Stryker armored vehicles in Ukraine. First losses and predictable future

42
Stryker armored vehicles in Ukraine. First losses and predictable future
Foreign technology in Ukraine. The Stryker armored personnel carrier is second from the left. Photo Telegram / BMPD


This year, the United States transferred a large number of Stryker armored vehicles and various auxiliary equipment to the Kyiv regime. This equipment was preserved for a long time and was not sent into battle. However, it had to be used in the notorious counter-offensive, and the results of combat use were far from desired. Several Ukrainian Strykers have already been destroyed under various circumstances, and the same future awaits the rest of the delivered vehicles.



Help with armored personnel carriers


In mid-January, the American press, citing its sources, reported that Washington had decided to transfer the Stryker family of equipment to the Kyiv regime. It was indicated that about a hundred of these vehicles will be sent to Ukraine, which will be taken from the fleet of US ground forces.

Soon official confirmation arrived. Strykers were indeed included in the next aid package. It was planned to supply 90 units. equipment, 20 mine trawls and other equipment. Later, the Pentagon and the White House several times included additional batches of such smaller vehicles in new aid packages. In total, they promised to transfer approx. 190 units technology and various equipment for it. Also, the process of training Ukrainian crews has been established at American bases.


Stryker and crew members. Photo Telegram / BMPD

The first batch of Stryker armored personnel carriers was prepared for delivery at the end of January and was likely sent to Ukraine soon. The Kiev regime showed the first armored vehicles received only at the end of March. At the same time, it became known that the first American armored personnel carriers were transferred to the 82nd separate air assault brigade of the Ukrainian army.

Subsequently, the United States continued to ship the promised equipment, and it was distributed among Ukrainian units. Various photo and video materials with Strykers appeared regularly, but all of them were taken in the rear. Ukrainian fighters mastered the armored vehicles they received and were preparing to use them, but the command was in no hurry to send them to the front.

Failed counteroffensive


In early June, the Kiev regime launched its long-promised “counteroffensive.” It involved several large formations equipped with armored vehicles of different classes and types. At the same time, not all vehicles supplied from abroad recently were present in the advancing formations. In particular, the American Stryker armored personnel carriers and other equipment of this family did not make it onto the battlefield at that time.


M1132 ESV engineering vehicle with roller trawl. Photo Telegram / BMPD

The first reliable information about the presence of Stryker armored personnel carriers at the front appeared only a month later. On July 6, the Russian Ministry of Defense in its daily report for the first time mentioned the destruction of a combat vehicle of this type in one of the main directions. On August 17, they reported the destruction of three Strykers at once in the Zaporozhye direction. The August 20 report included two such vehicles in the same area. Two more armored personnel carriers were reported on August 25.

The known LostArmour database currently contains only five destroyed Stryker vehicles, and also provides their photographs and coordinates. The base included two M1132 ESV / Stryker engineering vehicles, destroyed on August 19 in the Zaporozhye region. Another such vehicle was hit in the same area on August 20, the next one on the 24th. The last Stryker on the LostArmor list dates back to September 9th.

Thus, the Ministry of Defense reports the destruction of eight armored vehicles of the Stryker family, and LostArmour indicates only five such episodes. Discrepancies in the number of embossed equipment, dates, etc. are explained simply. The ministry's press service has almost direct access to information from the front, while the compilers of LostArmor are forced to rely on open sources. In addition, photos or videos confirming the destruction or seizure of equipment are required to be entered into the database. This means that not all the damaged cars managed to get into the frame.


M1132, destroyed in mid-August. Photo Lostarmour.info

It cannot be ruled out that the actual number of Strykers destroyed is even higher. For example, this or that equipment could be destroyed when a shelter or other object was hit, and it will not yet be possible to reliably establish the fact of its destruction. In addition, accidents and breakdowns in the rear are possible, which they will try to hide.

One way or another, since the beginning of July, armored personnel carriers and engineering vehicles of the Stryker family have been present in the combat zone and are participating in the notorious “counter-offensive.” As expected from the very beginning, this technique slightly improves the capabilities of the Ukrainian infantry, but overall does not affect the course of battles. In addition, the fleet of foreign armored vehicles is suffering significant losses, and such demilitarization will continue.

Causes of failure


The Ukrainian “counteroffensive” failed, and foreign armored vehicles did not live up to the expectations of the Kyiv regime. The Strikers were no exception and also performed poorly. A number of factors related to both the characteristics of foreign combat vehicles and the specifics of their use by the Kyiv regime led to such results.

It is easy to see that the Ukrainian formations were never able to assemble a strike force for a full-fledged offensive in one area or another. Breakout attempts use small groups of equipment and units, which are quickly overwhelmed and destroyed by Russian defenses. As a result, combat vehicles, incl. Stryker, often cannot even get close to the positions of our army.


The same car from a different angle. Photo Lostarmour.info

The wheeled chassis prevents you from moving forward and solving a combat mission. As previously assumed, wheeled armored personnel carriers are experiencing problems with mobility in the landscapes of the current theater. Any obstacles make movement difficult, and broken dirt roads become an almost impassable obstacle. The mobility of the equipment is deteriorating, and it is becoming an easy target for Russian firepower.

Advancing columns are destroyed in various ways. One of the first lines of defense is minefields located at a distance from the main positions. As can be judged from the available materials, a number of Stryker vehicles were blown up by mines. It should be noted that Ukrainian formations take this threat into account and are trying to fight it. So, along with the armored personnel carrier, M1132 ESV engineering vehicles with trawls are sent to the front line.

However, the characteristics of standard mine action equipment do not always correspond to the specifics of a particular minefield. As a result, the trawl may collapse and cause damage to its carrier. In addition, the minefield always has fire cover, which will not allow passages to be made with impunity.


Equipment knocked out on August 24. Photo Lostarmour.info

Another long-range line of defense is anti-tank missile systems. Kornet ATGMs of various modifications are widely used in the Russian army. Their missiles are capable of flying at a distance of up to 5-8 km and hitting the target with high accuracy. A standard warhead designed to combat tanks, is guaranteed to hit a Stryker with a set of mounted protection from any angle.

An American armored personnel carrier or engineering vehicle is also a fairly easy target for any artillery systems. Russian tanks are capable of hitting Strykers even at the extreme ranges of their guns. Field artillery also poses a great threat: a direct hit from any shell will simply destroy an armored personnel carrier, and a close explosion will cause it some damage, even critical.

Unprepared for battle


The Stryker family of armored vehicles was created on the basis of a platform from the seventies and was intended for use in low-intensity conflicts. Following its use during the intervention in Iraq, this technique was severely criticized. Now it turns out that she was unprepared for full-fledged battles with a developed and well-equipped enemy. The Russian army, in turn, has all the necessary means to counter American armored personnel carriers, as well as to quickly and reliably destroy them.

To date, the Kiev regime has received from the United States at least several dozen armored personnel carriers and other equipment of the Stryker line. At first they tried to protect such equipment, but now the situation forces it to be sent into battle. The result of its application is well known, and the prospects are clear. If Ukraine continues its “counter-offensive,” then over time the entire Stryker fleet will be disabled or destroyed.
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    19 September 2023 04: 40
    Instead of an adequate analysis, again there was some mischievous propaganda from Ryabov. negative Isn't the author tired of this?
    1. -3
      19 September 2023 05: 11
      Quote: Tucan
      Instead of adequate analysis

      And why is this analysis inadequate? It’s more adequate than the Khokhlomria of the times before the use of armored personnel carriers...
      1. 0
        19 September 2023 21: 05
        Well, yes, well, yes, everything is learned by comparison.
        How did the unparalleled BTR-82A perform there?
        After all, for a moment, he is “an analogue of Stryker” according to the fairy tales of the Star and various woodcarvers.
        1. 0
          20 September 2023 03: 37
          Quote: Holgerton
          How did the unparalleled BTR-82A perform there?

          I don’t see a single word in the article about the superiority of the BTR-82A over the Stryker. Is this a sign of inadequate analysis?
          1. 0
            21 September 2023 12: 54
            Well, if for you this writing by Ryabov is an adequate analysis, then give a thesis in favor of this very adequacy, you can start right away with his quirks about:
            "Russian tanks are capable of hitting Stryker even at the maximum firing range of their guns."

            This is simply nonsense! The armored personnel carrier does not hold a tank shell EVEN from extreme distances!

            I’ll just keep silent about the rest of the pouring from empty to empty.

            For a long time now, the articles of this scribbler, as by default, do not contain even an ounce of objective analysis, which only the lazy did not talk about here.
            Ryabov is now either a pathological liar or a useful buffoon, nothing more.
    2. +10
      19 September 2023 06: 40
      I don’t understand at all all this excitement about damaged equipment - even leopards, even Bradley...
      As many people know, the T-34 was also a very vulnerable tank and its losses during the war years were tens of thousands... which does not detract from its role and quality.
      In addition to the technical characteristics (roughly speaking, in the framework of the article, impenetrability), it is important to simply “shikoku-shikoku”
      1. +4
        19 September 2023 10: 01
        Russian tanks are capable of hitting Strykers even at the extreme ranges of their guns.
        Does the distance to the target matter for a shell from a tank cannon? Or does the projectile lose its explosive volume in flight? laughing ... I didn't know about this before.. lol . I would like to believe that our armored personnel carriers can withstand any tank shell, even with depleted uranium fellow
        1. 0
          19 September 2023 12: 17
          I guess that the author simply did not note that we could be talking about ordinary kinetic projectiles, which actually lose speed from distance and, accordingly, lose their armor-piercing power. You can forgive the author for this little understatement. wink
          1. +1
            19 September 2023 21: 12
            But even World War II tanks could hit Strykers at the maximum firing range of their guns. This is not very valuable information that the armored personnel carrier cannot hold the fire of a tank.
    3. +2
      19 September 2023 12: 53
      Isn't the author tired of this?

      Well, you yourself can determine by the +/- ratio to your comment that the author has quite a lot of fans, which completely provides the clickbait the site needs. Smart propaganda requires serious knowledge and effort with the involvement of serious authors. And anyone can sculpt a blunt one on their knee. Stupid propagandists, in pursuit of immediate goals, do not think about the fact that stupid propaganda will turn into a boomerang.
    4. +1
      19 September 2023 23: 33
      I’ve already stopped reading Ryabov, so I’m just flipping through it in case some new photos come across.
      It has become not interesting and not even funny - just a couple of weeks ago Ryabov wrote about the BTR82 Improved and there are no “predictable futures” there, although by and large the new BTR82 is inferior or only approaches the Stryker.
  2. +15
    19 September 2023 04: 50
    Articles from Ryabov: the author can be guessed from the first words and the content is predictable.
    1. +5
      19 September 2023 16: 28
      Quote: Commissar Kitten
      Articles from Ryabov: the author can be guessed from the first words and the content is predictable.

      And the traditional last paragraph - the technology is outdated, can easily be destroyed and cannot compete with the best examples of domestic technology. smile
      You read just like Heinz’s canonical letter of October 1941...
      ...is a typical example of backward Bolshevik technology. This tank cannot compare with the best examples of our tanks, manufactured by the faithful sons of the Reich and who have repeatedly proven their superiority.
      1. -1
        19 September 2023 17: 53
        Quote: Alexey RA
        You read just like Heinz’s canonical letter of October 1941...

        There may be questions about the technical creativity of the faithful sons of the Reich, but in terms of Bolshevik technology, Heinz was right.
        1. +1
          19 September 2023 19: 05
          Quote: Negro
          There may be questions about the technical creativity of the faithful sons of the Reich, but in terms of Bolshevik technology, Heinz was right.

          What do you want from a country where Likbez operated even in the 40s? If there is no mass seven-grade education, then it is very difficult to raise mass literate workers, engineers, fighters and commanders.
          For the same army to learn to fight, it took three years of bloody natural selection.
          1. 0
            19 September 2023 20: 21
            Quote: Alexey RA
            What do you want from a country where Likbez operated even in the 40s?

            Well, let's start with an honest conversation about how things were 82 years ago. Because after this
            Quote: Alexey RA
            for the same army to learn to fight, it took three years of bloody natural selection.

            It is possible to talk about how, in principle, it is possible to fight as badly as the spacecraft fought in 45 (especially in other years). It is believed that this issue is of great practical importance.

            Although no. "Honest conversation", some kind of nonsense.
            1. 0
              20 September 2023 10: 31
              Quote: Negro
              It is possible to talk about how, in principle, it is possible to fight as badly as the spacecraft fought in 45 (especially in other years).

              The recipe is simple: spend almost the entire mobilization potential until 1944 - and then continue to fight with virtually no infantry, in five-thousand-strong divisions. But at the same time setting tasks as for full-blooded connections. To understand the situation, you just need to denominate the rifle formations to a lower rank - and everything will fall into place. The infantry of tankers can be immediately denominated into two ranks - among tankers, even at the beginning of the Berlin War, some infantry infantry did not reach the battalion level.
              Oh yes, don’t forget to establish normal training for “fresh” commanders only by 1945.
              1. +1
                20 September 2023 19: 34
                Quote: Alexey RA
                denominate rifle formations to a lower rank - and everything will fall into place

                Exactly. The Soviet rifle corps of the 45 year, with the actual presence of infantry, but a full staff of (the famous best Soviet in the world) artillery, is plus or minus a British division. She just had 24 25 pounds for each regiment.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Tanker infantry can be immediately divided into two ranks

                It is generally known that the Soviet tank corps is not even a normal tank division.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                But at the same time setting tasks as for full-blooded connections.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                For the same army to learn to fight, it took three years of bloody natural selection.

                They took it so they took it.

                But my sketch was on a slightly different topic.
  3. -6
    19 September 2023 04: 57
    At first they tried to protect such equipment, but now the situation forces it to be sent into battle. The result of its application is well known, and the prospects are clear.
    request Just like the Challengers. feel
    1. +1
      19 September 2023 06: 14
      The photo with the crew with their “tarred faces” reminded me of a joke...
      Vasily Ivanovich and Petka are watching the “whites” through binoculars...
      Vasily Ivanovich asks Petka: “What are the whites doing there?”
      Petka: “They drink beer with crayfish!”
      V.I: “I’ll take a look!”... “What a look on their faces!!!”
      1. +5
        19 September 2023 07: 14
        Quote: Yngvar
        Petka: “They drink beer with crayfish!”
        V.I: “I’ll take a look!”... “What a look on their faces!!!”

        A little different. V.I: “Like assholes?! I’ll take a look!”... “Not Petka, it’s just their faces!!!”
  4. +6
    19 September 2023 06: 12
    It’s a pity that you can’t put a minus on an article, with automatic blocking of publication of articles after a certain number of minuses.
  5. +6
    19 September 2023 06: 20
    Unprepared for battle
    . Not ready for what fights?
    To this level of combat...
    Why, then, are such machines needed?
    Chasing pauas through the jungle?
  6. +13
    19 September 2023 06: 23
    Well, the BMP 2 and the BTR 80 meet all modern requirements, right?
    1. +2
      19 September 2023 06: 38
      To say that the fighting is somehow completely different, not the same as before... this is hardly possible. This has already happened, the list of weapons used, methods and methods of controlling the situation on the battlefield has expanded somewhat, and so... everything is as always, with such an intensity of hostilities.
      Accordingly, the organization of the combat process should take place according to the rules and regulations that were used before...
      In general, everything should be in place and on time, as needed.
    2. +1
      19 September 2023 21: 15
      BMP-2s are now less common. More BMP-1.
  7. +6
    19 September 2023 06: 41
    Quote: Tucan
    A hat-trick of propaganda from Ryabov. The author himself is not tired of this

    This is the site’s policy, pseudo-patriotic articles that attract a lot of commentators, creating powerful traffic and strengthening the financial position of the administration.
    1. 0
      19 September 2023 21: 16
      Well, compared to bmpd's comments, this is a hotbed of defeatism.
  8. +8
    19 September 2023 06: 44
    The wheeled chassis prevents you from moving forward and solving a combat mission. Well, that's it! But what about our armored personnel carriers, both current and planned? They are probably walking, like in Star Wars. You have to know how to think of something like this.
    1. -8
      19 September 2023 07: 20
      well, ours pass better, because they weigh less; this applies to all our equipment, from armored personnel carriers, to armored cars, infantry fighting vehicles and tanks, it is an order of magnitude lighter
      1. +2
        19 September 2023 18: 50
        by an order of magnitude, this is 10 (ten!) times less. That is, in your opinion, if the “abrash” weighs 68 tons, then our T-72 (80) weighs 7 tons. So what? And armored personnel carriers are generally airborne. HA !
  9. 0
    19 September 2023 07: 26
    The amers did not have wheeled armored personnel carriers, they rented an Italian Centauro, essentially for study, and after much research the Stryker was born. But the car turned out to be not very successful in terms of chassis; on vehicles equipped with additional armor or overloaded, the wheels simply fell off. A lot of modifications have been released, even with an anti-tank gun.
    1. +2
      19 September 2023 16: 39
      Quote: Vadim S
      The amers did not have wheeled armored personnel carriers

      Seriously?

      The ILC received the first LAV-25 in 1983.
      Quote: Vadim S
      they rented an Italian Centauro, essentially for study, and after much research, Stryker was born

      Nope. The Yankees did not invent anything and went along the beaten path.
      The Marine LAV-25 grew out of the Canadian localization of the Swiss Mowag Piranha. The army also participated in this project, but Congress cut off their funding.
      The army waited and ordered the Stryker KBM based on the Canadian LAV III. Which is the next version... that's right Mowag Piranha. smile
  10. +3
    19 September 2023 07: 42
    Quote: Graz
    ours pass better because they weigh less

    This means the booking is worse, unfortunately.
  11. +4
    19 September 2023 16: 28
    The amazing thing is nearby: domestic tank guns penetrate the armor of a wheeled armored personnel carrier.)
  12. +3
    19 September 2023 17: 25
    do not read
    write the author at the beginning of the article!!!!
  13. 0
    19 September 2023 18: 30
    "Strikers", like the T-72, are weapons of past wars; in the current war they will inevitably serve as "whipping boys". Yes, there was a certain conceptual and price stagnation in the period from the 1970s to the 2010s (offhand), when it seemed that the security of such “vepons”, taking into account the complex of means, allowed them to quite adequately carry out tasks, and forced the enemy to spend significant efforts and resources to prevent this (especially in conflicts in third world countries or “low-intensity conflicts”, in the fight against various “slippers” and so on).
    But then the UAV-theme and all these controlled or homing strays reached a certain level of perfection and a reduction in price - and the problems, as expected, began. Now we are seeing far from the peak of the situation, the current conflict will definitely spur the development of such systems of struggle to certain reference values, and the heritage equipment of the 70s-80s will finally go to museums.
  14. 0
    19 September 2023 21: 13
    Offensive, one operation. But the defense is different...... there the striker has two AT vehicles: with a 105mm AT gun and with a TOU-2v...
  15. +4
    19 September 2023 21: 27
    Ryabov? Ryabov. I’m sure he already has a universal rubber stamp for such articles, like in “The Golden Calf.”
  16. 0
    20 September 2023 11: 57
    Quote: Holgerton
    Well, yes, well, yes, everything is learned by comparison.
    How did the unparalleled BTR-82A perform there?

    The whole question is that Stryker should have shown himself to be incomparably better than Soviet armored personnel carriers. Its armor protection was strengthened, mine protection and a 30 mm gun were installed. The car was made to weigh 20 tons, twice as heavy as an armored personnel carrier, which is not capable of swimming and the maneuverability was worsened, and the price was 1,5 billion dollars for 183 Stryker.
    And all these “improvements” and increases in weight and price increases have not brought and are not capable of bringing any tactical benefit. Basic abilities such as an armored personnel carrier (armored personnel carrier for infantry) have deteriorated, and only abilities that are unnecessary for such a vehicle have improved - armor does not protect against basic weapons anyway (especially if the vehicle is in a trench or shelter where the armored personnel carrier should be located), it also does not protect against mines and never there will be no better protection, and finally a 30 mm cannon does not turn it into a light tank or self-propelled gun.
  17. 0
    20 September 2023 15: 10
    Quote: Zaurbek
    Offensive, one operation. But the defense is different...... there the striker has two AT vehicles: with a 105mm AT gun and with a TOU-2v...

    For the BTR-60 in Cuba there are also modifications with a 100 mm cannon and a BMP-1 turret. The DPRK has an armored personnel carrier with ATGM and MANPADS.
    And what prevents ordinary armored personnel carriers from transporting both ATGMs and MANPADS to the battlefield.
  18. 0
    18 November 2023 17: 51
    Our museums will be replenished with new armored vehicles