Cool:

www.youtube.com . . .
www.youtube.com . . .


And you shouldn't go there either with a an uparmored road truck:

www.youtube.com . . .


You wouldn't even get near this area anyway with a Stryker:

www.youtube.com . . .

Stryker trap - Gavin track:

www.youtube.com . . .

www.youtube.com . . .


Third-world armies got better equipment than the US armed forces. They did not fall for an armored truck pretending to be an armored personnel carrier. And even Canada, the inventor of the LAV III, upon which the Stryker is based, has realized the wheel-vehicles low capabilities and is turning back to the M113A3 Gavin:

www.youtube.com . . .


But-but, let's be objective and give the Stryker its due credit, too:

www.youtube.com . . .




The REAL Stryker

www.youtube.com . . .

www.youtube.com . . .

www.youtube.com . . .

www.youtube.com . . .

www.youtube.com . . .

www.youtube.com . . .

.... are you a used car salesman?

i'm sick of your m113 loving faggotry!

Pic above: U.S. Army soldiers from Company B of the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, part of the 3rd Stryker brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division guard an armored Stryker vehicle that became stuck in the mud during a mission in New Baghdad, an eastern neighborhood in the Iraqi capital where soldiers searched for weapons and suspected insurgents on Sunday, Dec. 24, 2006 (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic)

Ihatehippies wrote:

i'm sick of your m113 loving faggotry!

I'm sick of queer gay trucks claiming to be armored personnel carriers.

.... are you a used car salesman?

No, why ? Just watch the videos, esp. the series at the bottom and compare the facts. And then tell me with a straight face that you favor the Stryker over the Gavin again. Then we'll know who's the used car salesman here, or at least who's got such a personality. Strykers are brand-new scrap-metal. And the worst thing is: They are not alone. There are a dozen of newly introduced wheeled vehicles in the army which make the enemy laugh and cringe with the anticipation that the US might be stupid enough to field them into combat against his army. Just think about the Growler, e.g.





Pic above:
SSG Fa standing next to A24 after it rolled. During the winter the back country roads were all muddy and couldn't support the 22 tons of Stryker that we tried to drive on them. This was actually our very first day in sector. The recovery took 6 hours and eventually using two Bradley's towing and two Strykers winching we were able to get A24 out and drive it home.



NEWS:

New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field

Military.com | By Christian Lowe | January 30, 2008
BAQUBAH, Iraq - The newest version of the Army’s popular Stryker combat vehicle is garnering poor reviews here from Soldiers assigned to man its tank-like hull.

The General Dynamics Corp.-built Mobile Gun System looks like a typical eight-wheeled Stryker, except for a massive 105mm gun mounted on its roof. The gun fires three different types of projectiles, including explosive rounds, tank-busters and a "canister round" that ejects hundreds of steel pellets similar to a shotgun shell.

But while the system looks good on paper and the Army’s all for it, Soldiers with the 4th Battalion of the 9th Infantry Regiment -- one of the first units to receive the new vehicle for their deployment to Iraq -- don’t have a lot of good things to say about it.

"I wish [the enemy] would just blow mine up so I could be done with it," said Spec. Kyle Handrahan, 22, of Anaheim, Calif., a tanker assigned to Alpha Company, 4/9’s MGS platoon.

"It’s a piece," another MGS platoon member chimed in. "Nothing works on it."

(...)

www.military.com . . .

I'm sick of queer gay trucks claiming to be armored personnel carriers.

I'm sick of your 50 year old farm machinery. If you want a tracked vehicle to fight the Soviets get an Abrams. If you want to fight a counterinsurgency get a Stryker. If you want to die a horrible firey death get a M113.

I was reading somewhere that the Stryker was a very popular vehicle with its crews, and that is one of the most feared things by the enemy. They call it the "ghost wagon" because it is so quiet and fast, it just appears as if from thin air.

www.youtube.com . . .



Love the French accent of those Canadian military!!

Ihatehippies wrote:

If you want to fight a counterinsurgency get a Stryker. If you want to die a horrible firey death get a M113.

But it's only American lives being put to waste ... so you don't care, right ?



Just about any wheeled armored vehicle in service with the armies of this world can run circles around the Stryker. They're air-deployable, air-droppable and amphibious. Only the Americans are dumb enough to replace a superior system with a grossly inferior one - i.e. the Gavin with the Stryker.

And guess what ? Nobody wants to buy the Stryker ! Nobody ! Not a single fucking country wants this piece of shit !

The Gavin on the other hand still IS - not only WAS - a worldwide success, with new variants being developped as we're writing.


Did you really watch the videos I posted above ? How come you're still in denial ? Cause the Stryker looks so impressively cool, tough and aggressive to a man who knows nothing about warfare ?

But maybe you're not that dumb after all and just get paid for propagating the Stryker ?!

At any rate, I rest my case: You can lead the donkey to the water, but you can't make him drink.

I'd show you pictures of burning M113's in Iraq but I've ever seen one running outside a FOB. They are poop. Engineers would rather roll in uparmored HMMVWs than take their M113s on patrol.

And guess what ? Nobody wants to buy the Stryker ! Nobody ! Not a single fucking country wants this piece of shit !

en.wikipedia.org . . .

Australia Australian Army
Belgium Belgian Army
Brazil Brazilian Marine Corps
Canada Canadian Army
Chile Chilean Army
Chile Chilean Marines Corps[4]
Denmark Danish Army
Ghana Ghana Army[5]
Ireland Irish Army
New Zealand New Zealand Army
Oman Royal Army of Oman
Qatar Qatar Army
Romania Romanian Land Forces
Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian Army
Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian National Guard
Spain Spanish Navy Marines
Sweden Swedish Army
Switzerland Swiss Army
United States United States Army
United States United States Marine Corps
Turkey Turkish Army

All these countries use some version of the Stryker

Pic above: Self-explanatory ...

Ihatehippies wrote:

I'd show you pictures of burning M113's in Iraq but I've ever seen one running outside a FOB. They are poop. Engineers would rather roll in uparmored HMMVWs than take their M113s on patrol.

Yeah, sure. The M113 in all its versions is combat-proven and the most successful tank ever built. But you know better, of course.

en.wikipedia.org . . .

All these countries use some version of the Stryker

The Stryker was built on the basis of this vehicle family, more specifically the Canadian LAV-III. And you know that you can take this expression literally: They built upon that platform, adding tons of extra weight.

The Mowag Piranha, from which this whole vehicle family is derived, weighs only 9,5 tons ! The stryker weighs 19 tons empty, 22 tons with the birdcage, 23 tons or more with ammo, diesel and soldiers onboard.

What happens to a vehicle if you increase its weight by more than 100% ? Any wheeled vehicle, for that matter ? Go figure.

The suspension and the tires were never designed for that much weight, let alone the ground pressure calculations. And better not speak about amphibious abilities - with the added weight, the Stryker lost them completely.

Oh well, the facts are out there, and you may just use the videos above to get started.

The Stryker is a treasonous catastrophe which only entered service thru massive corruption in the American defense bureaucracy. If there were no soldiers inside, I would cheer every time one of them was blown up by enemies around the world.

these seem to go OK. You cannot have troops in Gavins over long distances. My old unit has them, they were good but they are a dreadful ride.

The cavalry recce units still use Gavins

This is a better option for long distance, and it too would be vulnerable to tyre shots

travelwww.army-technology.com . . .

anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com . . .

Our last PM, John Howard, was a sucker for anything American, whether it was good or not. Man was an absolute fuckwit.

My greatest wish is that the US convinces the Albanoscum and the KLA to take the Strykeout in exchange for whatever armored vehicles that they have. Besides it will serve as a good supply of scrap metal, which is all the albanians are good for, scrapping someone else's technology.


This piece of crap is not stuck in mud, its stuck in twin rivers of sewage.

Someone tell me what happens to those rubber tires when a grenade goes off nearby and rips them to shreds?

I like the looks of that M113 and its performance in mud, the only thing that I would be worried about is having a track run off the rollers or get bent and jammed running over rocks.

Yeah, sure. The M113 in all its versions is combat-proven and the most successful tank ever built. But you know better, of course.

The sherman tank and Sopwith Camel are both combat-proven. Doesn't mean I want to roll around in them. If you need tracked capability get a Bradley if you need wheels get a Stryker. I did 50-60 miles worth of route clearance missions a day in a Stryker. If I tried to do that in a M113 I'd probably throw a track once week. In terms of survivablility anything that can take out a Stryker (large burried IEDs, EFPs) will take out an M113.


And who the fuck calls them "Gavins"? I have never heard that word come out of the mouth of a sapper.

I found it interesting that the "birdcage" armor add-on for the Stryker was the solution to a problem that dates back to WWII. Sometimes it pays to be a WWII buff.

Ihatehippies wrote:

I did 50-60 miles worth of route clearance missions a day in a Stryker.

Are you one of these supreme guys ?

www.youtube.com . . .

If I tried to do that in a M113 I'd probably throw a track once week.

How many tires does a Stryker burn per day ? Reports from Iraq suggest between 8 and 13. And it takes just as long to change a single Stryker-wheel as it takes to change an entire Gavin steel-track. Btw, said track weighs as much as two Stryker wheels - and the Stryker got 8 of 'em.

In terms of survivablility anything that can take out a Stryker (large burried IEDs, EFPs) will take out an M113.

Wrong - see the armour picture above: You can perforate a Stryker hull with a standard issue 7,62mm rifle, aiming between the wheels. And of course you need even less to immobilize it - "thanks" to the rubber tires. Throw a molotov cocktail at it, done. Or a couple of 5,56mm rounds also suffice. Or a damn knife, whatever.

And who the fuck calls them "Gavins"? I have never heard that word come out of the mouth of a sapper.

I and many other people who want to give General Gavin his due credit for giving us this great tank.





It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic:

4-million-dollar Stryker unable to break thru a fucking courtyard-door in Iraq:

www.youtube.com . . .

Stoopid Stryker Truck Tricks:

Boy with bomb in bag !
www.youtube.com . . .


Oh, IHH:

Trucktards in general live in denial about their wheeled victim-wagons and their willing victimhood.

Denial is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person faced with a fact that is uncomfortable or painful to accept rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference). The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction.

The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality.

How many tires does a Stryker burn per day? Reports from Iraq suggest between 8 and 13. And it takes just as long to change a single Stryker-wheel as it takes to change an entire Gavin steel-track. Btw, said track weighs as much as two Stryker wheels - and the Stryker got 8 of 'em.

A Stryker does not burn through 13 tires a day I drove a stryker convoy from Mosul to Kuwait (600 miles) just fine. They'd never drive a track that far. It would have to be line-hauled. I have never personally done maintainence on M113's but I had soldiers that had served in Korea and prefered changing a tire to changing track. The big difference is that a Stryker can rollback to a FOB on flat tires while the M113 gets to sit in the kill zone spinning around in a circle with a thrown track.

abraracoursix wrote:

Love the French accent of those Canadian military!!

In the old days we would have called you a fag. But in the more sensitive and diverse 21st century, I'll recommend that you take a bath and maybe take some flowers when you approach them.

Boy with bomb in bag !

yeah, like you can't sneak up to a Brad like that. (which there are many on youtube but I won't post.

Trucktards in general live in denial about their wheeled victim-wagons and their willing victimhood.

Tracklovers are living in the past, clinging to the remnants of their youth and watching the world pass them by as irrelevent.

What next? You going to start an arguement that the Army should give up the M16 and go back to the M14?

Someone tell me what happens to those rubber tires when a grenade goes off nearby and rips them to shreds?

I'm sure the platoon gets together and has a good cry because that's probably just the topper of the really crappy day they were all having ("The commander yelled at me again.") and then call AAA to come fix it. Strykers/MRAPs/HMMVWs all have run flat tires. You can roll pretty far on them.

I suppose there's a place for both tread-heads and wheelie-boys. Both have their place in armories, no? Even among those who have experience with both, certain personal bias will be present for one over the other. Some cops like sedans; some like SUV's. Sedans are good for high speed pursuits; SUV's are nice where the roads are crap.

Of course, you could compromise:






...just kidding

Didn't Patton or Eisenhower say the most dangerous vehicle the US Army faced was it's own half-track since crews would race into enemy fire with it like it was a real tank?

Ihatehippies wrote:

Didn't Patton or Eisenhower say the most dangerous vehicle the US Army faced was it's own half-track since crews would race into enemy fire with it like it was a real tank?

I don't know. But I do know that the design and concept of the half-track was dumped after WWII. I guess it had the vices of both. After the war it was one or the other...not both.

Ihatehippies wrote:

yeah, like you can't sneak up to a Brad like that. (which there are many on youtube but I won't post.

Point taken.

Tracklovers are living in the past, clinging to the remnants of their youth and watching the world pass them by as irrelevent. What next? You going to start an arguement that the Army should give up the M16 and go back to the M14?

Living in the past ? The world outside doesn't change. There's still roadblocks to be climbed, mudholes to be passed, courtyard doors to be broken in, ... If anything, military vehicles need to be tougher than ever before, I'd say. Tough means tracks. A track can support more abuse than any tire - wear and tear, explosions, bullets, shrapnel, fire, etc. Eventually it will have to be changed, but the interval is far greater than the tire changing interval on a comparable truck.

I'm not that old to be nostalgic for tracks, I'm in my twenties. And I'm all in favor of new equipment, if it's tougher, has more firepower and is more reliable than the old one which it replaces. Which the Stryker is clearly not. There may be some limited tasks where a wheeled vehicle might offer an advantage - I can't think of any, though. Nevertheless, as I said, even for a wheeled vehicle the Stryker is the bottom of the line in international comparisons. No matter what you compare - ground pressure, firepower, armor, ... it loses to all its competitors. The Russians got several wheeled 4-axle trucks which are fully air-deployable, air-droppable and amphibious at the same time, and all that combat-ready ! So the stryker is a disgrace not only compared to tracked tanks.

It is a Canadian copy of a Suisse design. What can you expect ?

The M113 Gavin on the other hand is an all-American tank - from the planning table to the production-line. And it shows.

.

Ihatehippies wrote:


What next? You going to start an arguement that the Army should give up the M16 and go back to the M14?

M14's are great.....but then my watch-station was in the bridge on top of the sail of my Boat so I didn't actually have to carry it anywhere. Lots of fun to play with during qual shoots though.

Stryker scrapyard in Iraq:

www.youtube.com . . .

Or will they be restaured, in order to fry some dozen more US soldiers in them ?