• 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'

Well, in SF MGS are very useful against lightly-armoured vehicles (toyota trucks :)) and infantry. One round can take down whole platoon of them. But then again, Battlefront messed up (at least, in early patches) and made Stryker's armour invulnerable against BTR main guns, which is stupid, because in RL this vehicle needs additional armour (and I'm not speaking about the cage), if the crew wants to stay alive under heavy-mg fire.
 
Upvote 0
The 105mm is from the M60 series and the M1 and M1IP tanks. M1A1 got the Rheinmetall 120.

And where did the M60 get the 105 from? Yes the british.

Computer lockdowns and general unreliability. Sounds great. How about getting M113 back? A little tinkering here and there shouldn't be too hard.

The us needs a IFV not a apc.
 
Upvote 0
M113 can be fitted with ATGMs, automatic grenade launchers, recoilless guns, extra armor... Hell, anything and a kitchen sink.



I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to have a wheeled IFV. It will almost certainly have better gas mileage than a tracked vehicle, and it absodamnedlutely will have better maintenance costs. Tracks are expensive to replace, a nightmare to maintain, and they don't last that long. Plus, for urban operations, a wheeled vehicle won't be destroying the road infrastructure like a tracked vehicle will. Actually, that's another point in favor of a wheeled vehicle - using a Bradley in urban work, you'll kill the roadwheels before you will the tracks, and that's even more miserable to fix than a broken track.

Also, with a 6- or 8-wheeled IFV / APC, if you get damage to one or two wheels - hell, up to 4 wheels conceivably - you can still limp home. If your Bradley loses a track, you're a sitting duck until you can get a recovery vehicle on-site and some more troops to cover you while the repair / recovery operation happens.

Now, as to the Stryker specifically ... there's some reports that tire life is NOT as good as it should be - not as good, specifically, as the USMC LAV-25, based on an earlier version of the same vehicle - due to weight problems. Also, the Canadian version of the same vehicle (LAVIII) has been having rollover issues, but this has been attributed to the turret system on the LAV-III, which is not present on the Stryker.

There's plenty of other things to consider as far as specific vehicle design goes, but in general it's not a bad idea to have a wheeled IFV for the environment that we're seeing it used in right now. It's just not, and never can be, a replacement for the big boys, that's all.

My big problem with the Stryker, actually, is that goddamned 'y' in the name. I mean, seriously, are we stuck in the 80's here or something?
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
Tomcat: In response the MGS is not meant to go head to head with a MBT. That is what a Abrams is for. All the MGS is used for is to support the infantry organically within the Battalion or what ever element it is in. If a T-95 is to be expected you can rest assure that a Abrams will be there as well. Right now the armor threat is very minimal unless we lose control of the airspace in a future conflict.
 
Upvote 0