Okay Extern, every vehicle that is out there has issues fighting in that type of setting/scenario, all militaries that operate this type of vehicle will have issues, also including BTR 80 or 90. Did not Russia find out the hard way also.
As the video shows war sucks.Yes they can fire different weapons platforms while in a offensive posture.
Heavy armoring and crew comfort need not be mutually exclusive. I would argue that you can have both of these features in a design if you want it.
I'm not disagreeing with you on vehicles being deployed poorly. But do the troops really have a choice in which vehicle to deploy? Again the fact that we are slapping armor on the vehicles we are forced to used is a sure enough sign that we didn't have the right stuff in the first place.Don`t blame the vehicles that we are losing in Iraq, blame it on the doctrin that is being followed, it doesn`t matter what type of vehicle you have in a urbanized setting, you are going to lose them, just like the Germans lost Tigers and Panthers, Russians lost massive amounts of heavy and medium armor taking German towns to a point that they were welding bed mattress springs to their tank turrets. All vehicles are designed for a purpose, you need light armor just as much as you need heavy, you just need to know how to fight with it properly. If the Stryker is so bad then why is Isreal purchasing them, in the last 60 years they have more experience than darn near everybody else in fighting in urban settings.
This makes a lot of sense rickshaw. A balanced force is important whether it be an armoured brigade, an air strike force, or a carrier battle group. No one vehicle, ship or aircraft can be designed that will be perfect for every role so we need complimentary assets.It strikes me strange how many people appear to believe there is only one way to skin a cat and that an army only needs one kind of vehicle. The Stryker was always intended to be part of an Army, not an end in itself. Sometimes armies need light vehicles, sometimes heavy ones. Sometimes, its not the army which arrives with the most but rather the army which arrives first, which wins the battle and if having a lighter (a relatively term BTW when talking about the Stryker IMO
The thing is the troops really like the Stryker, if Israel did not feel that the Stryker would fit into their intended role, then they would not of purchased them, granted they have been able to convert Centurion hulls and excess T-55 hulls into troop carriers but this is a logistics nightmare for them and pretty soon they will run out of spare parts to keep them going. With modern anti tank weapons in circulation out there no one is immune as Israel has found out with the losses that they sustained going into Lebanon. Israel has always had high vehicle losses in urban area`s, Russia suffered high losses in Chechny going in with heavy armor, we are finding this out in Iraq where we are faced with a even more population mass than Russia or Israel has had to deal with. As Rickshaw mentioned, you have to have more than one type of vehicle because of the different battle scenarios that a countries army may face. For the U.S Army, the Stryker is long overdue, it is just to bad that it was thrown into a theater where we have no control over.
There are still plenty of T-55s floating around out there and the upgrade market for them seems pretty strong (take a look at the T-55AGM out of the Ukraine - it's quite a transformation, http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t55agm.php?menu=def2.php). I think getting spares won't be difficult for some time to come.The thing is the troops really like the Stryker, if Israel did not feel that the Stryker would fit into their intended role, then they would not of purchased them, granted they have been able to convert Centurion hulls and excess T-55 hulls into troop carriers but this is a logistics nightmare for them and pretty soon they will run out of spare parts to keep them going. With modern anti tank weapons in circulation out there no one is immune as Israel has found out with the losses that they sustained going into Lebanon. Israel has always had high vehicle losses in urban area`s, Russia suffered high losses in Chechny going in with heavy armor, we are finding this out in Iraq where we are faced with a even more population mass than Russia or Israel has had to deal with. As Rickshaw mentioned, you have to have more than one type of vehicle because of the different battle scenarios that a countries army may face. For the U.S Army, the Stryker is long overdue, it is just to bad that it was thrown into a theater where we have no control over.
I had mentioned the Temsah earlier in the thread. I'd much rather be putting around the battlefield in one of those than a Stryker.Speaking of heavy IFVs, has anybody else noted the Jordanian Temsah heavy IFV?
It is basically a Centurion which has had its hull rebuilt backwards. The engine is now at the front and the crew compartment at the rear, and it has a ramp. It overcomes the problems other heavy IFVs have, with either the passengers dismounting over the side or having to traverse a narrow tunnel past the engine. It is IMO a clever alternative and creates a far better vehicle design.
Until you tried to put 20,000 miles on one in a year "putting" around Iraq and it broke down, wore out and strained your log system to the point where you had to take a truck everywhere anyway.
As long as I came out in one piece I'd find a way to cope.
Your chances of coming out in once piece are much better if you're in a Stryker for the ENTIRE deployment, than if you were in a HAPC for a few months, and a truck or HMMWV for the rest of the year.
And the dead space on a BTR 80 or 90 series is better, and lets also throw in where Russians soldiers get to exit them from.The dead space of LAV-25, ASLAV-25 and LAV Coyote. The dream of RPGist
The answer is very simple indeed: BTR has its infantry door on the side, where the visional 'dead space' is minimal.And the dead space on a BTR 80 or 90 series is better, and lets also throw in where Russians soldiers get to exit them from.
How does that give you a minimal amount of dead space, its a rather piss poor design on Russias part, your infantry has to get out on the side of a vehicle that will not offer alot of protection while dismounting.