• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

The Stryker officially a 'PoS'

I think they are just talking about that particular model, the one mounted with the 105mm gun. If not, well I think people would still rather be in a stryker than a Humvee in Iraq.

Also the Stryker originates from Canada, yay for Canada hating.

I agree and read about this a few days ago, it is just this particular model. I am sure it will get fixed, just a matter of how soon and how much $$$.

So Nestor, 'officially a POS' is probably a bit premature :p
 
Upvote 0
Officially a POS ... well ... there's a few ways to look at that, really.

The air conditioning system is a problem across the board with all the Stryker variants, not just the MGS.


But the BIG problem with it is the idea that it can replace the main battle tank. It can't. There's NO way that any APC can go toe to toe and slug it out with the big boys, no matter what gun or missile system it mounts. And that's what the Stryker is projected to be: America's next generation battle tank. From that sense, yeah, it's a complete POS. Taken for what it is, though - a medium-duty APC with a spiffo modular turret and mediocre A/C ... it's actually pretty cool.
 
Upvote 0
Pos?

Pos?

The MGS does not represent the overall stryker family. Most have been worked out and this article focuses on a few claims from some crewmembers who feel left out of the fight. The 105 in use is the same ole M68 that was found in the M60 series of tanks and was very accurate and deadly. Firing from the sides is no longer a issue. If you want to use the BIOP for the main gun then use of A/C is crucial (A/C in AFV's like the M1A2 SEP is for the ballistic computer only). Remember that the stryker is called the "interim" family of armored vehicles for a reason.

25th ID, 1st Stryker BDE
 
Upvote 0
When will people realize that all of this technology is only going to fail right when you need it!?!?!? I mean, why change from the proven trucks: the M35A2, the M37B1, et cetera et cetera. I mean, if they weren't good, people wouldn't go crazy collecting restoring and using them! The same thing is happening to the HMMWV. It just can't hack it.
 
Upvote 0
When will people realize that all of this technology is only going to fail right when you need it!?!?!? I mean, why change from the proven trucks: the M35A2, the M37B1, et cetera et cetera. I mean, if they weren't good, people wouldn't go crazy collecting restoring and using them! The same thing is happening to the HMMWV. It just can't hack it.


Let's think about this one for a moment, shall we?

True, the venerable Willy's Jeep - contemporary with the M35 and M37 - was in service for over 40 years. This was due to (a) the durability of the design and (b) the massive numbers produced. From 1941 to 1945, about 650,000 were produced, in various versions. They lasted a long time. When one wore out, then hey - junk the one you killed, grab a new one out of storage. It's no wonder they stuck around for so long. And on top of the wartime production, there were another 200,000 or so M38/M38A1/M606/M170 jeeps. So, a total of almost 900,000 jeeps.

Now, let's contrast.

The M998 HMMWV was introduced in 1984, and 55,000 were ordered. They've lasted now for 23 years. That's more than half as long as the Willy's was around ... but with only about 1/18th of the production numbers available. And in that time, they've seen two wars and almost constant forward-deployments in either Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, Saudi, Iraq, etc.

Is it any wonder they're wearing out?



Now, as for the M35 and the M37, why were they phased out? Are you so afraid that the overhead cam fuel injected technology of today is going to fail that you'd rather see a 78 horsepower 3.7 liter carbureted L-head engine pulling around supplies and ammunition?



While we're at it, you know, gunpowder gets wet sometimes. Best to skip it altogether - you never know when it's going to fail on you. Bows and arrows, that's the thing. And no metal heads - they corrode. Gotta use flint.

Wait. Bowstrings break, and they're very dependent on the weather ...

Ok then. Let's throw rocks at each other. Yes, that's it.

Wait. Rocks are very heavy. It sucks to throw them. Let's try ...



Ah, never mind.
 
Upvote 0
The stryker family of vehicles has performed very well since its debut in 2004. As with any new vehicles there are gonna be problems and in reality due to strategic, tactical, and political demands there will be issues with supply and working the problems out. As for the ole M35's and HMMWV. They are great but time to move on to better technology. The M35 and its later cousins are being replaced by the FMTV which is far superiour than the ole 5 and 2 1/2 tons. We are at least catching up with the europeans in this aspect.
The MGS on the Stryker will be a great asset to infantry battalions. As we see the need for the MBT ( main battle tank ) diminish, this type of platform will become essential and yes it will be manned by tank crews. The 105 with its various types of ammo can do quite well and maintenance and operating costs pale in comparison to a Abrams. We are not gonna get rid of the Abrams just that it is not always needed.
 
Upvote 0
The stryker family of vehicles has performed very well since its debut in 2004. As with any new vehicles there are gonna be problems and in reality due to strategic, tactical, and political demands there will be issues with supply and working the problems out. As for the ole M35's and HMMWV. They are great but time to move on to better technology. The M35 and its later cousins are being replaced by the FMTV which is far superiour than the ole 5 and 2 1/2 tons. We are at least catching up with the europeans in this aspect.
The MGS on the Stryker will be a great asset to infantry battalions. As we see the need for the MBT ( main battle tank ) diminish, this type of platform will become essential and yes it will be manned by tank crews. The 105 with its various types of ammo can do quite well and maintenance and operating costs pale in comparison to a Abrams. We are not gonna get rid of the Abrams just that it is not always needed.

In no situation will a 20 ton vehicle replace a 60+ ton vehicle completely. The abrams can still take more punishment. I think the US should make a urban battle tank. Something like the merkava but totally designed for urban combat. They should still have some main battle tanks though. Otherwise they are going to get pwnt when they face T95's.
 
Upvote 0
In no situation will a 20 ton vehicle replace a 60+ ton vehicle completely. The abrams can still take more punishment. I think the US should make a urban battle tank. Something like the merkava but totally designed for urban combat. They should still have some main battle tanks though. Otherwise they are going to get pwnt when they face T95's.


Why am I thinking of 'Stripes' and Bill Murray with the Urban Assault Vehicle now :p
 
Upvote 0
The MGS has the 105 from the M1A1 Abrams. It is a great asset to the infantry wanting something larger than a 25mm bushmaster chaingun on the Bradleys for support. Its almost like a rebirth of the assault gun.

M1A1 already had the 120mm.

Technically the 105 was a british gun. Like the 120mm is basically from rheinmetal.

Theoretically this new stryker could work but then the components need to work aswell.
 
Upvote 0