What the heck is a "Striker" vehicle?

I think the "light" concept has a place, but not at the expense of all "heavy" formations. There are and will continue to be scenarios where only a tank will do. And as more sophisticated anti-armor weapons get into the hands of our opponents, the level of standard protection for LAVs and Strykers will have to improve as well.

The rational for stryker was something along the lines of "we can get a lot of strykers there in the same time that we could get a few M-1s there" or some such drivel. Well as a former 19K my question is then what? If the situation is that dire and you wanted tanks, what are these things going to do for you? I think there is a role for the stryker, and its a good idea to work from a standard chassis from a supply/money standpoint I guess, but I dont think it will suffice as a MBT surragate.

I am disappointed when a politician decides the T.O. & E. of a fighting unit. I just wish the man in the uniform on the sharp end of the stick was the opinion listened for. I know he would choose armor and ammo. The more, the merrier.

The Stryker is a great idea for low-level conflicts like the US has had in areas such as Haiti and Somalia. However, desert areas are where tanks and treads reign supreme. Manuverability is great and all, but IMHO a 125mm T-72 round would turn that into a rapidly expanding cloud of spent propellant and shreds of steel. I don't care how fast they can maneuver. I have yet to hear of any appique armor for a lighter skinned vehicle that would withstand that round hammering into them.

QUOTE: Originally posted by M1abramsRules They do need to replace those aging leopards though.......... but not with armored cars!!! get some challys or M1s

Yeah you need the treads to get into some places. The Stryker is an interesting looking vehicle, but I'm not convinced of the logic behind puting such a large calibre gun on a LAV hull.

As for the Canadian military, its personell are top notch in training and profesionalism, of that there can be no question. Unfortunately the gear doesn't allow them to fully utilize the high quality of their training.

A few months back, one of our Iltis jeeps hit a land mine over in Afghanistan and the two soldiers in it were killed. The Ilitis was an old, much maligned soft top vehicle that offered as much protection as an aluminum beer can.

Shortly after that incident, we quickly bought up some better armoured Mercedes built vehicles. I've heard our soldiers are taking well to them, but I've also heard that vehicles in the vein of the Humvee or Land Rover 110 Defender series are better in many ways.

Well, time will tell what the Stryker is made of.

They do need to replace those aging leopards though.......... but not with armored cars!!! get some challys or M1s

Paul Martin has stopped all purchases and is (supposedly) reviewing the military and is going to get them what they need. while I do not like the liberals, I like Martin, I think he could be a great leader for Canada, but I still hope we get the conservatives in office come election this spring (or fall).

personally I think our military should majorily downsize and specialize in top quality AF and armor and SF.

As a proud Canadian, I have great respect on our servicemen and servicewomen in our military. However, I have absolutely no idea how could our politicians can suggest this. Perhaps they cannot tell the differences between a tank and an armour car(even my six year old nephew can tell). Maybe we should ask Paul Martin and some of our politicians to test drive this Stryker in an mine field or to get hit by AT-3 Sagger or to fight a T-80, if it survives, we have good armour car, if not, well, we can always get a new Prime Minister or politicians.

BTW, I have nothing against Stryker, but using an armour car to replace a tank is unbelieveable.

I love the way our military allocates its money.............. our troops go to fight in the desert with green cadpat. our snipers have to use british guns anf uniforms and american ammo. our sea king helicopers keep crashing with regularity. so they buy 8 worthless subs and complain when one has a dent in it. they decide to better protect our troops by getting them, Light armored vehicles (strikers and coyotes) instead of tanks. I am disgusted by our military's political leadership...........

here's a good one, they had a suicide bomber in afghanistan throw himself on top of one of their softskins on patrol and kills a guy. the military decides that even if they had been in an armored vehicle, the result would have been the same. these guys are driving around in (close enough) m151 soft tops. so they are saying if the guy had thrown himself on top of a hummer, the guy still would have been killed like he was in the little softtop jeep??? it might have, but I think the chances would have been greatly reduced.

I want one with the 105 main gun in plastic! That is one mean looking ride. I've actually seen a few of the personnel versions rolling around BAF, I think they had Canadian markings. Definitely make my Corps' LAVs look like compact cars sitting side by side. These Strykers are LAVs on steroids.

Stryker is the US Army's designation for an 8-wheeled upgraded LAV III. The Army has developed variants that include the standard infantry carrier, command post carrier and eventually there will be an armored gun system (105mm gun mounted on top). The standard Stryker is bigger than the USMC's LAV-25 series.

Stryker is the last name of a pair of soldiers who have won the Medal of Honor in past wars.

The Stryker Vehicle is basically an upgraded LAV25. It is a modular vehicle in that it can be converted from personnel carrier, mortar carrier, or in the case you mention a mobile gun platform with a 105mm main gun. It has 3 armor packages that can be easily donned and doffed. They allow the vehicle to be air transported in most cargo aircraft with minimal armor and then upgraded in theater and to the specific threat level. There is a Stryker Brigade in Iraq right now and there is a lot of information available.



Stephen

Upnorth. The Canadian Army has its own variants of the LAV called the General Motors LAV-111 (Bison and Coyote are 8x8, Cougar and Grizzly are 6x6). Australia bought some Grizzly's and call it the ASLAV. These vehicles are larger than the LAV25 series, although they appear similar.

I don't know of the Striker, other than the old British anti-tank platform based on the scorpion/scimitar vehicle, but General Motors has taken over a Canadian interest that in 1999 developed a vehicle called the LPT (Low Profile Turret). It uses the Canadian LAV 1118x8 chassis and fitted a compact turret with an autoloaded 105mm gun. I think the US have placed an order for some to use in an assault gun role for specialist brigades. Given that a paper was issued in relation to difficulties moving the 'new' LAV-111 for deployment and specifically mentioning the Striker (see: http://www.ccs21.org/articles/feb03/addy-tanks-feb03.htm) it is possible that the LPT is the vehicle now called the Striker.

Someone may know more than I on this.