Stryker Armored Vehicle

[Ironsight 1]

DKM released a ferret

Not a Fox?

They did both.

Can you point me to the Ferret then?

So far there's been only one Ferret made a long time ago by Oberon3D. Never got released though.

[Imshi-Yallah 0]

Edited for not having read the first page

Its a valid point that dozens if not hundreds of military users around the world have been happy with the Piranha/LAV series vehicles...then suddenly this one version is supposed to be a piece of crap.

All because some lobbiest for the M113 Upgrade started a hate campaign.

[surpher 1]

There is a nice "free" Stryker here in openflight format. With lods and a damaged model as well. With Deep Exploration you could convert the lods and get it right in. I started a while back, but never had the time to do it completely. Lots of lods, and if you've never exported multi-componant, multi-level openflight models it gets a little confusing what lods your seeing.

I think the readme just says you need to give credits.

http://www.cscmodeling.com/homepage.htm

This is what the CSCModeling M1126 Stryker looks like. Its just an outer shell and needs an interior.

http://img476.imageshack.us/img476....mg] <-- Wires

[dkell3 0]

Thats a really great model.I would love to see that implemanted.

[max power 21]

This is taken from Global Security.

The Army says the Stryker family of vehicles are considered less vulnerable to small arms and weapons fire than the M113 family of vehicles. The crew and engine compartments of the Strykers are fully protected up to 14.5mm armor piercing (AP) rounds while the crew and engine compartments of the M113s are protected only up to 7.62mm AP rounds. Although a 14.5mm armor design was developed for the M113s, the armor was never produced and fielded.

Add-on armor for the Stryker adds approximately 7,000 lbs to the vehicle weight and approximately 12-14 inches to each side. To accommodate the increased weight, the tires were inflated to 90 psi and the Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS) was disengaged. As the vehicles moved from a hard surface to a softer one (in a grove of trees) the vehicle's tires sank into the soft ground. The winch on the Stryker is not sufficient to recover a Stryker with add-on armor mounted; therefore, some other vehicle recovery asset must be used.

Yeah, it's heavy stuff. Imagine now, with the extra armour and those RPG screens? That is most of the reason why I was saying it was a bad idea, in addition to the fact that it's not very protective. I mean, without them you run a greater risk of being hit by an RPG and sustaining casualties... but a stuck vehicle is a dead vehicle, especially if it is stuck out of defilade.

[hmmwv 0]

http://www.cscmodeling.com/homepage.htm

This is what the CSCModeling M1126 Stryker looks like. Its just an outer shell and needs an interior.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif' alt='smile_o.gif'>

[DKM Jaguar 0]

DKM released a ferret

Not a Fox?

They did both.

News to me...

[b_ringer25 0]

someone from CBT should pick this up... Actually who gives a rats ass, someone pick this up.  It looks like just some touch ups on the outside model, and definately some new textures.

That turret kind of looks like the TUSK system on the M1A2. I really wish they could have done that for Homers sigh. Oh well.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Seconded. Seconded very very much, in fact.

[snoops_213 75]

If someone does pick it up ( still trying to get my head around basic O2 atm ) would it be possible to do the M1129 StykerMC 120mm mortar carrier? I would love to have these in game so i could have moving Coc UA compatible mortars. Unfortunatly LAVs just dont feel right or look right in army units, but i guess they will have to do for now.

[chipper 0]

I was comparing it to a M113 in the OFP world because the stryker can have a .50 uptop and maybe the strkyer could be used in a mod like FFUR to replace the m113.

Heres a flash prog that shows the different variants of the stryker.

<OBJECT CLASSID="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" WIDTH=350 HEIGHT=350><PARAM NAME=MOVIE VALUE=http://static.howstuffworks.com/flash/stryker.swf><PARAM NAME=PLAY VALUE=TRUE><PARAM NAME=LOOP VALUE=TRUE><PARAM NAME=QUALITY VALUE=HIGH><EMBED SRC=http://static.howstuffworks.com/flash/stryker.swf WIDTH=350 HEIGHT=350 PLAY=TRUE LOOP=TRUE QUALITY=HIGH></EMBED></OBJECT>

[Wilco 944]

trust me an RPG will blow the thing in two

A Stryker? Have you seen the video of the Stryker getting hit with a 500lb IED? It rolled about three times and was able to move on it's own power and the crew inside was bruised and bumped around but alive.

[miles teg 1]

Yeah although a few Stryker's hit by IED's weren't so fortunate.  Same goes for at least one that was hit from a building roof or hillside by an RPG aimed at the top of the vehicle where it wasn't protected by the slat armor and had thinner armor.  

Also.. its true that the slat armor isn't perfect.  Neither is the spaced armor panels that were used on the Bradleys and on the IDF Zelda M113's, UK Warriors/Scimitars, and some US Army M113's.  Thats why most of the Bradleys are now using ERA panels on the their sides and on their turrets.

Still, even when you get RPG penetrations, it basically punches a little hole followed by a solid stream of hot gasses and a copper penetrator slug after it. Its not a massive explosion inside of the vehicle. The main danger is from molten fragments of metal spraying into the inside of the vehicle. Depending on the anti-spall liner used in the armored vehicle, this "spall" effect can be minimized. Its these fragments that often set a vehicle on fire or worse, ignite ammunition, fuel, and explosives stored inside the vehicle.

However with that said, slat armor is fairly effective quite a bit of the time.  People like to throw up statistics about armor penetration all the time, but in reality much depends on the type of armor, the angle of penetration, and other such factors. Plus most of the US Army teams that use the Stryker give it high marks on survivability.  The Stryker's are quite a bit more heavily armored then the stadard M113A3 and that alone saves lives during attacks by IED's.  They are armored more on the level of the M2/M3 Bradley IFV's.

However they are also much faster, quieter, and less destructive to roads on city streets.  They are not designed for open desert combat during an initial assault.  That's what Bradleys and M113's are for.  Speaking of which...the Stryker did NOT replace the M113.  Many M113A3's are still being used to a wide extent.  Hopefully the Stryker will remain as a specialized vehicle only in one or two brigades simply because its extremely expensive (due to all the electronic bells and whistles thrown in) and is not very versatile.  Many of the variants shown on that picture are still in experimental stage.  The version with the 105mm cannon for example has tons of problems and may never become operational unless they replace the cannon with one that has lower recoil such as something like the 100mm low recoil cannon seen on the BMP3.  

But...back to OFP, I also really hope someone will take this model and convert it into OFP.  THe problem becomes how to make it realistic and not a tank class.  I propose that they make two versions in the pack to satisfy everyone.  One version that is a tank class in which the gunner position can be used in a realistic manner.

The second version would use a system where it remains a car class but where the AI can use it perfectly.  This was implemented on some of the Dingo armored car addons that have a remote turret.  The player can still use it but he must use the 3rd person view to do so.  

Personally I prefer the 2nd version because I spend most of my time in missions riding around in the back of an APC and not manning a gun turret.

Also if they make it, they should also make the slat armor around it which shouldn't be too difficult to do.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[hmmwv 0]

A vehicle like this must be a tank class due to engine limitations?

I hate to see vehicles like the LAV-25 moving like a tank.

[miles teg 1]

No it doesn't have to be. Just that if you make it a car class it will have some player limitations. But for the Ai it will work perfectly fine.

Thats why I propose making two versions to keep people from bitching.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[-HUNTER- 1]

Ehhm how did BIS solve the problem with the scud?

Isnt there another LAV out which also didnt move like a tank? Its really bad if you see them drive arround sometimes, like the SEF LAV, it looks really nice but tanks dont follow the roads as good as cars...

and slat armour would be a really nice touch, but one without extra armour would also be a good choice, thinks of the smaller towns with narrow streets...

[hmmwv 0]

CBT! made for their US Army module for VBS1 the following versions:

M1126 ICV

M1126 ICV SLAT

M1126 ICV w/ MK19

M1126 ICV SLAT w/ MK19

Anyway I´ve never seen an ingame screenshot of them.

@manhunter09: I´m agreed with you; both versions: slat armour and other without it, would be fine.

@Miles Teg: making two different versions could be a great idea aswell.

[Ironsight 1]

Isnt there another LAV out which also didnt move like a tank?

Sigma's LAV's.

[AOCbravo2004 0]

Many of the variants shown on that picture are still in experimental stage. The version with the 105mm cannon for example has tons of problems and may never become operational unless they replace the cannon with one that has lower recoil such as something like the 100mm low recoil cannon seen on the BMP3.

Actually, most of the versions of the Stryker are now operational. Hell I have video of the TOW carrier version launching TOWs in Iraq. The M1128 MGS has begun LRIP, and has been in production for like over half a year now with 72 of them being produced this fiscal year alone. According to the Pentagon and the Army most of the problems with the MGS have been resolved, how true that is, I have no clue.

[DKM Jaguar 0]

I don't see why we have to have every version of every vehicle and uniform for the US military... maybe if people tried a variation they'd find OFP was more interesting.

Might also be an idea for there to be less requests and more effort to make these things.

[CanadianTerror 0]

"Dont download it then."

Same as the 8000 M4 versions.

Its the same kind of response when people ask "whens the release date?" and mods say "when its done".

You should know better.

[dm 9]

CBT! made for their US Army module for VBS1 the following versions:

M1126 ICV

M1126 ICV SLAT

M1126 ICV w/ MK19

M1126 ICV SLAT w/ MK19

Anyway I´ve never seen an ingame screenshot of them.

Ask and ye shall recieve

[adrenaline red 0]

[eestikas88 0]

CBT team only needs to make some modifications and it's ready for ofp.

I don't belive that they'll do so though

[hmmwv 0]

Ask and ye shall recieve

img]http://www.ballisticaddonstudios.com/users/deadmeat/ofpcp/stryker1.jpg[/img]

img]http://www.ballisticaddonstudios.com/users/deadmeat/ofpcp/stryker2.jpg[/img]

img]http://www.ballisticaddonstudios.com/users/deadmeat/ofpcp/stryker3.jpg[/img]

img]http://www.ballisticaddonstudios.com/users/deadmeat/ofpcp/stryker4.jpg[/img]

img]http://www.ballisticaddonstudios.com/users/deadmeat/ofpcp/stryker5.jpg[/img]

hahaha very good deadmeat

BTW: very nice strykers. A shame they probably would never release it for OFP.

@CanadianTerror: I was about to answer the same