U.s army strykers

[toadeater 0]

    When was the last tank battle? Well there was the tank battle at Medina Ridge during the first Gulf War. The battle was a decisive victory for the Americans, with the loss of only one tank (and its crew survived to drive the tank out of their). I hate to imagine how Medina ridge would have played out with LAVs vs T72s.

The Stryker is a glorified BTR-60, I fail to see what's supposed to be "revolutionary" about it. I guess it took the USA forty years to catch up to the Russians and Europeans with this kind of light wheeled APC design. Oh, and it costs 10x more.

It's good as a troop transporter, but it really shouldn't be used as a "fighting vehicle" in urban combat the way they're doing it in Iraq, and definitely not against tanks.

They should look at what the Israelis are using, old M-60s with the turrets removed, and the Russian BTR-T and BMP-T which are T-55s and T-72s with the turrets removed. Those have some chance of withstanding an RPG or roadside bomb with all the added reactive armor they put on because of the lack of a manned turret.

BMP-T:

Then again, I guess that doesn't really fit the "light vehicle" role.  

[MLF 0]

Just thought i would pop in and post this link, seems interesting to say the least, its about Strykers.

Click me

[-SOC-S--Griffon26-2lt- 0]

if anyone wants it ..i have a data cd that i picked up from GDLS nice detailed pics and line drawings of all the versions ...

contact me via PM on here.

[Sigma-6 29]

I'd like those pics. . .  

I'll PM you

As for that link, that's precisely the one I was talking about. The only thing that's 'danger' about that site is his arguments; they're false, misleading, and biased. . . not to mention that he's wrong on pretty much every count, and where he's not wrong, he's misinterpreted the data.  

I won't go as far as to say, 'don't read it', by all means, read it, but take it with a grain of salt and ask yourself why he's so concerned, and why he makes no conclusive mention of the actual combat experience of the LAV series, and why the glowing reports of the people involved don't make it onto his site instead of the problems they've had.

I could make a 100% more truthful and less biased site myself about the 'dangers' of the M113, M2/M3, the T-72, the M1A1, or the BTR series. . . the BMP series, the well. . . I could go on. . .    each one of those vehicles suffers from *all* the limitations he mentions (Though not all in the same ways, and the M1A1 and T-72 don't carry troops, hehe)

Quote[/b] ]People do keep slogging on the M113. I got to admit its an old vehicle but it's still has a place. I did read an article about two years ago talking about how the Australians started using them in East Timor after their wheeled APCs kept getting bogged down in the mud, while the M113 didn't. I'm not advocating the M113 over the LAV, I'm just saying that tracked APCs aren't obsolescent. There is a different tool for each job.

People keep slogging on the M113 because it's the most common 'alternative' to the LAV series offered (in that LAVdanger site there, it's vaunted as the save-all solution to warfare). It's a counter to an argument that doesn't make any sense to begin with; call it a 'proportional response'.

Essentially,the argument is about why an apple is better than an orange. Personally, I agree with you, and I will go farther and say the platforms should complement each other in the same force, each performing the tasks the other is weaker at; like we're going to be doing in Canada with the MTVL [extended, uparmoured M113 chassis] and the LAV-3 (where the LAVdanger guy omits this and says that Canadians are 'communists' who are trying to slap the US with a bad vehicle to make money and sap their combat effectiveness-- riiiiight, there's a sane argument. Americans at GM Defense are perfectly good at overcharging their government for that vehicle without any help from GM Defense Canada whatsoever).

[Pappy Boyington 0]

hey any smuck with an internet connection can post a bad story calling good freinds of the US the enemy. hell ive seen sights that say the community i live in is the enemy. but in checking out his site

http://www.geocities.com/armysappersforward/amphigavinfront.gif

the M113A3 does look pretty sweet and i suggest someone make one of these instead. becuz no offense to any mods but the LAV seriese vehical just doesnt work with the ofp driving dynamics. in ofp they drive like a tractor trailer, in real life they can do doughnuts in ur grocery store parking lot. so i think we should stick to tanks cars trucks jeeps ect ect and leave the LAV for antoher game

[coporal_punishment 0]

hey any smuck with an internet connection can post a bad story calling good freinds of the US the enemy. hell ive seen sights that say the community i live in is the enemy.  but in checking out his site

http://www.geocities.com/armysappersforward/amphigavinfront.gif

the M113A3 does look pretty sweet and i suggest someone make one of these instead. becuz no offense to any mods but the LAV seriese vehical just doesnt work with the ofp driving dynamics. in ofp they drive like a tractor trailer, in real life they can do doughnuts in ur grocery store parking lot. so i think we should stick to tanks cars trucks jeeps ect ect and leave the LAV for antoher game  

I think I would rather see vehicles which are used in greater numbers and are a common sight on the battlefield rather then these newly developed vehicles which tend to be scrapped.

[Sigma-6 29]

First off, LAVs are very common, in the real world and in OFP

Northstar has a whole range of them, and the LAV series (yes, even the Stryker) has been in use in Canada for years, and is now in use in New Zealand and the USA. . . I'd hardly call that 'newly developed, uncommon, or scrapped; and it's also a very well-proven platform, since it's based on the same vehicle (LAV-II platform) as the LAV-25 and Coyote, etc. . . that have been on the market for a long time and doing their jobs very well.

Hehe, also, while a LAV-III might be able to do burnouts and such, I doubt you'll see them doing donuts in your back parking lot. OFP can actually simulate their driving dynamics quite well, if they're coded right (I'm not sure when the last time you made an addon was. . .).

[Crowley 0]

Strykers are pretty good vehicles, people bash them but they really are. The big issue that most people fail to see is that Strykers are not worth the $15,000,000,000 development cost when the LAV3 was already an established vehicle.

[coporal_punishment 0]

Strykers are pretty good vehicles, people bash them but they really are.  The big issue that most people fail to see is that Strykers are not worth the $15,000,000,000 development cost when the LAV3 was already an established vehicle.

Well yet they may be good vehicles, the US army thinks they are too good an example is that some sh!thead dicided the the stryker can handle a 105mm cannon.

One thing i don't understand is while they still have 1000s of m113s in storage why did they need to build a new vehicle instead of upgrading the m113s, it would cost probably save them millions.

In my oponion there is some sort of corruption in the tendering process, the US army could have saved millions but chose to spend money and now seem to refuse to go back on their decision.

Along with Donald Rumsfeld's bright militrary ideas where he seems to be tailoring the army to fight terrorism and practically nothing else, the US armed services are going to be screwed in the long run when they get all this new pointless equipment and will not be granted anymore money to get proper equipment they want.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

Strykers are pretty good vehicles, people bash them but they really are.  The big issue that most people fail to see is that Strykers are not worth the $15,000,000,000 development cost when the LAV3 was already an established vehicle.

Well yet they may be good vehicles, the US army thinks they are too good an example is that some sh!thead dicided the the stryker can handle a 105mm cannon.

One thing i don't understand is while they still have 1000s of m113s in storage why did they need to build a new vehicle instead of upgrading the m113s, it would cost probably save them millions.

In my oponion there is some sort of corruption in the tendering process, the US army could have saved millions but chose to spend money and now seem to refuse to go back on their decision.

Along with Donald Rumsfeld's bright militrary ideas where he seems to be tailoring the army to fight terrorism and practically nothing else, the US armed services are going to be screwed in the long run when they get all this new pointless equipment and will not be granted anymore money to get proper equipment they want.

The M113 is a very old vehicle and a vehicle has a limited life. After a certain amountof years a vehicle is scrapped because it's too old. Upgrading the is of no use, because the basic vehicle is still the old one.

The M113 has a flat bottum and is a coffin when hit by a landmine. The stryker has a much better chance of surfiving such a blast. The M113 was a great vehicle when it was introduced and did an outstanding job in a role it was never meant for (the ACAV vehicles), but to modern standards the vehicle offers too little protection. It's just not designed for that.

[miles teg 1]

I agree with Sigma-6. The LAV's definitely have a place in OFP and I have thoroughly enjoyed his Canadian and USMC LAV addons which I think totaly rock. I also love the Patria APC that DKM made and the BTR series of wheeled APC's that VIT made. They are all fantastic and I truly hope that Sigma will develop (or help someone else to develop) a Stryker APC addon even if the gunner position is a little bit unrealistic (with the gunner's head near the bottum of the turret with some kind of viewport to see out of).

As long as it looks fairly close to a Stryker and had slat armor, I'd be a happy camper.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[calm_terror 0]

why the heck does the stryker weight 9800lbs more then the LAV-25 when the LAV-25 has a turret with a 25mm cannon?

what the heck makes the stryker so damn heavy?

Stryker combat weight 38,000

USMC LAV-25 combat weight 28,200

sources:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-icv.htm

http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfil....ocument

[Rishon 0]

The argument "tank battles don't happen any more, and aircraft do the job of the tank." is based off recent history. The conflicts of the last 20 years have all been decisively one sided, we aren't always going to be that lucky. In the event of a war with China, I can guarantee the Chinese will have tanks, lots of tanks.

20 F-18's with J-SOW's can kill more than 1,000 tanks, APC's and Armored Targets; as one of it's variants carries 6 BLU-108's which in turn carry 8 bombs (or something like that, can't remember the specifics) and each Fighter carries 4 J-SOW's. 20 x 4 x 6 x 5 = 2400, and we can use WAY more than 20 F-18's. This would destroy ANY one of China's Army groups.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

And china has a lot of AA stuff that can kill all those FA18s.

Then USA has a lot of other stuff to kill all the AA stuff.

Then china has stuff to kill the stuff who kills all those AA stuff.

And so on..

War is not like those little firefight we allways see in OFP.

War means all the stuff together.

MfG Lee

[Pappy Boyington 0]

(I'm not sure when the last time you made an addon was. . .).

well i put in a few hours work on the C47, put in quite a few more, on the Corsair, worked on my own config mod putting in close to 50 hours, wrote up one script, edited hundreds more. over 90% of my addons are reconfigered by me. the only thing i CANT do is model. i have my experiance. im not just some other player pretending i know how it works. bro i know what u go thru and i know how the whole addon making game is run. and im not doubting your talent or skill freind. im just sayin that without massive config/script adjustments its not possible, and even with the changes its not worth it in my opinon.

[calm_terror 0]

And china has a lot of AA stuff that can kill all those FA18s.

Then USA has a lot of other stuff to kill all the AA stuff.

Then china has stuff to kill the stuff who kills all those AA stuff.

And so on..

War is not like those little firefight we allways see in OFP.

War means all the stuff together.

MfG Lee

yeha and not to forget one small fact aboot china it has one of the world's largest airforces.. AA plus 2 intercepters = 20 dead F/A-18's

you people forget most real countries have real war fighting capablities.. not like the countries the US picks on now.

last time the US fought china(semi-offically) it ended in a stall mate. the real last time we lost.. in vietnam.

so don't go thinking just cuz US weapons systems beat the crap out of a 3rd world middle eastern country that the US can do it everywhere.. hell korea might evne if the US a run for our money if Kim realized that the US it spread pretty thin. heck only thing stopping him is the south korea military, 2 brigades of the 2nd infantry division, 1 marine force and some airforce units.. not much.. and china god there is no way the US could stop them right now

[Sigma-6 29]

Well, then I have to fundamentally disagree with you on that. The LAVs move as closely to LAVs in OFP as tanks do to tanks. I can't get a LAV to do a burnout any better than I can get a T-80 to accelerate on a dime (as it can IRL) or jump over an embankment from a standstill (as it can IRL).

I think that the LAVs we have (and the ones AKM74 and DKM, etc have) work pretty well all things considered, and I don't have the luxury, working on a Canadian mod, of deciding that it's not worth it in any case; since most of Canada's land force vehicles are wheeled. Which is to say that I'm much more inclined to try and find solutions to the problems than decide that it's not worth it.

[Rishon 0]

And china has a lot of AA stuff that can kill all those FA18s.

Then USA has a lot of other stuff to kill all the AA stuff.

Then china has stuff to kill the stuff who kills all those AA stuff.

And so on..

War is not like those little firefight we allways see in OFP.

War means all the stuff together.

MfG Lee

yeha and not to forget one small fact aboot china it has one of the world's largest airforces.. AA plus 2 intercepters = 20 dead F/A-18's

you people forget most real countries have real war fighting capablities.. not like the countries the US picks on now.

last time the US fought china(semi-offically) it ended in a stall mate. the real last time we lost.. in vietnam.

so don't go thinking just cuz US weapons systems beat the crap out of a 3rd world middle eastern country that the US can do it everywhere.. hell korea might evne if the US a run for our money if Kim realized that the US it spread pretty thin. heck only thing stopping him is the south korea military, 2 brigades of the 2nd infantry division, 1 marine force and some airforce units.. not much.. and china god there is no way the US could stop them right now

Yeah, The U.S Has the Largest Air Force (in terms of equipment) in the World, not to mention the PLAAF Is not known for it's profesionalism, and there would be F/A-18's with Sidewinders and AMRAMM's protecting them, anyway, we're getting off topic.

(Nice spelling, Calm Terror...)

[Sigma-6 29]

While we're off-topic, let's please acknowledge that China is the *most populous country in the world* (which equates to a nearly limitless supply of manpower), and that when it comes to that and all-out-knock-down-drag-out war, the only thing that's important is that they have equipment that *works*, because after the first flare-up, most of our current gear will be too expensive to mass produce quickly, and we'll have to go back to the drawing board with most of it anyway.

There's also a substantial probability that given those factors, the only way the US could hold off a Chinese onslaught would be with Nukes. . . and that's not an acceptable option.

I'd have to argue that it's nothing but foolishness to a: underestimate the other guy under any conditions, and b: think your swagger and faith in your abilities and equipment will save you when it comes down to the crunch.

Vigilance and acceptance of your limitations and the other guy's strengths [and vice-versa] is where it's at. Sun Tsu *didn't* say "Know that you're better than the other guy and you will be victorious in a hundred battles."

now. . . back on topic? I'm sure another thread can be started for a china v. USA discussion.

[Landwarrior87 0]

im confused... from this thread... who exactly is making Strykers? any pics?

[-SOC-S--Griffon26-2lt- 0]

general dynamics land systems is the prime contractor ..

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]im confused... from this thread... who exactly is making Strykers? any pics?

If you read the other pages in the thread, you'll see that that is all clearly stated at least twice.

[Rishon 0]

Quote[/b] ]im confused... from this thread... who exactly is making Strykers? any pics?

If you read the other pages in the thread, you'll see that that is all clearly stated at least twice.

Ahem, all that this has been is either a discussion on a war against china or how good or horrible the STRYKER and Series of LAV's is.

[miles teg 1]

What I want to know is if somebody is actually going to work on making the Stryker or not.

As Sigma has pointed out, it is impossible to make it fully realistic due to OFP game engine limitations and because in real life, the Stryker uses a remote controlled turret where the gunner is below the turret inside unlike the other LAV's.

That is why making a gunner position is problematic and some compromises would have to be made such as using an invisible AI gunner (maybe kinda like the BIS tanks with only one AI crewmember) or with the gunner unrealistically having his head inside the lower part of the remote turret with some kind of viewport but with no internal view or if so, with the viewport stuck up right against the gunner's face and to the sides of his head as well as below and above in case the gunner (used by the player) tries to use the internal view to look around inside the remote turret.

So whoever makes it will have a difficult time of it.

But I really do hope someone will attempt it and perhaps get with Sigma to use his basic LAV models to get started on it unless of coarse Sigma wants to try it himself.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[SPQR 0]

Quote[/b] ]A wheeled armoured vehicle Stryker was hit by a rocket propelled grenade to Mosul

A U.S. Army wheeled armored vehicle Stryker blazes on a hillside road in Mosul after it was hit by a rocket propelled grenade on March 28, 2004, according to the U.S. military. Two foreigners, one of them British, were shot dead and a U.S. armored vehicle destroyed in a rash of attacks in the increasingly lawless Iraqi city of Mosul. Security has deteriorated sharply in recent weeks, further complicating U.S. efforts for an orderly transfer of power to Iraqis in July.

28 March 2004

Source

In spite of that, I still like wheeled AFVs...