Military Review

Armored Stryker. Plans and problems

42
During the reform of the US armed forces in the nineties, the military faced the issue of equipping armored vehicles. According to the new concept, ground forces were to be divided into three types of units, depending on their equipment. It was proposed to equip heavy divisions and brigades tanks, light infantry - by armored personnel carriers of the M113 family and lightly armored vehicles. At the same time, the issue of equipping medium (they are also often called intermediate) divisions / brigades remained open. Various proposals sounded, but as a result, a promising wheeled armored vehicle was recognized as the optimal technique for medium-sized units. In addition, a platform machine was required, on the basis of which it was possible to create equipment for various purposes. Perhaps the idea of ​​such armored vehicles was spotted by the U.S. Army at the Marine Corps, which by then had been operating the LAV family of armored vehicles based on the MOWAG Piranha 8x8 armored car for more than ten years.




History and construction

To implement a deep modernization of the Swiss-Canadian machine, two major US defense concerns were attracted: General Dynamics and General Motors. At various stages in the project, called IAV (Interim Armored Vehicle - “Intermediate Armored Transport”), various departments of these companies participated. In this case, the main work was assigned to the Canadian branch of General Dynamics Land Systems, which used to be an independent GMC company and developed armored vehicles of the LAV family. The technical assignment for new cars was issued at the very beginning of 2000 of the year. At about the same time, the IAV program received another name - Stryker. According to the American tradition of the designation of armored vehicles, the new platform was named after the famous military. And this time in honor of two at once. This is Private First Class Stuart S. Stryker, who died 1945 in March, and fourth-grade specialist Robert F. Stryker, who did not return from Vietnam. For their heroism, both Strykers were posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor - the highest US military award.

When creating the Stryker armored platform, the maximum possible amount of the existing GMC developments was used. For this reason, for example, the overall layout and hull shape of a new protected vehicle remained almost the same as that of the LAV. The Caterpillar C7 diesel horsepower 350 is located in the front right side of the armored hull. Through the Allison 3200SP transmission, engine torque is transmitted to all eight wheels. In this case, a special pneumatic mechanism at the driver's command can turn off the front four wheels. This mode of operation with the wheel formula 8х4 is used for high-speed traffic on the highway. In the case of the base model of an armored personnel carrier (combat weight of the order of 16,5 tons) 350-strong engine provides speed up to one hundred kilometers per hour on the highway. Other variants of the Stryker, having a large combat mass, are not able to accelerate to such speeds and lose a little in this parameter to the base armored personnel carrier. Fuel reserve is enough for a march up to 500 kilometers. The wheel suspension system is borrowed from LAV without significant changes. The front four wheels received a spring suspension, the rear - torsion. In view of the assumed weight of the machines of the family, the suspension elements were slightly strengthened. As it turned out, the gain was insufficient.




The armored body of the Stryker is also a further development of the LAV project, but it has a number of significant differences. First of all, it is worth noting a large body height. To ensure the convenience of accommodating the crew, assault force, ammunition, etc., as well as to protect against mine explosions, it was necessary to rework the bottom profile and, as a result, increase the height of the hull. The latter was made to compensate for the "stolen" V-shaped bottom volume. As a result, the total height of the base armored personnel carrier (on the roof) was 25-30 centimeters more than the LAV vehicle. Increasing the height of the hull affected its contours. The upper part of it looks significantly different from the Canadian armored personnel carrier - the upper frontal part is longer and fits further with the roof, almost in front of the second axle. The Stryker armored hull is welded from panels up to 12 millimeters thick. Through the use of different grades of steel, protection is achieved that corresponds to the fourth level of the STANAG 4569 standard in frontal projection and the second to third from all other areas. In other words, the “native” front plates of the Stryker machine withstand the hit of armor-piercing bullets of 14,5 caliber of millimeters and fragments of a 155-mm projectile that exploded at a distance of about 30 meters. Boards and sterns, in turn, protect the crew, landing force and internal units only from 7,62 caliber mm armor-piercing bullets. In general, such protection indicators are not special, but they were considered sufficient and optimal in terms of the weight of the structure. Even at the initial design stage, the possibility of installing an additional reservation was provided. All machines of the Stryker family can be equipped with protection systems MEXAS manufactured by the German company IBD Deisenroth. When installing metal-ceramic panels, the level of protection is significantly improved. In this case, the sides and stern of the machine withstand the hit of bullets of caliber 14,5 mm, and the frontal parts - hit of 30-millimeter shells.





Modifications

The armament of the Strykers depends on the specific model, its range is quite diverse. Armament complexes should be considered in the light of the available armored vehicles of the family.



- M1126 ICV. Infantry Combat Vehicle is a basic armored personnel carrier vehicle. Carries a crew of two people and has nine seats for the landing. In the stern there is a ramp that can be folded down to land and disembark. On the ICV light turret, the M2HB heavy machine gun or the Mk.19 automatic grenade launcher can be mounted. In addition, there are devices for mounting a machine gun rifle caliber, for example, M240;



- M1127 RV. Reconnaissance Vehicle - armored reconnaissance vehicle. The armament complex is similar to the base armored vehicle. At the same time, in order to transmit information on the progress of the reconnaissance raid, the M1127 has a crew of three (a radio operator has been entered), and the number of landing places has been reduced to four;



- M1128 MGS. Mobile Gun System - "Mobile gun installation." Armored platform with an automatic turret installed on it for the 105-mm gun M68A1. The rifled gun is located in an uninhabited tower of relatively small size and is equipped with an automatic loader. The MGS main ammunition, ready to fire, consists of 18 shells. In the fighting compartment can accommodate an additional amount of ammunition, but in this case, the crew will have to manually load them into the automatic loader. Auxiliary weapon - M2HB machine gun coupled with a gun and smoke grenade launchers. Of particular interest is the sighting system of the machine M1128. A crew of three people has night-vision equipment and all-weather sights. In addition, all actions to control the fire are carried out using remote systems, which increases the survivability of the machine and crew. In terms of its firepower, the M1128 MGS is comparable to the M60 Patton tank;

Armored Stryker. Plans and problems


- M1129 MC. Mortar Carrier - self-propelled mortar. A pivoting platform and an 120-mm M6 mortar (aka Soltam K6) of Israeli design are installed in the troop compartment. Immediately placed boxes with ammunition. The crew of the M1129 MC consists of five people. In this case, directly with the mortar work only three. With a rate of fire of up to five rounds per minute, the M1129 MC self-propelled mortar can hit targets with conventional mines at a distance of up to 7200 meters and active-reactive at distances up to 10,5 km.



- M1130 CV. Command Vehicle - command and staff machine. Communications equipment and commanders' workstations are located in the troop compartment. Each company is entitled to two CMH M1130;



- M1131 FSV. Fire Support Vehicle is an intelligence and targeting vehicle. It differs from the basic M1126 armored personnel carrier only by the presence of additional communication equipment that is compatible with all standards used in NATO, as well as by a set of equipment for conducting visual reconnaissance, including at night;



- M1132 ESV. Engineer Squad Vehicle - engineering machine. Equipment for installation and neutralization of mines is installed on the chassis of the base Stryker. The main external difference from other machines of the family is the dozer blade. With it, you can dig mines or produce clearing debris;



- M1133 MEV. Medical Evacuation Vehicle - Sanitary evacuation vehicle. At the rear of the hull, the armored car is equipped with a special squared armored unit. Inside it are places for the wounded. Internal volumes of sanitary M1133 allow to place up to two physicians and up to six sedentary patients. If necessary, there is the possibility of transporting two lying wounded. Own equipment of the machine allows you to provide first aid and conducts a series of resuscitation measures. A set of medical equipment was selected so that the M1133 crew could take the fighters to the hospital even with severe injuries and injuries;



- M1134 ATGM. Anti-Tang Guilded Missile - anti-tank machine with guided missiles. In this version, an Emerson TUA turret with two launchers for BGM-71 TOW missiles of later modifications is installed on a standard chassis. The maximum ammunition capacity of the AGTM machine reaches fifteen missiles;



- M1135 NBCRV. Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle - machine for radiation, biological and chemical reconnaissance. The machine is devoid of any weapons systems, in addition to the personal weapons of the crew. The crew of four people works in a fully sealed hull and has the equipment necessary to determine signs of radiation, chemical or biological contamination. In addition, NBCRV is equipped with communication tools to quickly transfer infection data.

Operating results

Through the use of developments in the previous LAV project, General Dynamics Land Systems was able to quickly carry out all the design and test work. Already in the autumn of 2002, the first armored vehicles of the Stryker family were put into service, and in November of the same year, General Motors and General Dynamics Land Systems received an order for the supply of 2131 units of new equipment. The total cost of deliveries exceeded four billion dollars. The first copies of the vehicles entered the troops at the very beginning of the next 2003 of the year. In quantitative terms, the order of the armed forces was quite heterogeneous. Most of the cars ordered had to be built in the configuration of armored personnel carriers. Second in number - command and staff vehicles. Self-propelled mortars, reconnaissance, self-propelled guns and anti-tank Strikers were planned to be purchased in significantly smaller quantities.

Just a couple of months after the start of deliveries of new armored vehicles, the United States launched a war against Iraq. Already after the end of the main fighting, in October 2003, the transfer to Iraq of units armed with Stryker armored vehicles began. The first to go to the Middle East were fighters and vehicles of the 3 Brigade (2 Infantry Division) from Fort Lewis. Since November of the same year, they have been actively involved in maintaining order and patrolling various areas of Iraq. A year later, the 3 Brigade was replaced by the 1 Brigade of the 25 Division. Further, the change of "intermediate" units occurred regularly, and over time the service life was reduced: instead of a year, the soldiers began to be in Iraq twice as short. By the time the 3 Brigade of the 2 Infantry Division arrived, the main part of the war was over, and the opponents of NATO forces switched to guerrilla tactics. At this stage, in view of its characteristic features, a number of flaws in the design and tactics of the use of Strykers manifested themselves. Even before the end of the 3 brigade, negative reviews began to appear about the new technique. By the end of 2004, a special Pentagon commission prepared a voluminous report on the results of the use of armored personnel carriers and other vehicles of the Stryker family in real combat conditions.





This report caused a lot of controversy, which almost led to the closure of the entire program. Almost all project elements, from the engine to the seat belts, were criticized by specialists. The power plant and chassis "Strayker" was convenient and fully suitable for driving on the highway, but when driving off-road, there were big problems. Due to the not quite high power density (about 18-20 hp per ton of weight), even the base BTR is sometimes elm in the sand and required third-party assistance. Under certain conditions, it was necessary to “drive” the engine at maximum modes, which had a bad effect on its resource. In addition, there were often problems with the wheels and suspension. As it turned out, the done increase in depreciation and suspension was insufficient. Suspension resource was significantly less than calculated. Another trouble with the chassis was caused by a relatively large mass of combat. Because of it, the wheels taken from the LAV required regular and frequent pumping, which is not quite acceptable for use in combat conditions. Finally, there were cases when, after a couple of days of active use of the machine in difficult conditions, it was necessary to replace the tires. All this was the reason for recommending to strengthen the chassis design.

The second serious complaint concerned the level of protection. The Stryker armored hull was designed to protect against small arms bullets. If necessary, you could use hinged armor. However, in real conditions, the enemy preferred to fire armored personnel carriers not from machine guns and machine guns, but from anti-tank grenade launchers. Despite the solid age of the Soviet RPG-7, they were actively used by Iraqi armed forces. It is quite obvious that even additional metal-ceramic panels did not provide protection against such threats. Even before the completion of the report, several 3 brigade machines were equipped with anti-cumulation grilles. The grid panels were attached to the MEXAS armor attachments. When using gratings, the level of protection against cumulative ammunition increased significantly, although they did not become a panacea. The amount of damage to the hull was reduced, but it was not possible to completely get rid of them. However, the anti-cumulative grilles had one unpleasant side effect - the protective structure turned out to be rather heavy, which worsened the driving characteristics. The same thing was said in the report about additional MEXAS panels. As for the V-shaped mine bottom, there were almost no complaints about it. It coped well with its tasks and set aside the blast wave. It was noted that mine protection only deals with those explosive devices for which it is designed: up to ten kilograms in TNT equivalent.

Another security issue was complex and touched several sides of the structure at once. The Straykers had a relatively high center of gravity. Under certain conditions, this could lead to a coup machine. In total, over the years of operation of armored vehicles of this family, several dozens of similar cases were recorded, both due to the explosion under the bottom or the wheel, and due to difficult road conditions. In general, the increased likelihood of falling on its side was not something particularly dangerous, which required special attention, in addition to the corresponding points in the driving manual. However, in the first few months of using the Stryker armored personnel carrier in Iraq, three soldiers were killed while overturning vehicles. The reason for these incidents recognized the wrong design of seat belts for the crew and the landing force. As it turned out, they firmly held the person only with small shocks. With a serious overload, the used belts were useless, which eventually resulted in human casualties.





The armament complex, in general, did not cause any special complaints. The only requirement was the addition of a limiter for an automatic grenade launcher. At a certain position of the barrel, an accidental shot could lead to a grenade hitting the commander’s or driver’s hatch. Fortunately, there were no such incidents, but precaution with the limiter was considered important and necessary. As for the poor accuracy and accuracy of the Mk.19 grenade launcher when firing in motion, they are no longer news and in the report were mentioned only in passing, as an inevitable evil. The structure of the equipment "Strayker" includes several night-vision devices, including weapons associated with the sight. However, these devices initially gave a black and white picture. In a number of conditions, such an image is not sufficient to determine the purpose, in particular, during operations of a police nature, when, for example, exact identification of vehicles is required, including by color. The Pentagon Commission recommended replacing night vision devices with more convenient and efficient ones.

After the publication of the report, the use of armored personnel carriers and other vehicles of the Stryker family was limited. After several months of fierce disputes, we decided to continue the operation of these machines, but as soon as possible to re-equip the existing equipment in accordance with the results of operation, and immediately build all the new machines according to the updated project. Fortunately for the Pentagon’s financiers, by the time the report was published, General Dynamics Land Systems and General Motors had managed to build only a small part of the machines ordered. In this regard, subsequent batches of armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns, etc. manufactured with the identified problems. At the same time there were no significant changes. Armored cars received new electronics, regular anti-cumulation grilles and a number of other fixes. In 2008, the Pentagon ordered 600 more than more machines of various configurations. They were originally built on the updated project.

“Congenital” design and equipment deficiencies, which had to be corrected in the course of production, led to a noticeable increase in the cost of the program. In the case of a complete transfer of intermediate brigades and divisions to the Stryker machines, the total value of orders for equipment can pass through the 15 mark of billions of dollars. Initially, it was planned to spend about 12 billion on equipping six brigades and building related infrastructure. It is worth noting that the figure in 15 billions of dollars still fits into the plans of the Pentagon and Congress: from the very beginning of the IAV Stryker program, it was envisaged to reserve two to three billion in case of an unexpected increase in expenses.





Project Perspectives

Despite the considerable efforts made to eliminate the identified deficiencies, the look of the armored vehicles of the Stryker family continues to be ambiguous. On the one hand, the combat qualities of the cars improved markedly, but on the other, they became more expensive and less convenient to transport. The last question is as follows: the characteristics of the main American military transport aircraft C-130 make it possible to transport most of the Stryker family of vehicles. In addition, earlier in some cases, additional booking modules could be placed on board the aircraft. Thus, the transportation of a unit required as many planes as there were armored vehicles in a company, a battalion, etc. With the addition of full-time anti-cumulation gratings, the situation has become more complicated. The dimensions and weight of this protection are such that the list of Stryker modifications that can be transported with all the additional protection has been reduced to a couple of cars. Thus, for the transfer of units it is necessary to allocate additional transport aircraft for the transport of armor modules and hinged grilles. All this most directly affects the cost of operating armored vehicles.

Further improvement of the Stryker is in the direction of improving electronics, upgrading weapons and installing new protective equipment. In particular, it is planned to create and launch dynamic protection modules for the series, however, due to a number of design features, this will not be very easy. In principle, the Americans could try to make a completely new armored platform. However, all or almost all the ways for such a “retreat” were blocked ten years ago, when the Pentagon, not taking into account possible problems, ordered more than two thousand armored personnel carriers and other vehicles of the family at once. As a result, a lot of money was spent on building machines that were not quite ready for war, and the creation of new equipment and its large-scale production would cost even more. Thus, the US Army remains the only modernization of the Stryker, at least in the coming years. But at this rate of improvement, the “Strykers” need for a completely new armored platform can mature much earlier than planned.

One of the reasons for all the failures of the IAV Stryker program is the fallacy of the concept itself. One of the authors of the idea of ​​intermediate brigades, General Eric Shinseki, who at one time headed the headquarters of the US Army, systematically advanced his proposal for the rapid creation of a new structure and its equally rapid equipment. General Shinseki repeatedly stated that the state of the army fifteen years ago did not meet the requirements of the time. Tank units were too "cumbersome", and motorized infantry - too weak in terms of weapons. The solution to the problem was to be a new family of vehicles, combining the mobility of light armored vehicles and the firepower of heavy ones. As you can see, the chosen path was not entirely correct, and the ground forces of the United States received combat vehicles that were not fully suitable for real combat conditions.


On the materials of the sites:
http://army-guide.com/
http://army.mil/
http://gdlscanada.com/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://military-informer.narod.ru/
http://armytimes.com/
Author:
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Esso
    Esso 31 October 2012 08: 57 New
    +6
    A good article, we should give read to our ranks from defense mines, who want to introduce widely wheeled armored vehicles. Just like Khrushev, sow everything with corn! Here is a clear example of the operation of wheeled vehicles. We don’t have to step on the same rake!
    1. aktanir
      aktanir 31 October 2012 10: 22 New
      +1
      As a result, the technique turned out to be good taking into account the changes made. It would not hurt us to buy this from amers - a couple of hundred. For border guards, for example, and also to the North Caucasus. We will not arrange the release of our own similar one yet. Moreover, there is no need to modify the "strikers" globally, the Americans have already run them in and completed them as needed
      1. Samovar
        Samovar 31 October 2012 10: 58 New
        +5
        Quote: aktanir
        It would not hurt us to get a couple of hundred from amers.

        1) And why did you get the idea that they will be sold to us?
        2) Nothing that we have our own wheeled platform is being developed?
      2. Bashkaus
        Bashkaus 31 October 2012 21: 15 New
        +2
        I agree, samples are needed, but why buy them, if the Georgians willingly give them away, they’ll throw them away with the latest radio equipment under the Chinese Olympics. The only one, with pickup;)
    2. avdkrd
      avdkrd 31 October 2012 10: 35 New
      +6
      We have a rare variety of Minister of Defense - a mixture of furniture maker with corn. Unprofessionalism multiplied by maximalism, plus an indefatigable thirst for profit.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 31 October 2012 15: 57 New
        +4
        Quote: avdkrd
        We have a rare version of the Minister of Defense - a mixture of furniture maker with corn

        In the United States, only a civilian can be the Minister of Defense by law ... and no one sees a problem

        As for the Stryker, it's a great car. Universal, feeding, mobile. Regarding security, any armored personnel carrier can be disabled, but when it comes to American vehicles, "experts" begin to list grenade launchers, powerful IEDs ... to disable our armored personnel carriers with 6-mm armor, a couple of shots from the DShK are enough. Russian armored personnel carriers do not even protect against The Most Primitive means of destruction!

        The concept of a light, "floating" armored personnel carrier turns out to be a dead end - the armor must protect people, everything else - swimming, climbing, is a secondary function. Why do we need a "floating" armored personnel carrier, if the paratroopers prefer to ride on armor ???
        1. Commodus
          Commodus 31 October 2012 20: 13 New
          +1
          The problem of our Minister of Defense is not that he is a civilian, but that he is a presumptuous creature and dol ... b!
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 31 October 2012 20: 57 New
            +2
            It is not far from the truth. bully
  2. kov
    kov 31 October 2012 10: 17 New
    +1
    Stryker Review -

    1. Splin
      Splin 31 October 2012 11: 07 New
      +5
      Stryker-ordinary armored personnel carrier. There is nothing to expect from him superpowers. As if another armored personnel carrier would even keep an old shot from an RPG. Normal armored personnel carrier, like all modern ones. Is that not swimming ..
  3. borisst64
    borisst64 31 October 2012 11: 18 New
    0
    Why do we need chains hanging on the sides? Nothing intelligible comes to mind. Maybe it’s easier for fighters to climb on the armor?
    1. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus 31 October 2012 21: 18 New
      +1
      Yes, they have a lot of things there on the sides; it’s not clear why, I won’t be surprised even if the heads of the killed opponents are for fear. (I once saw a photo of a Yerokez helicopter in Vietnam, on the noses of skis along the Vietnamese's skull)
      1. Cat
        Cat 31 October 2012 22: 33 New
        +2
        this is because there are many afro-blacks in the American army. Which, according to the ancient rapper tradition, are accustomed to hanging their cars with all sorts of bright colors and gadgets. Well, having come to the service, they are doing the same =)
    2. Dikremnij
      Dikremnij 22 November 2012 14: 48 New
      0
      I don’t know how unions, and Israeli tankers hung chains with weights to the tower as a defense.
  4. yanus
    yanus 31 October 2012 11: 55 New
    +3
    In America, the loot is being sawn. our learns and learns. Two thousandths on the street, and the amers made a slightly advanced copy of the BTR-80. Moreover, the advancement is not the latest development approaches, but just a little better quality armor and electronics. And still crap.
    And all because they did not develop a new armored personnel carrier, but stupidly hung and stuffed into the old man everything that was possible and impossible. So he bends.
    But the budget is cut, everyone is happy. Interestingly, they dare to massively use it in military operations or as a raptor for parades? )) although they have nowhere to go, they will use it - there’s nothing else special.
  5. Voin sveta82
    Voin sveta82 31 October 2012 12: 08 New
    +4
    These amerikosy throw so much bobla on such developments .... and often it doesn’t work out as planned ..))) we would have sent such to long ago in Magadan ...)))
    1. Eric
      Eric 2 November 2012 12: 55 New
      +1
      We would have already had a military Death Star built on their budget for a long time! :) It would also have been enough in our pockets! :)
  6. Slevinst
    Slevinst 31 October 2012 13: 08 New
    +3
    useful article, I am glad that in the United States there is such a technique, if they had more crude unfinished technology
  7. bask
    bask 31 October 2012 13: 12 New
    +2
    I want to thank Kiril Ryabor not only for this article, but for all the articles about armored vehicles. Everything is clear without water. Solid INFORATION and balanced analytics !!! Well done ..... And we will have enough troops on the subject. Boomerangs then we’ll see what happens. And the question is why during the war in Chechnya 1 2. Our BTR 80s were not hung with lattice anti-cumulative screens. Yes, and now I do not see them on BTR82, in the S. Caucasus. The effective thing is against RPG7 .....
    1. Samovar
      Samovar 31 October 2012 13: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: bask
      Our armored personnel carriers 80 were not hung with lattice anti-cumulative screens

      They began to weigh in South Ossetia, but these were more likely isolated cases.
  8. Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 31 October 2012 15: 37 New
    0
    Stryker, this is a failure.
    -Price
    -Protection
    - Operational and tactical mobility
    - By order, speed is limited to 35 miles per hour. Above, it begins to fall apart.
    Of the benefits, only unification with FMTV, which also has very average characteristics.
    1. Splin
      Splin 31 October 2012 15: 50 New
      +4
      this is a myth, normally it goes along the road and 65 miles per hour. And as for the rough terrain .. Ride for half an hour in the troop compartment of our BMP at a speed of 50 km. There will never be children! Moreover, you’ll beat off your head so that you don’t even remember how to make them.
      And all the other items. Can a 5 millionth Boxster be better?
      1. Cat
        Cat 31 October 2012 16: 16 New
        +2
        Quote: Splin
        Ride for half an hour in the troop compartment of our BMP at a speed of 50 km. There will never be children! Moreover, you’ll beat off your head so that you don’t even remember how to make them.

        So after all, skated, in those days. And then they did the children - more than now, when the minibus at rush hour is considered the most extreme mode of transport. =)
        1. Splin
          Splin 31 October 2012 16: 21 New
          -1
          30 km / h maximum, or even all 15. This is indicated in regulatory documents. And did not go through the fields! (I just did not specify the route).
          1. Cat
            Cat 31 October 2012 22: 26 New
            0
            Well, if you didn’t go, and according to the standards, it’s not necessary - why then to mention such a problem?
            The case when the amers on Abrams tried to repeat the T-90 exhibition jump, which ended in a fracture of the spine at the driver’s arm, is this a reason to say that the T-90 is definitely better than Abrams? It may be better, it is only determined by completely different criteria. And not a private example, performed, moreover, in violation of the rules of operation and use of this combat vehicle.
      2. bask
        bask 31 October 2012 16: 41 New
        0
        Splin Who and when in combat, went to BMP BMD BTR in the airborne squad. Besides the fur .. they drove everything on the armor to freeze eggs. I think that only the Kurgan will provide the necessary protection for the crew and the airborne force. Do all this, according to SEP technology Sweden on the GC and the wheel. He wouldn’t have a price. The depth of the rivers in the Caucasus is 1.5 meters maximum. Security and once again protected !!! And ,, Boomerangs ,, only equip marpehs and airborne forces ...
        1. Splin
          Splin 31 October 2012 16: 53 New
          +2
          I will not talk about the foggy future and about the war in the Caucasus. I’ll tell you about combined arms combat: company columns are being reconstructed into platoon, platoon columns are deployed into battle formation. And only then the infantry is landing. And before that, prostate massage and helmets music on the top hatches in the box - not before. In the Caucasus, other armored personnel carriers of the type Mrap are needed. Stryker is also an ordinary batter, only a new generation. And he is out of place in Iraq in police operations, the Americans realized this.
          1. bask
            bask 31 October 2012 18: 01 New
            0
            Splin About ,, foggy ,, you bent ... I have a bro in Afghanistan 86-88 on armored personnel carriers and BMPs rewound 1000 km. Named company and regiment columns. Tell me what I wrote to at least one veteran, lok, wars ... As for everything else, I completely agree ,,, Stryker ,, APCs and aren’t a new generation. ,, Piranha ,, 3, Light quick-deployment brigades, this is the Airborne Forces and the Marine Corps ... Here they need ,, Boomerang ,,,,.
            1. Splin
              Splin 31 October 2012 18: 24 New
              +1
              Quote: bask
              I have a bro in Afghanistan 86-88 on an armored personnel carrier armored personnel carrier And an IFV 1000 km rewound.


              How are the Afghan spirits fundamentally different from the militants of Chechnya or the rebels in Iraq. The same guerrilla tactics. And about the new generation. Fundamentally there is nothing, except perhaps Boxster. All western armored personnel carriers and armored personnel carriers-4 have one scheme.
              1. bask
                bask 31 October 2012 18: 42 New
                +1
                Splin I practically agree with everything. But there is a Shvetskaya concept of SEP. According to which BMP on the GC and on the wheels, the Aligator, 8/8 have already been created. As you know, there is, Stryker +, on the GC ((there is not enough information on it) )) I think, Kurgan’s, it should be on the GC and on the wheels ... weighing from 25 to 30 tons. It was created in the USSR. A medium tracked chassis. MT-C. There is no information on it. In an article by Cyril about Polish self-propelled guns ,, Crab ,, error. Self-propelled guns on the MT-S chassis ,, Polish name ,,, Kalina, with front MTO. This Soviet development was actively used by the Poles when creating the unified combat platform tank, Anders ,,,
                1. Splin
                  Splin 31 October 2012 18: 51 New
                  0
                  All this can be attributed to the category of heavy infantry fighting vehicles as well as the alteration of Soviet BMPT-64 and BMPT-64K tanks. Let's all armor! The Germans and their northern neighbors generally always liked the excessive protection. But remember the Battle of the Ice.
                  1. bask
                    bask 31 October 2012 19: 07 New
                    +3
                    Yes, not only to Germans and Scandinavians .., the British in their tanks, .. mobility, sacrificed, for the sake of reinforced armor. New platforms will see what happened ... I say that the USSR has outstripped all Westerners by how much. Having created GM 123 for self-propelled guns, Akatsiya, MT-S, MT-SM .it. How many super infantry fighting vehicles on this base could to create all 25 tons with a carrying capacity of up to 12 tons. These are ready BMPs of the WORLD LEVEL. In the 70-80 years !!! How much extra armor to install. MTO in the nose. Aft entrance. Fuck .... such developments have come through. And now ,, Boxers ,, admire ... id ......... s
                    1. bask
                      bask 31 October 2012 20: 55 New
                      0
                      PS unfortunately, such an infantry fighting vehicle was created by palyak based on our GS-MT-S. In 1994. BMP BWP 200, masa 25-29 tons, length 7.03 width 3.03. MTO in the bow. Aft entrance. Three crew members. And 8 mt fighters. And now a pair is produced by the brand, ,, Anders ,,, Here and ,, Kurganets ,, in '12 !!!
      3. Mr. Truth
        Mr. Truth 31 October 2012 17: 54 New
        +1
        Splin,
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EzRzTj3kWc
        Here is the text.
        Quote: Splin
        our BMP at a speed of 50 km

        I have never seen such. at such speeds along the intersection.
        Quote: Splin
        Can a 5 millionth Boxster be better?

        At a price the striker is not far from the boxer. and a 33 ton machine on such a rubber profile is just a parquet armored personnel carrier.
        1. Splin
          Splin 31 October 2012 18: 17 New
          +1
          The price of the Stryker is from 2,8 to 4,9 million dollars. Che stuffed in the maximum version - the devil knows. And in the fields, he not only saw BMP driving, even sat at the helm. Only the landing was not behind. Sorry for them.
          And as for the video and information, so in NEW YORK, SHARKS ARE SWIMMING IN THE STREETS. IT HAPPENS DIFFERENTLY, it is not necessary to divide everything under one comb.
          1. bask
            bask 31 October 2012 18: 27 New
            -3
            This is amer’s retribution for, HAARP ,,, played out with .... and. ,, Rape ,,, nature is impossible !!! She will answer 100 times .... This is only the beginning for amers ...
          2. Cavas
            Cavas 31 October 2012 18: 36 New
            +6
            Quote: Splin
            And as for the video and information, so in NEW YORK, SHARKS ARE SWIMMING IN THE STREETS. IT HAPPENS DIFFERENTLY, it is not necessary to divide everything under one comb.

            "Sources have confirmed to us that Hurricane Sandy, which hit the United States, was triggered by highly advanced technologies developed by the heroic Iranian regime, which is backed by the Syrian authorities," CNN reports today. wassat

            1. Splin
              Splin 31 October 2012 18: 40 New
              +1
              Yes brost you watch Igor Prokopenko’s program on Ren-TV!
              1. fareastwood
                fareastwood 5 November 2012 04: 51 New
                0
                totally agree
            2. View
              View 1 November 2012 00: 43 New
              +1
              THIS FIVE !!! good good good
  9. Volozhanin
    Volozhanin 31 October 2012 15: 51 New
    +1
    good article and good photos, thanks to the author. But I implore you, do not look at the Military Secret, the same shit as Strike Force. I can also recommend the article "Stryker Brigades and the Reality of Military Operations", it seems like it was called that, useful for general development ...
    1. Splin
      Splin 31 October 2012 15: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: Volozhanin
      you don’t look Military secret, the same shit as Striking force


      Bo-oh-big plus to you!
    2. bask
      bask 31 October 2012 16: 44 New
      0
      A Volunteer, I watched there is a sin. But when it all ended with flying saucers, I understood. This is the diagnosis ......... I'm according to Vysotsky, well, crazy, what if you take it ,,,, ......
    3. Glenn witcher
      1 November 2012 00: 13 New
      +2
      And in my opinion, a good entertainment program. More funny than some.
      Although, of course, it is a pity that sunk to alien-confusion.
  10. bask
    bask 31 October 2012 16: 52 New
    +1
    Yes, Why, our ours, the Moscow Region does not purchase an BTR 90?. Better yet, ,, Striker ,,, will be. And with mine protection. Although up to 15 years old, in units deployed in the S. Caucasus. for, the Armed Forces and the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. How many lives of soldiers could have been saved ... But in the Ministry of Defense, in my opinion, the soldier is ...... ......
  11. Strashila
    Strashila 31 October 2012 20: 20 New
    +1
    The article is wonderful ... As for the Americans, the problems are the same, only our designers and manufacturers are doing everything cheaper. We want mine protection ... we’re raising the clearance correctly ... we are losing the center of mass ..., the crew’s protection .. bulletproof ... we want better ... we hang out additional armor or screens ... the mass is growing, patency and maneuverability are falling ... EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED. And what is the American technique better than ours ... only because it is made in americosia.
  12. View
    View 1 November 2012 00: 46 New
    +1
    interesting review. Very versatile universal machine
    But the future lies with heavy vehicles such as Israeli Namer
  13. tracer
    tracer 1 November 2012 06: 03 New
    +2
    I think that I am one of the few oblong Stryker along and across at one of the exhibitions in North America. One of the smiling Canadian sodates turned out to be Sergey (the son of an emigrant and former SA officer from Minsk). Well, it doesn’t matter, in principle, although it’s funny ... This guy spent one mission in Afghanistan in an embrace with Stryker. He explained to me that you don’t need to jump from the Russian bets in full ammunition, everything inside is convenient and candey ... music again. Good car, I swear, comfortable for a soldier. An unusual amount of convenient little things making life easier for an infantryman .. In general, the car is good, it really serves and fights. Since what good is not a sin, you will take advantage. But even the appearance is HEAVY .....
  14. mshl
    mshl 1 November 2012 11: 58 New
    +3
    Quote: Splin
    30 km / h maximum, or even all 15. This is indicated in regulatory documents. And did not go through the fields! (I just did not specify the route)

    40-50 km on the intersection for BMP is the absolute norm. In our company, on a straight and level field road, it was dispersed to 90, by the way. And there is a beha at the level of a passenger car, in softness, it is long. Only loud yes, but very smooth.
    I rode on it for two years, in a tower and sometimes a landing, on roads, fields and sailed a couple of times. Everything is ok with the children, don’t worry, I have a familiar 13 mech water driver in Afghanistan who dribbled on BMP-1, there are children;) By the way, there is an exercise: high-speed driving at night in a convoy, you can search, we got an average speed of 55 km.
  15. Bugor
    Bugor 1 November 2012 19: 07 New
    -1
    Maybe they have outlived their age - BETERS?
    Security - BMP.
    In armament - also BMP.
    I don’t see the worse it is to deliver (exaggerate) to the battlefield with trucks ...
  16. Eric
    Eric 2 November 2012 02: 44 New
    +2
    Requirements for "Stryker". KFOR and the then min. defense decided that they are needed, based on the experience of service in Yugoslavia.

    The requirements put forward:
    - protection from about 14.5 mm (I apologize in advance if I make a mistake, the memory is bad).
    - transportability by air, in particular the S-130, of which the United States has many, at a distance of 1000 miles.
    - a unified platform for various types of vehicles, infantry transportation, support vehicle - MGS (105 mm gun, removed from the Patton tank, the developer decided to save, because the gun is cheap and in huge quantities available), an ambulance armored personnel carrier, etc.
    - Well, mobility of course, there were requirements for them to deploy anywhere in the world within 96 hours, that is, the 4th day.

    What was implemented:
    - protection from 14.5 mm is not implemented, moreover, the lower part of the sides is beaten with light small arms, namely the wheels, and the gap between them. The tires are single-ply, dictated by the support and pressure variation for flotation. As it turned out, because of the high side (count the size of the school bus), the car behaves very unstable at high speeds, there was a case three cars fell on their side at the training ground. I saw the photo with my own eyes. On the off-road, he is not allowed to develop high speed for the reasons described above. Armored vehicles of the LAV family of the Marine Corps seem to be preferable, and the Bradley too.
    - transportability by air by means of the C-130 is not realized, because the mass is too large, only part of the fleet (which I do not remember, sorry) of these machines fits in weight. Accordingly, one of the main requirements has not been implemented. It was proposed to transport all attachments on a separate board. Then the meaning of this machine disappears almost immediately, for its tasks there is a "Bradley", it has a golden mean of weapons, but protection will be better. The MGS cannot be transported by plane at all, and because of its cannon it cannot be delivered even with two sides. For they are needed to support lighter brothers, that is, they must simultaneously engage in battle, again due to the mobility and speed of the offensive.
    - As for unification, it is achieved at a decent level.
    - Mobility is in question, an armored personnel carrier cannot turn around on a heel, engine power is not enough for making breaks in barriers when working in an urban area, this is a huge drawback, the car retains the ability to move like if there are 2 wheels left on each side. If my memory serves me right, the tire inflation system is only on 4th wheels, again 2 on board.
    I think all this is enough. All that I remember, I wrote.

    Conclusion:
    - The most important requirements during the development, implementation, trial operation were not. In particular, transportation by S-130 aircraft.
    - The MGS system, having a 105 mm gun, cannot have a wide aiming angle horizontally, due to the high center of gravity, one hundred percent recoil will overturn it on its side, because the aiming sector in the frontal projection is very small. This is typical for all types of vehicles on this platform, including versions armed with a machine gun. There are a number of drawbacks associated with the use of guns, with the nearby infantry. Small ammunition in the conveyor belt, because in addition to high-explosive fragmentation shells, anti-tank shells should also be tinkering with. What is 9 shells permissible !? It’s the same as having three horns for a Kalashnikov assault rifle, in conditions of specific contact with the enemy. In a compartment with its non-transportability, this is a huge minus.
    - I won't talk about armor protection, because the US Armed Forces have much more successful armored personnel carriers, and here "Bradley" is the first. Of course, one can argue that there is an infantry fighting vehicle and a Stryker is an armored personnel carrier, but this is not the point in my opinion. For they must become the backbone of their expeditionary corps.
    The firepower for battle in the same city is very weak.
    1. Eric
      Eric 2 November 2012 02: 45 New
      +1
      - As for unification, it is achieved at a decent level.
      - Mobility is in question, an armored personnel carrier cannot turn around on a heel, engine power is not enough for making breaks in barriers when working in an urban area, this is a huge drawback, the car retains the ability to move like if there are 2 wheels left on each side. If my memory serves me right, the tire inflation system is only on 4th wheels, again 2 on board.
      I think all this is enough. All that I remember, I wrote.
      Conclusion:
      - The most important requirements during the development, implementation, trial operation were not. In particular, transportation by S-130 aircraft.
      - The MGS system, having a 105 mm gun, cannot have a wide aiming angle horizontally, due to the high center of gravity, one hundred percent recoil will overturn it on its side, because the aiming sector in the frontal projection is very small. This is typical for all types of vehicles on this platform, including versions armed with a machine gun. There are a number of drawbacks associated with the use of guns, with the nearby infantry. Small ammunition in the conveyor belt, because in addition to high-explosive fragmentation shells, anti-tank shells should also be tinkering with. What is 9 shells permissible !? It’s the same as having three horns for a Kalashnikov assault rifle, in conditions of specific contact with the enemy. In a compartment with its non-transportability, this is a huge minus.
      - I won't talk about armor protection, because the US Armed Forces have much more successful armored personnel carriers, and here "Bradley" is the first. Of course, one can argue that there is an infantry fighting vehicle and a Stryker is an armored personnel carrier, but this is not the point in my opinion. For they must become the backbone of their expeditionary corps.
      The firepower for battle in the same city is very weak.
    2. fsb_buzuk
      fsb_buzuk 31 October 2019 16: 19 New
      0
      It's like that!
      Here is another translated article on this topic: http://pentagonus.ru/publ/brigady_quot_strajker_quot_i_realnosti_boevykh_dejstvij_ch1_2003/6-1-0-2271
  17. Uruska
    Uruska 3 November 2012 21: 47 New
    -1
    Our IS-3 is better. Crush all shit.
  18. fareastwood
    fareastwood 4 November 2012 14: 42 New
    -1
    Good car.
  19. Bugor
    Bugor 12 November 2012 13: 13 New
    0
    And where is this nice car? In Chelyabinsk on a pedestal, and in Kubinka on the street. Everything has its time. And right now, definitely not the time of IS3, IS4, IS7 ....
    And I can smack a photo with IS3 too. Well, he won’t get better from this ... Alas ...
  20. ko88
    ko88 17 February 2013 00: 01 New
    +1
    we also need to strengthen the armor to the detriment of the buoyancy.
  21. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 4 June 2015 22: 45 New
    0
    one thing is good - the platform is unified - you need to adopt this.