Bradleys vs Strykers
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,418
Likes: 0
From: Seattle
Bradleys vs Strykers
Good article, pros and cons of the Styrker Vehicle. There a big force here based in WA.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_...Hn7ryz8yyas0NUE
I'm a big fan of the bradley's or something more heavily armored in hot situations against RPG's, heavy machine guns and road side bombs. Crazy how some road side bombs can even rip an Abrams up
We still need to stick with our heavy armor in the right situations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_...Hn7ryz8yyas0NUE
I'm a big fan of the bradley's or something more heavily armored in hot situations against RPG's, heavy machine guns and road side bombs. Crazy how some road side bombs can even rip an Abrams up
We still need to stick with our heavy armor in the right situations.
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,094
Likes: 6
From: Vienna, VA
well, mobility is always going to come at the expense of protection. There's always going to be a situation where either a Bradley or a Stryker will be better.
I don't know if they'll ever really be able to defeat a roadside bomb, because many of them are packed with LOTS of explosive. Even if they can make the armor strong enough, the energy still has to be dissipated, sending the vehicle into the air.
also, the Stryker has a 25mm machine gun/cannon, not a 105mm one.
I don't know if they'll ever really be able to defeat a roadside bomb, because many of them are packed with LOTS of explosive. Even if they can make the armor strong enough, the energy still has to be dissipated, sending the vehicle into the air.
also, the Stryker has a 25mm machine gun/cannon, not a 105mm one.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,418
Likes: 0
From: Seattle
Originally Posted by steven975,May 13 2007, 05:24 PM
well, mobility is always going to come at the expense of protection. There's always going to be a situation where either a Bradley or a Stryker will be better.
I don't know if they'll ever really be able to defeat a roadside bomb, because many of them are packed with LOTS of explosive. Even if they can make the armor strong enough, the energy still has to be dissipated, sending the vehicle into the air.
also, the Stryker has a 25mm machine gun/cannon, not a 105mm one.
I don't know if they'll ever really be able to defeat a roadside bomb, because many of them are packed with LOTS of explosive. Even if they can make the armor strong enough, the energy still has to be dissipated, sending the vehicle into the air.
also, the Stryker has a 25mm machine gun/cannon, not a 105mm one.
Must be a special version 
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
Heavy armor is much more vulnerable in urban warfare. Even an Abrams with the TUSK kit can still be disabled by a well-placed rpg. A lot of IEDs are 155mm arty shells daisy-chained together which is going to take out pretty much any armor you roll in there, especially Bradleys and Strykers. The aluminum hull on the Bradley does not stand up to explosives very well at all.
EFPs (Explosively Formed Pentrators)and shaped charges are the biggest problem now. The new MRAPs are well-suited to survive traditional high explosive IEDs and mines but EFPs will most likely still achieve some level of penetration.
Oh and most strykers dont usually carry dont more than a .50 cal or a MK19.
EFPs (Explosively Formed Pentrators)and shaped charges are the biggest problem now. The new MRAPs are well-suited to survive traditional high explosive IEDs and mines but EFPs will most likely still achieve some level of penetration.
Oh and most strykers dont usually carry dont more than a .50 cal or a MK19.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,418
Likes: 0
From: Seattle
Originally Posted by nwlax23,May 13 2007, 07:37 PM
Heavy armor is much more vulnerable in urban warfare. Even an Abrams with the TUSK kit can still be disabled by a well-placed rpg. A lot of IEDs are 155mm arty shells daisy-chained together which is going to take out pretty much any armor you roll in there, especially Bradleys and Strykers. The aluminum hull on the Bradley does not stand up to explosives very well at all.
EFPs (Explosively Formed Pentrators)and shaped charges are the biggest problem now. The new MRAPs are well-suited to survive traditional high explosive IEDs and mines but EFPs will most likely still achieve some level of penetration.
Oh and most strykers dont usually carry dont more than a .50 cal or a MK19.
EFPs (Explosively Formed Pentrators)and shaped charges are the biggest problem now. The new MRAPs are well-suited to survive traditional high explosive IEDs and mines but EFPs will most likely still achieve some level of penetration.
Oh and most strykers dont usually carry dont more than a .50 cal or a MK19.
Same effect, Stryker vs Armored Humvee.Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,418
Likes: 0
From: Seattle
Originally Posted by steven975,May 13 2007, 09:11 PM
the term RPG has been kind of generalized, but if you mean to say the traditional shoulder-launched rocket, then, yea, an Abrams is a pretty safe place.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
Originally Posted by steven975,May 13 2007, 08:11 PM
the term RPG has been kind of generalized, but if you mean to say the traditional shoulder-launched rocket, then, yea, an Abrams is a pretty safe place.
