 55 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          And if you don’t make people jump at all, but push the entire floor of the “salon” out with the people on it? Or even disconnect and leave in place the bottom of the car with the landing on it.
      3. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 24 February 2020 04: 52 New
        • 0
        • 8
        -8
        The opinion of one person does not cost anything! They don’t argue about tastes. Be dismissed further.
  • Jack O'Neill 22 February 2020 14: 24 New
    • 9
    • 6
    +3
    Stryker, as an armored personnel carrier in local conflicts, is very good. Based on it, a bunch of modifications, from sanitary to MGS with a 105-mm gun.
    Today, such vehicles should not only take the role of “taxi” for the infantry, but also a means of support. For local conflicts, when the Strikers are fighting against the Arabs, the 12.7 mm covers almost everything.
    But if the conflict is more serious, and he has to face Iranian BMP-1/2 for example, then it will hurt for Stryker (we are talking about M1126). This is probably why the Americans will install the MCWS module with the Mk44 Bushmaster II. And the gun is just gorgeous, and the ammunition for it.
    This vidos was already thrown to all and sundry, but still throw it off again. It is this weapon that the new Stryker will receive.

    1. Private-K 22 February 2020 21: 19 New
      • 5
      • 10
      -5
      1. The huge heavy tower will further worsen the already iron-like characteristics of Stricker's mobility.
      2. How many times it has been said - to trust commercials about mega-superclass shells with trajectory detonation for small-sized guns is STUPID. But the bodies are again and again. "But he told me nravitstststsa !! Yyyyyyy ..."
      3. In the second video, only a man is good who cleverly pairs packaging from the tower.
      4. Where is the video of how the Strikers turn around and attack the fields in a wide front? Where is the video of how Streaker urgently slides off the road embankment? Or calls in on her? Where is the video of how he drives on sticky mud into which any part of the soil that is not covered with asphalt turns when passing armored vehicles?
      5. MGS with a 105-mm gun, as soon as they scolded, they did not want to take them into service, but the interested bastards did push this torment and not weapons. Well, what about it: without him, the brigades on the Strikers are completely weak in the offensive, there is no completeness of the theoretical concept.
    2. bk0010 22 February 2020 23: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      With such a tower, he certainly will not fit into Hercules: he has a cabin height of 274, and Striker is now 217.
    3. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 24 February 2020 04: 58 New
      • 2
      • 6
      -4
      Papuans against arrows and karamultukov good! I understand how to defend American shit with foam at the mouth. Americans have not won a single aoyna.! To bomb from the air over squares and use phosphorus bombs in Iraq, and With lunch uranium in Yugoslavia, yes.
  • English tarantas 23 February 2020 11: 44 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    12,7 mm machine guns. There are also versions equipped with 40 mm automatic grenade launchers. Fighting such a set of weapons even with lightly armored enemy vehicles is almost impossible

    But, but, the author, armor-piercing 12,7mm and cumulative 40mm, just the same with light equipment and can handle, BMP-1,2,3 line 12,7 armor-piercing on board do not hold, and about the cumulative grenades Mk19 in the roof do not say necessary. So the power of Stryker is enough to deal with the alleged enemy. The problem is that our armored personnel carriers with KPVT are not so effective, the same Striker without additional. KPVT armor holds in the forehead, with ext. with armor and in a circle, about Bradley, Marder, Warior, I’ll say nothing, even M113 with mounted armor keeps the KPVT in a circle.
    1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 24 February 2020 05: 04 New
      • 1
      • 7
      -6
      Are you out of your mind? We have a 30mm gun. The range of a direct shot is greater. Remember the Americans do any thing for sale. A good or not, do not care. The main thing is to sell, and that nobody buys this shit. Our armored personnel carriers around the world, where are they? A pair of three countries.
  • Bad_gr 23 February 2020 15: 16 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: Operator
    The ramp and footboard are exclusively compared

    The ramp has a drawback which, for some reason, is not said:
    on the move, the ramp is folded as the end of the swing.
    Unexpected braking of the car, she bites her nose, where will the fighter standing on the ramp (the other end of the swing) be?
    Or is it dismounted only at stops?
  • honest people 24 February 2020 08: 23 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    This is you to yourself. Because the American praise. In Russia, these are not needed. The defenders of all of ours.

    You should attract all that you have with your back and bone marrow to help and read my commentary that does not contain criticism of our technology. And why did you decide that you can decide who lives in this country and who doesn’t?
    Well what can I say?
  • 5-9
    5-9 25 February 2020 10: 23 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Somehow, the main disadvantages are not reflected at all - problems with mobility and stability of even the APC variant, cannon can only shoot directly or from an even surface on board.
    Well, this story is about the fact that everything was conceived in order to carry him quickly and cheaply to Hercules for counter-war wars, but he did not end up in Hercules :)
    They tried to make a “new and protected” out of a good “ordinary” old-school armored personnel carrier .... the result is straightforward in comparison with the new armored personnel carriers originally developed for MPD and so on. An example of "how not to," honestly. The fact that they want to cut out the M113 replacement from Bradley is proof of this.
  • Yellow bubble 28 February 2020 18: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Good reliable horse.