# Tracked Strykers ?



## Crusader74 (Oct 29, 2012)

It looks like the US Army are introducing a new model of the Stryker, tracked, heavier armour and twice the weight.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/milit...-seen-at-jblm/








The manufacturer of the eight-wheeled Stryker vehicles that make up the backbone of the Army’s fleet at Joint Base Lewis-McChord is unveiling new models of at a conference this week, including ones that would have run counter to their initial purpose as a rapidly deployable medium weight infantry carrier.
General Dynamics is pitching the new models as a path for the Army to improve its vehicle fleet without spending billions of dollars designing new options.
One of the new models is a tracked Stryker that weighs some 42 tons – 22 tons more than an off-the-floor, basic Stryker infantry carrier.*
That’s a significant turn from the Army’s call to create a lighter, wheeled vehicle when it launched the Stryker program and sent the first models to then-Fort Lewis a decade ago. The tracked model is intended to help General Dynamics win a contract to create the next Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, replacing M113 personnel carriers.
“It’s going to be quite a good offering for us,” Mike Cannon, senior vice president for ground combat systems at General Dynamics, told Shepard Media.
“And even if it doesn’t go as the AMPV solution we still believe that we needed a medium weight tracked vehicle in our portfolio. And this will be our first one…And it’s pretty slick looking,” he told Shephard’s Scott Gourley.
Reports from the conference show that Cannon is pitching the new Strykers as more fuel efficient than armored personnel carriers it would replace. National Defense Magazine reports that Strykers cost $18 per mile to operate compared to $45 per mile for the M1113.
Lewis-McChord has about 900 Strykers for its three infantry brigades, the largest concentration of the vehicles in the Army. General Dynamics and the Army have redesigned the vehicle several times over the past decade of constant ground warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, most recently by creating a slanted “double v hull” to deflect the impact of deadly buried bombs in Afghanistan.
In other Stryker news, the Army is considering placing more of the vehicles in Hawaii under the Pacific Command. The goal, reports the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, is to put them closer to where they might be needed for conflicts in the Pacific as the war in Afghanistan ends.
*An earlier version of this post misstated the weight of the tracked Stryker. It is estimated to be 84,000 pounds.

Read more here: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/mili...-wheeled-strykers-seen-at-jblm/#storylink=cpy​


----------



## AWP (Oct 29, 2012)

That's certainly a big "F*** You" to Donald Rumsfeld...which is usually the right answer for most problems involving Rummy.

I do have the impression the Army wants to retun to a big, heavy model and walk away from this nasty COIN "theory" it was "saddled" with for the last decade. I guess if you're incapable of, or unwilling to, learn something new...go with what you know.


----------



## reed11b (Oct 29, 2012)

I wonder what the ride quality is like. I.E. break you to bits like the Bradley did (or so I am told, never rode in one) or smooth like the wheeled stryker is supposed to be.
Reed


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 29, 2012)

Brads ain't fun to ride in, and strykers are pretty much like being in a HMMWV that's loaded so it's actually in its suspention travel instead of topped out.


I don't know if I would buy into a tracked stryker, while it might work as a step down from a Bradley, I would honestly look more at the LAV25's or whatever the Canucks have. 25mm cannon on top = much more interesting utility as a fire support platform given a motorized infantry implementation of things.


----------



## ProPatria (Oct 29, 2012)

We have the LAV 3 which is pretty much the same as the LAV-25. It has room for 8-11 dudes in the back fully loaded. I really like the LAV 3, very comfortable and lot's of room for gear and what ever other mission essential gear you need. Also tons of fire power for what ever you need.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 29, 2012)

I forgot what the terminology for it was, but yeah, that thing. Big gun, toss a RWS on the top that's individually stabilized, g2g.


----------



## Future_Leader (Oct 29, 2012)

42 tons? Pfffft...I can squat that heavy S.O.B....in my hulk mode. But anyways down to seriousness I bet this would be more expensive than the current models in use. At least in terms of production. The fuel efficiency looks like a pretty big improvement so that might outweigh the production cost in the long run. How long do they plan on keeping these in service?


----------



## RetPara (Oct 30, 2012)

Bullshit.  The Aussies picked up some M113's that had upgraded armor, rubber band tracks (don't laugh they work), with a lot of other upgrades that can still be carried on a C-130.


----------



## AWP (Oct 30, 2012)

I'll bet Mike Sparks is beating off in a corner right now.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 30, 2012)

It makes sense (a little), as some parts/techniques, etc would be the same as other striker variants.  There are some areas where tracked is better, so having a Striker variant would (theoretically) keep the log trail/training pipeline smaller.

That said, is anyone surprised?  Big Army is dominated by Mech/ Armor Guys who long for another Desert Storm/OIF.
SOF/Light Infantry are their number 1 enemy (ok, #2 after the AF)


----------



## Hillclimb (Oct 30, 2012)

How's the maintainence on those things? When I was at 4th tracks, I remember for every hour they splashed their AAV's, they told me they'd need 4 hours of maintenance. In the field, I'd wake up for reveille and still see maintenance platoon turning wrenches. Fuck all that noise. Made me appreciate mechanics more though.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 30, 2012)

Strykerland? Our mechanics never stayed late, they usually got off earlier than the line companies. I guess that's a telling tale, eh? The tracked versions probably would be a bit more intensive, but they're still pretty much built to be easily worked on.   There's not a whole lot of "who the fuck thought to put this here" commentary when you're working with or on them.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 30, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> Strykerland? Our mechanics never stayed late, they usually got off earlier than the line companies. I guess that's a telling tale, eh? The tracked versions probably would be a bit more intensive, but they're still pretty much built to be easily worked on. There's not a whole lot of "who the fuck thought to put this here" commentary when you're working with or on them.


 
Agreed.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed my time on a Stryker.  I was either in the ICV or the MEV, and thought both were good, solid vehicles.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 30, 2012)

The first thing I thought when I hopped in one is that I wished I was back in Regiment with them. Both because of what modifications would be done to make its lethality go up about 100 times, as well as an institution that wouldn't be afraid of scratching the paint and would use them in an aggressive manner.


----------



## goon175 (Oct 30, 2012)

> would use them in an aggressive manner.


 
Brother I got stories on top of stories that would fall nicely into that category. Your assesment that they would be/were used aggressively in batt. is spot on.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 30, 2012)

I know for a fact walls and cars were no match for them :-"


----------



## digrar (Oct 31, 2012)

RetPara said:


> Bullshit. The Aussies picked up some M113's that had upgraded armor, rubber band tracks (don't laugh they work), with a lot of other upgrades that can still be carried on a C-130.


 
Sure that was us? I think we've been running with the same mob of tracks we purchased back in the 60's, periodically sending them off to the shop to get welded back up, new power packs, turrets, lengthen the hull, fresh coat of paint etc etc.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Oct 31, 2012)

Dig, don't you remember the Beast, upgunned M113 you guys had that used to roll on their backs like a 16 year old girl after a wine cooler.  I know the 5/7 guys were meant to get a stretched M113.

Lav 3 are Ok, I just don't see what you achieve putting tracks on a Stryker with that pissant gun as opposed to fixing the problems with the Bradleys.

Also that slogan on the front is stupid.


----------



## digrar (Oct 31, 2012)

When 5/7 split the Army poached all the m113's from the reserve light horse and lancer units and sent them off to be turned into AS3's for the 2 mech battalions, stretched with a extra road wheel added, new turret, decreased fire power... all that good stuff, eventually they filtered back to 5RAR and 7RAR, just in time for the Government to park them all up in a cost saving measure. I didn't have a hell of a lot to do with them, never saw a FSV or MRV in the flesh.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 31, 2012)

Mac_NZ said:


> Lav 3 are Ok, I just don't see what you achieve putting tracks on a Stryker with that pissant gun as opposed to fixing the problems with the Bradleys.


 
Brad's an IFV with a sorta-tangle-with-tanks gun and TOW's coupled with the afterthought of having a fire team comfortably and a squad hating each other in the back. There's no fixing what it is. 

Think about that short little punk at the bar with a big fucking mouth towards the biggest guy at the bar (T-whatever tank). That's a Bradley. It's got enough balls to get into a fight (TOW, Bushmaster) and it'll probably be fine if it lands the first punch, but if that punch gets shrugged off and it takes a hit? it's going to get knocked the fuck out.

It's done well, but arguably who it's fought against in full-blown combat ain't been the best or brightest. Case in point, there's been more brad's killed in full-on maneuver warfare by friendly fire than by enemy fire... and that's not to say the enemy vehicles were incapable of getting a kill, operator headspace and timing plays a large part.

Tracked strykers fill the "tag along with mech as support/C&C/ETC" role currently filled by old-as-shit M113's in the arsenal... with a new, better armored and better survivability hull that has parts commonality with the wheeled strykers and also are designed from the ground up to interface with modern equipment.

Strykers are best thought of and fought from like they're a big f'ing hmmwv with a pile of SA/ISR capabilities onboard. Tracks or no tracks.


----------



## RetPara (Oct 31, 2012)

digar, it was y'all.  There are a SHITLOAD of mod's available for M113's. 

Survivability and transportability is the key.  The M113 can be carried by C130's, not so sure about Strykers.  The hate was stronger for the Stryker when it was fielded, than it was for the Bradley.  The Bradley is the camel for IFV's, which means it's actually a horse made by committee.

http://www.napcointl.com/en/home/product_divisions/spare_parts/m113_apc.html

http://www.combatreform.org/m113combat.htm


----------



## reed11b (Oct 31, 2012)

Isn't there a rule about linking to a Sparky page? Hard to take any argument seriously if Sparks is used as a reference.
Reed


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 31, 2012)

Yeah, anyone who links to the douche that calls 113's gavins should just do pushups for... well, till I get tired.

And I don't sleep.

He's also the one that has a brainchild idea of having an entire company worth of soldiers using AH/MH-6'es to infiltrate and exfiltrate from objectives, among other things.

No, not by riding on them, by flying and parking them near the objective.

That guy is a retard and combatreform dot org should automatically give you a 2 week ban here.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 31, 2012)

I liked the 113 mortar platform... 81 or 4deuce (nearly 30* traverse w/o having to track paddle) with an M2 mounted on the turret.... Throw in the Vulcan variant for security, and your gun teams could do a little damage if attacked from ground or air...


----------



## AWP (Oct 31, 2012)

And the folding mountain bikes the 82nd should jump in with...

The list of stupid coming from that guy and his "1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne)" is long and "distinguished".


----------



## x SF med (Oct 31, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> And the folding mountain bikes the 82nd should jump in with...
> 
> The list of stupid coming from that guy and his "1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne)" is long and "distinguished".


 
They made us try them...  they broke and so did we...


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 31, 2012)

x SF med said:


> I liked the 113 mortar platform... 81 or 4deuce (nearly 30* traverse w/o having to track paddle) with an M2 mounted on the turret.... Throw in the Vulcan variant for security, and your gun teams could do a little damage if attacked from ground or air...


----------



## Grimfury160 (Oct 31, 2012)

Just don't let 2/75th call to sign one of these out of your Motor pool. Destroyed the transmission on one of my HMMV's, still don't know how they returned it without anyone noticing. Shit I did the PMCS and the doors were hanging off the hinges and my mirror was missing if I recall. The worst part was I did not find out it was lent out until I was doing the PMCS and was like how the F*#* did this happen?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 1, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> That's certainly a big "F*** You" to Donald Rumsfeld...which is usually the right answer for most problems involving Rummy.
> 
> I do have the impression the Army wants to retun to a big, heavy model and walk away from this nasty COIN "theory" it was "saddled" with for the last decade. I guess if you're incapable of, or unwilling to, learn something new...go with what you know.


 
Maybe, or it could be the rise of China and Russia giving the US Army the idea that maybe light wheeled will only do so well when faced with massive armored divisions.

The idea of turning the whole Army into a COIN force has always been stupid IMHO, but the thought of a "COIN focused force" going up against a well equipped heavy armor "Cold war" type force, scares the shit out of me.

All the shit talking about 3rd ID and most of the other Mech divisions is all funny, but those Mech units schooled the world in maneuver warfare in 1991 & 2003. I often have wondered how much of that capability has been diminished since the big COIN strategy push over the last decade.


----------



## AWP (Nov 1, 2012)

JAB said:


> Maybe, or it could be the rise of China and Russia giving the US Army the idea that maybe light wheeled will only do so well when faced with massive armored divisions.
> 
> The idea of turning the whole Army into a COIN force has always been stupid IMHO, but the thought of a "COIN focused force" going up against a well equipped heavy armor "Cold war" type force, scares the shit out of me.
> 
> All the shit talking about 3rd ID and most of the other Mech divisions is all funny, but those Mech units schooled the world in maneuver warfare in 1991 & 2003. I often have wondered how much of that capability has been diminished since the big COIN strategy push over the last decade.


 
You'll have no argument from me there because I knew we were screwed once you saw units like the 3rd ID and 1st Armored talking about and conducting COIN. Add to it instances where those same units now find themselves in Afghanistan running MRAPs and we've doubled down on Fail. Where I fault the Army is that 1) Other than a lone voice or two it didn't push back against Rummy's grandiose ideas in Iraq, leaving it with far too few troops to do the job. 2) It never really embraced COIN or attempted to implement it while, near as I can tell, it also failed to maintain the ability to conduct maneuver warfare.

Our military found itself in a war it wasn't prepared for, that it didn't want, and then failed to adequately respond to the challenge. It was put in a very, very bad position, but it also didn't do much to help itself.

One lesson I hope we've learned is that we are really only capable of conducting maneuver warfare. Our political and military system lacks the correct mindset to conduct COIN.


----------



## RetPara (Nov 1, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> Yeah, anyone who links to the douche that calls 113's gavins should just do pushups for... well, till I get tired.
> 
> And I don't sleep.
> 
> ...


 
I'm just not feeling the love man....   I was searching for examples of M113 upgrades and they had most inclusive set.  I didn't realize that using them would be likely bringing up Army Times in the other bar across the street.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 1, 2012)

lol...you're good dude, just read EVERYTHING that guy has to say and you'll see why I have the stance I do. I'd rather quote wikipedia or go get TM's from the NG here than quote that asshat on anything.


----------



## RetPara (Nov 1, 2012)

I have been reading those sites/sub-sites/sub-sub-sites since like the late 90's(?).   Some of their stuff is really recreational pharmaceutically developed (like the oh-so 1939 combat bicycles) and some interesting.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 1, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> You'll have no argument from me there because I knew we were screwed once you saw units like the 3rd ID and 1st Armored talking about and conducting COIN. Add to it instances where those same units now find themselves in Afghanistan running MRAPs and we've doubled down on Fail. Where I fault the Army is that 1) Other than a lone voice or two it didn't push back against Rummy's grandiose ideas in Iraq, leaving it with far too few troops to do the job. 2) It never really embraced COIN or attempted to implement it while, near as I can tell, it also failed to maintain the ability to conduct maneuver warfare.
> 
> Our military found itself in a war it wasn't prepared for, that it didn't want, and then failed to adequately respond to the challenge. It was put in a very, very bad position, but it also didn't do much to help itself.
> 
> One lesson I hope we've learned is that we are really only capable of conducting maneuver warfare. Our political and military system lacks the correct mindset to conduct COIN.


We were screwed when big Army failed to understand that Iraq and Afghanistan needed different skill sets.  We have a war and everyone gets to play, doesn't matter if they are equipped/trained, they get to go.

We send Light units to fight a Mech/Urban war in Iraq and Mech Units to fight a light/medium war in Afghanistan. Fail!

A unit deploys to the same country multiple times, but never to the same part of that country. Fail!

But hey, everyone (especially Bde/Bn Cdrs) gets a bullet on their performance reports.


----------

