U.s army strykers

[Rishon 0]

I was wondering If anyone was attempting to make a U.S Army STRYKER IAV?

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

do a search *close please*

[Harnu 0]

do a search *close please*

The latest thread about Strykers seems to be from September 2003, and no threads about anyone making them. Why close this?

But to the topic at hand AFAIK, no one has made a Stryker yet.

[Rishon 0]

Quote[/b] ]do a search *close please*

I did, I didn't find anything about someone making a STRYKER Unit.

[Rishon 0]

I would attempt to make one but, alas, I am horrible at making Addons, I was merely wondering if anyone had this in their pipeline.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

that's right. AFAIK onone is making one.

This was recently posted in one of the threads (not a specific stryker thread).

Tigershark was the one who asked around if anyone was doing a stryker (if I remeber correctly). It was said perhaps he's making one. Nothing confirmed at this point, though.

my two cents

[Rishon 0]

thanks Frostbite. I hope someone makes one of these soon as they are magnificent machines.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

go ahead and make one, if you like. We can alsways use an other addon-maker. You may be horrible now (I mean in addonmaking) but you'll only get better by doing it.

[waffendennis 0]

I am building a stryker ( Just reworking my LAV25 model and convert it )

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

*sits on his knees* thank you waffendennis *kisses waffendennis' boots*

[SNIPER_SKULL 0]

i got a big pack in the works

[waffendennis 0]

Well This LAV25 for the USMC mod But after its done i can easly convert it in the upgraded Stryker:

Model looks like this now:

LAV25 MODEL

[SNIPER_SKULL 0]

looks good

i'll put a pic up l8er of the one im makeing

[Rishon 0]

YAY! Thanks Waffendennis, I'll see if I can use the model, The Stryker has quite a bit of hardware on it! (that is of course, If your not putting it on...)

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

I'll see if I can use the model,

What model would that bee?

[miles teg 1]

Whoever makes a Stryker APC, PLEASE put SLAT armor on it.

SLAT armor is that wierd looking cage that you see around the Strykers being used by the US Army in Iraq. Also look on the offtopic page for info from Pins da Smoka as he is there in Iraq right now in the US Army and is part of a Stryker crew.

He can give you tons of info on it.

At any rate, the slat armor is important to the Stryker as it has successfully been proven to stop RPG-7 AT rockets.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

Heres a link to some good reference photos of the Stryker Inside and Out.

Stryker Ref

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

Whoever makes a Stryker APC, PLEASE put SLAT armor on it.

SLAT armor is that wierd looking cage that you see around the Strykers being used by the US Army in Iraq.   Also look on the offtopic page for info from Pins da Smoka as he is there in Iraq right now in the US Army and is part of a Stryker crew.

He can give you tons of info on it.  

At any rate, the slat armor is important to the Stryker as it has successfully been proven to stop RPG-7 AT rockets.

img]http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/Pics/strykernyt.jpg[/img]

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

*sigh* some moron of the pentagon opened up the history books and stole this *great* idea.

This very same idea was used in vietnam on the M113. It was a complete disaster. The barr-armor will help to stop an RPG, but is very easaly damaged by bushes ect. In the dence jungle of vietnam the armor had no chance of proving itself. The project was scrapped later on.

So this *new* armor is just an old idea. However: Iraq is not a jungle (vegetation-wise) but a desert. So the armor is not going to be damaged by bushes and trees that often. So it might work out, but the armor is still far from perfect.

A second layer or armor is a concept most used by Isreal. All of their M113 (or at least most of them) have a thin second layer of armor around them to protect against RPG's. Te idea is that the first layer detonates the RPG so it won't do serious damage to the main armor.

The first historic use of armor like this was by the germans in WW2. The high side-skirts on the sturmgeschutz III protected the tracks, but also art of the side of the vehicle. Later the PanzerKampfwagen IV had addon-armor around the tank and around the turret to help protect it. The armorplates around the turret can be seen as the first real example of a second layer of armor placed around a vehice.

[miles teg 1]

Yup. The Israeli M113 you speak of is called the Zelda. My mod team (The Lost Brothers) made an addon of it a while back. The problem with doing this with a wheeled vehicle I imagine is the weight.

The principle is called (as you probably know) "spaced armor".

Like you said, alot of armored vehicles have used this principle but for awhile it seemed to have been forgotten.

The PT-76 light tank for example uses this principle on some of its armor. For that reason some hits on it by LAW rockets during the Vietnam War did not successfully penetrate (although most did).

At any rate, the slat armor also works fairly well against RPG-7's on the Strykers in Iraq according to Pins da Smoka.

So hopefully any Stryker addon will have this feature I hope. Or at the very least hopefully there will be one model without the slat armor and one model with slat armor, each with different armor values.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Sigma-6 29]

You're going to have a pretty hard time converting a LAV-25 into a Stryker. They're very different vehicles.

Last time I was asked this (at the second LAV-3 release) the discussion turned to the fact that the Stryker has a remote turret, and the limitations of wheeled vehicles are still in effect. . .

It would be very difficult (I won't say impossible) to make a remote turret on a wheeled vehicle in OFP (It's possible in a tank), especially since the viewpoint has to be sourced from a proxy in a wheeled vehicle. This more than anything is why there are no Strykers yet.

I even have the hull for it (The Stryker is an Americanized Canadian LAV-III APC), and I've wanted to make a Stryker with it for a long time, but the remote turret is a b****.

[calm_terror 0]

the stryker is cool and everything but once you get past that and look at the real facts it is a POS.

it only has the .50cal gun. easy taken out.

armor that is to thin evne with that slats since both the bottom asnd top are completely uncovered. as well as the tires(i know they are run flats but still) and all you ahve ot do is wait for guys to start boarding it from behide and bam rpg up the butt.

it is just under powered weak armored and HUGE.

the USMC LAV-25 is a better LAV.. it atleast has a real gun.

hey you guys at north star should add the slat armor to the LAV's that would be cool..

[calm_terror 0]

oh btw you could do a turret kinda liek the btr-80.. but lower profile.

just to simulate a remote turret.

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]oh btw you could do a turret kinda liek the btr-80.. but lower profile.

just to simulate a remote turret.

You wouldn't want to do it that way; it wouldn't be a Stryker.

Quote[/b] ]the stryker is cool and everything but once you get past that and look at the real facts it is a POS.

Which real facts are those?

Quote[/b] ]it only has the .50cal gun. easy taken out.

Can't see why the .50 is practically any easier to take out than a 25mm might be. . .  Besides, the problem with the .50 isn't that it's the only weapon on a Stryker APC (it's also the only weapon on a standard M113), that was the choice made when it was adopted, after all, it's an APC, not an IFV; there's a difference.

The main problem with the remote .50 on the Stryker is that it can't be fired on the move; the jolting of the vehicle makes it impossible to aim. The 25mm on the Canadian version that the Stryker is based on (LAV-III) is fully stabilized, and can fire on the move, but Canada wanted an APC that could provide fire support for an infantry section, while the US Army wanted a battlefield taxi.

Quote[/b] ]armor that is to thin evne with that slats since both the bottom asnd top are completely uncovered. as well as the tires(i know they are run flats but still)

The Armour on the Stryker is really no thinner than that on the M113, and it's easily upgraded with Light MEXAS (as we often do with them in Canada) which is resistant (some say impervious) to RPG strikes. The MEXAS addon covers the entire vehicle (top included). In addition, A Stryker is going to survive a mine strike that an M113 wouldn't, because the bottom is sloped sharply to redirect the blast, and the wheel suspension absorbs the shock (Canada has plenty of field experience with this phenomenon, our LAVs have hit AT mines in Somalia, Bosnia, and on other peacekeeping missions, and crews have survived in all cases where they would not have had they been in M113s or other tracked vehicles).

With MEXAS, even without the Slat armour (which we don't use), you're very well protected from RPGs.

Also, the Stryker can run while missing a wheel, (sometimes 2) and the tires in a practical sense are no easier to take out than a track is when you consider the weapons used. You say 'but still'. . .      that's not an argument. . . The run-flats work pretty well, all things considered, and a mobility killed tracked vehicle is just as immobile as a wheeled one.

Quote[/b] ]and all you ahve ot do is wait for guys to start boarding it from behide and bam rpg up the butt.

I fail to see how that is any more of a disadvantage to the Stryker or LAV-III than it is to any other APC.

Quote[/b] ]it is just under powered

compared to what? The M113 it replaces? If so, remember that the Canadian version has the same turret as Coyote/LAV-25. If you're talking about the engine, it's not. The Stryker's armament fits its role pretty well. When you want an APC, you don't build a tank.

Quote[/b] ]the weak armored and HUGE.

It's not really any larger than the M113 it replaces either, and with current technology, the potential to uparmour it (as well as the addon armour currently available) is comparable to any other similar platform.

In any case, it's not  a tank, it's an APC, it's armoured like an APC, and not a tank.

Quote[/b] ]the USMC LAV-25 is a better LAV.. it atleast has a real gun.

Perhaps you're confusing the role the US Army has in mind for the Stryker as opposed to the one the USMC has in mind for the LAV-25. . .    

The Stryker is an APC, it's a battlefield taxi, and in ideal conditions it doesn't even go into combat, being left behind when the troops reach their objective.

The LAV-25 carries fewer troops and with its 25mm gun, can serve as a fire-support platform. . . they're subtly different roles, but different enough to warrant different vehicles and different armaments.

Quote[/b] ]

hey you guys at north star should add the slat armor to the LAV's that would be cool..

 

Canada doesn't use slat armour on the LAV-III. It might look cool, but it doesn't exist.

[miles teg 1]

I personally like the idea suggested by using something that works the same way as the BTR-80. Basically it just needs an area for the gunners head I guess with the viewport right up next to his head. Sure it's not perfectly realistic, but that would be better then nothing I think.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[calm_terror 0]

well the m113 is a POS as well.

the m2a1 WAS suppost to be the taxis but was put with way to many add-ons making it a little useless as a troop carrier was suppost to carry 11 troops now carries what 7?

what is actual better is what Israel and Russia have done with the t-55 turning them into APC

the US has not learned the light armored vechicals are not the best in fight wars..

yeah I see the points but i would still rather have the fire power of the 25mm cannon over the 50cal. and the stryker can but updated with those titles but isn't from what i seen.

and those titles are semi brittle and have to be made right or they are useless. like that germany company that made the titles wrong. and the US army had to inspect every stryker fitted with them.

personally i think most apc's are just rpg magnets.

and use the stryker can have other weapons. the tow's, a 105mm field gun. etc..

i just like having soemthing that can survive an rpg or 2 liek the btr-t and most IDF apc's..

true it woudl nto be a stryker if you lowered the turret and stuff but atleast it would be a temp fix till the remote system can be worked out.

so if the canadian LAV-III does not use slat did you model with the title armor?