Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT
This shows just how low the bar has been set over the years. The Striker's survivability sucks, in my time as EOD in Iraq I never saw or heard of one surviving any serious hit, the armor did not even need to be penetrated, they caught fire like they were made out of TP, now this is not saying that none of them ever did survive, but just that I have no knowledge of it happening if they were hit. The striker mobility is fine for a wheeled vehicle, but any tracked vehicle is going to be much better off road (where I think you would be spending most of your time in full out combat, not anti-insurgent warfare) so on road sure, off nope. Dependability, very likely is going to be much better than a track, they do need more maintenance. And then back to mobility, this time specificley off road, what is he comparing it to, saying it is an improvement?
|
If he's an E-5, presumably his only prior experience was with the HMMWV Avenger. The last Bradley Linebackers were withdrawn in, what, 2006?
A Stryker may well be an improvement in terms of survivability compared to an M1097 chassis. The Stryker is likely to be newer than the donor HMMWV, too, so... yeah, in game terms, Wear 1 versus Wear 7 is going to be more dependable.
As far as maneuverability, I can't imagine that the ground pressure is any better, given the Stryker's vastly greater weight. Perhaps the center of gravity is lower than that of the Avenger? That thing always looks like it's going to roll over at the next speed bump or stiff breeze.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b
I saw that on a YouTube channel (IIRC, Lockheed Martin's channel). The video showed the turret mounted on a variety of AFV platforms, such as the M113, M1117, Bradley, LAV-25, and a few others. The video also showed a variant turret armed with four Stingers and four Hellfires, along with the 30mm autocannon.
|
Not gonna lie, now I want to see that on an M60 hull as a rough BMPT equivalent.
- C.