M1128
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
>Autoloader limits you to 6-8 shots a minute.
>Vulnerable to RPG-7 rockets
>electronics constantly overheat.
>No A/C for the crew.
Holy crap, I usually like American armored vehicles but this is ridiculous.
Abandon Stryker, by Patria AMV.
>>30001547
>Autoloader limits you to 6-8 shots a minute.
Fuck-hueg cannon on a light APC.
>Vulnerable to RPG-7 rockets
Are u a idiot? Autocannons eat up APCs. Shit, heavy MGs eat up APCs from sides and back.
>electronics constantly overheat.
Bawww.
>No A/C for the crew.
bawwww
Yeah Strykers are garbage. I took great care of mine and it was in the bay constantly getting worked on. Numerous crippling flaws.
>>30001666
Like fucking what? When compared to what?
>>30001666
>Numerous crippling flaws.
Which are?
Genuinely curious about these "flaws".
>>30001547
lol that low pressure 105mm
why don't same cannon on bradley?
>>30001787
There's already a 30mm armed Stryker variant going into production. The 105mm is used to crack fortified positions that are too tough for autocannons and you don't have an Abrams handy.
>>30001666
t. stolen valor
>>30001768
So what exactly are those large gray rods on the vehicle?
>>30001881
the knot
>>30001724
>M68
>low pressure
It's funny because an M900 out of it is somewhere between a Mango and Svinets.
>>30001768
>just driven from hovercraft
>it already needs to be winched out
great piece of kit right there
>>30001881
CREW antenna's.
>>30001881
Snorkels, believe.
>>30001881
antenna shields so they dont get fucked if they are hit. it would suck to be out in the middle of goddamn nowhere with no antenna.
>>30001787
Because Bradleys are teamed up with Abrams.
>>30001881
CREW systems, they're wide spectrum jammers that scramble signals that are used to detonate IEDs
>>30001932
>winched out.
0313 here. An LAV-25 in 8x8 will drive right out of that sand they ain't stuck. So as per standard k/ SOP you are talking out your ass.
>>30001938
You are a retard. The LAV air intake is to the left of the driver. There is no snorkel kit. They swamp if water goes over the top deck and the sump can't keep up. LAV-25 isn't ship to shore. Just rivers, lakes and streams.
Did anything ever come out of that BAE M8 revival?
>>30002392
So that's a real LAV-25 and not a Stryker?
he just need more gun
>>30002506
The Stryker is basically an upgraded LAV.
>>30002617
A LAV-25 is a LAV II variant, a Stryker is a LAV III variant.
There is a big difference between an LAV II and LAV III.
STRYKER!!!!!!!!
Fucking can't offroad, breaks down every other time you start it, no space for comms equipment, no AC for comms equipment, piss poor base for my antennas PIECE OF SHIT!!!
>>30001547
I hate this meme. Look, bub.
6-8 shots a minute is perfectly fine. That's all you really need for the job. That job is mostly infantry support.
Vunlerability to ATGMs and heavier rockets is to be expected the regular Stryker and everything like it is vulnerable to about the same extent.
As for the others, that's just something which happens to a great many vehicles.
Let me ask you this- what other motorized infantry company has 3x 105mm cannons in it? The Stryker company provides a huge amount of combined arms to support a mounted infantry force. It's not going to be the same as a company of mechanized infantry and tanks. It's much lighter and less expensive, and that's fine.
>>30004167
1AD officer here, can confirm that this is true.
The stryker doesn't breakdown as much as m1's, costs a lot less, holds troops, and does a good job of getting infantry guys somewhere and supporting them. The 105mm version isn't great at being a tank, but it does the job of a tank well enough for infantry guys who are not fighting tanks.
The big thing about the stryker is that its easy to fix. (now hold the fuck on before all you grunts bitch about how you could never fix them) your BSB can fix any issue on a stryker in 24-48 hours depending on your chief, its just a matter of skipping paperwork and having parts. You can't do that with a tank, or a brad. Good luck trying to fix an actual tracked vehicle with a serious problem in that time.
so, to sum up reasons we have the stryker:
>it carries dudes around
>it provides support
>it can be fixed
>its cheap
>>30001621
Fuck that buy LAV III.
>>30004324
>The stryker doesn't breakdown as much as m1's
Only because it's newer than the M1
And of course, because its lighter, but you pay for that in a smaller gun, less ammo, less armor, etc
>>30004373
>Only because it's newer than the M1
Just consider how many more moving parts there are in an Abrams compared to a MGS. That tells you all you really need to know.
>>30004373
>only because its newer than the m1
so being new does help, but like >>30004414 said, it is a simpler system, doesn't have tracks, and doesnt weight 72 fucking tons. All of these factors make it more reliable.
The real benefit though is that parts are cheaper and not as specific as they are for tanks. With tanks you can wait for weeks on a part to find out that after you fix that problem, you need to order another part to fix a sequential problem.
>>30004373
>Why can't I mash this square peg into a round hole!
A Stryker MGS is not, nor meant to be, a tank.
>>30002414
hes retarded because he doesn't know where the air intake on the LAV is? you are autistic
>>30001924
>It's funny because an M900 out of it is somewhere between a Mango and Svinets.
>The M900 is authorized for use in M1 tanks only. Firing the M900 from any other 105mm tank system may result in failure of the gun mount. Firing in unauthorized gun mounts will result in failure of the recoil mechanism hydraulic seals.
Mango and Svinets are also hopelessly outdated. Svinets-1 and Lekalo are at least 4 inches longer with a more Western penetrator and sabot arrangement.
>>30005068
there are m1 tanks with 105mm guns?
>>30005095
Bet they towed those strykers there for that photo-op
s m h
>>30005095
Any clue where this was taken? Looks just like 29 Palms.
Surprised the Army doesn't come out and here and play games with 3RD LAR, it would be interesting to have a joint op with Strykers
>>30005068
>Svinets-1 and Lekalo are at least 4 inches longer
And do not fit in a T-72/T-90 autoloader.
>>30005124
>>30005137
no this was NTC, fort erwin California. Also I took these on my camera, it wasn't a photo-op.
>>30005068
If you are going to quote wikipedia.
>The MGS' 105 mm cannon can fire four types of ammunition: the M900 kinetic energy penetrator to destroy light armored vehicles; the M456A2 high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; the M393A3 high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and M1040 canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open.
>>30005095
The M1 was designed and built with 105mm guns.
>>30001724
>float n' shoot
Seems like a useful feature.
>>30001547
At least it looks cool.
>>30001621
This guy for instance, looks like your autistic cousin who always had a buzz cut because his parents just didn't care.
>>30001768
This one looks damn near stuck. Wheels are kind of dumb.
>>30002556
Everything camouflaged, except those wheels. Why haven't they invented painted wheels yet?
>>30004368
lol micropenis barrel.
>>30005762
Painted tires exist, but they are less durable (something about the coloring compound messing with the structure of the rubber)
>>30005762
It's not the size that matters, its the amount of kebab you can remove with it that counts.
>>30001547
It's not a tank you dumb nigger, it's a support vehicle. Strap a 105 to a golf cart, you'll be glad you have it as an asset. Abrams doesn't have AC either new friend.
>>30005762
Better no paint than Chink-shit fucking whitewalls on everything!
>>30002556
That's one hell of a cannon.
That's the problem.
What is?
You go out on the battlefield with this pecker sticking out of your turret, and the enemy's going to unload on you with everything they got. Might as well put a big red bullseye on the side.
But it's a troop carrier, not a tank.
Do you want me to put a sign on it in fifty languages, "I am a troop carrier, not a tank, please don't shoot at me"?
>>30007594
did you just quote Pentagon Wars?
>>30007676
That's one way of looking at it.
>>30001724
>low pressure
>M68A2
>low pressure
>can fire the the M900, which was too high pressure for the M68 that armed the M60, M48A5 and M1/IP.
>low pressure
k
>>30004585
Its bad enough that some people here think anything with a big gun and wheels is a 'tank destroyer'.
>>30001666
God damn it, Satan.
>>30005497
that was the original m1, since the m1a1 (we use m1a2's or m1a2, and the m1a2's are usually the the M1A2 SEP or the M1A2 SEPv2
in today's army you will not find a 105mm smoothbore on an m1. Unless nasty girls haven't upgraded from the 90's
>>30004324
How would your Strykers fair against non-stop artillery harassment with MLRS and DPICM?
The conflict in Ukraine shows that you guys would get wiped out in your poorly protected wheeled coffins.
>>30005204
New T-72B3 upgrades had modified auto-loaders for Svinets ammo.
>>30008137
The conflict in Ukraine also represents a situation where the entire area is within reach of rocket artillery fired from Russia's side of the border.
>>30008142
No, they don't.
>>30008137
>artillery harassment
It's protected against 152mm splinters.
>B-B-B-BUT WHAT ABOUT DPICM
Firstly, Russia doesn't have a direct DPICM analog, their cluster munition is generally either AP or AT and they get the same effect by mixing the two in usage. Secondly; you mean that thing that's specifically designed to destroy light vehicles can destroy light vehicles?
This is shocking news.
General reminder that Strykers are overloaded as fuck
>>30001621
Good combat record with the Poles
>>30008253
General reminder that Strykers have had their suspension upgraded.
>>30008345
To handle how much weight?
>>30008166
>No, they don't.
Yes they do.
>>30008166
>The conflict in Ukraine also represents a situation where the entire area is within reach of rocket artillery fired from Russia's side of the border.
Makes no difference.
You send in a Stryker brigade to try and enforce a ceasefire or something and they suddenly get vaporized by MLRS or tube artillery with submunitions. Crying about borders at that point doesn't accomplish much when you suffer 60% personnel casualties and most of your light armor is destroyed.
I don't really understand the purpose of that Stryker Brigade in Poland. What do they even intend to do if there is a war?
It's worrying how badly American skills at fighting conventional war have atrophied in 15 years of policing sand niggers.
>>30008181
>It's protected against 152mm splinters.
Yeah, no. Anything short of an MBT was badly fucked up, experience in combat shows that General Dynamics claims are bogus.
>>30008408
55,000 lbs
>>30008499
>I don't really understand the purpose of that Stryker Brigade in Poland
Training?
American troops of the 3rd Battalion 2nd Cavalry Regiment arrived in Poland, to take part in another rotational training operation involving the Polish Army. The US Stryker APCs are going to be involved in the Anakonda 2016 exercise, organized by the Polish General Command of the Armed Forces.
http://www.defence24.com/293972,us-army-stryker-vehicles-in-poland-again
>>30008524
BTR's are more lightly armored than Strykers.
>>30008499
>It's worrying how badly American skills at fighting conventional war have atrophied in 15 years of policing sand niggers.
If you are referring to the Strong Europe competition, American's actually won the tank gunnery portion.
>>30001547
> not a tank
> “why isn’t it just like a tank?!”
>>30008631
Are you saying A/C and electronics that don't overheat are specific to only tanks?
Are you saying there aren't other wheeled vehicles that perform similar roles that can take RPG-7 hits?
Because you would be dead wrong, kiddo
>>30008610
No, I mean the reform of the armed forces tailored at fighting COIN in shitholes at the cost of the conventional armored force.
Ukraine has shown that light COIN and wheel-based forces like the US operates with now will suffer pretty horrendous casualties.
>>30008499
>You send in a Stryker brigade to try and enforce a ceasefire or something and they suddenly get vaporized by MLRS or tube artillery with submunitions.
You are hilariously misrepresenting what happened in Ukraine, lots of tanks got fucked up just the same. That is what happens when untouched artillery gets to freely fire at fish in a barrel.
>>30008644
>I mean the reform of the armed forces tailored at fighting COIN in shitholes at the cost of the conventional armored force.
And which units would that be, because neither ABCT's, SBCT's or IBCT's are tailored for COIN.
>>30008499
>atrophied in 15 years
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a20917/us-crews-fail-to-place-in-nato-tank-competition/
"Today, a major in the Army knows nothing but fighting terrorists and guerrillas, because he came into the Army after 9/11. But as we get into the higher-end threats, our skills have atrophied over 15 years."
Good to know you're just parroting popular mechanics
>>30008644
You realise the US Army operates more Bradleys than Strykers right?
>>30008091
They're still in storage, but to my knowledge not in use.
>>30008667
Popular Mechanics is quoting a senior military official who made those statements.
You're also a dirty ass fuck.
>>30008892
>>30008610
The question is what skills my mentally challenged friend.
