What went wrong? Seriously why is the stryker such a failure?

>>29073730
It didn't have treads

File: 1425241592804.gif (674KB, 245x180px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 245x180px

>>29073730
implying the M2/M3 bradley adn the M113 werent failures as well.

all IFV or APCs are inherently flawed.

>>29073730

amerishit being amerishit

>>29073756
I laughed and then cried when I saw that video of how the Bradley was supposed to replace the M113 but they added so much shit to it that it no longer served its original purpose.

>>29073730
Is it really 2007 again?
Well, off to buy a dozen WASRs, pallet of 7n6 and a manhurin
Cheers OP

>>29073758
so what dose that make you achmed?

>>29073756
>all IFV or APCs are inherently flawed
What's your plan then cuck? Replace them with MBTs?

File: 1425525578902.jpg (102KB, 864x569px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 864x569px

Nothing really.
It's not.

>>29073756
>inherently flawed
They fill a necessary medium between a heavy tank and an armored car. They provide heavy firepower and are invulnerable to small arms, and they double as battle taxis. They can even defeat MBTs.

You can't just spam 1000 Abrams, this isn't Command and Conquer. Sometimes you need something bigger than a truck but not as big as a house. Something you can carry on a plane that's not got six engines.

>>29073730
>why is the stryker such a failure?
It's not BTR-82

>>29073730

Lol I'll play along. The Stryker failed because its gas turbine engine is an inefficient maintenance nightmare, because it got beaten in a dogfight by an F-16, because its transition to VTOL mode makes it a crash-prone death trap for the Marines, and because it's subject to frequent jams in the field.

Did I miss anything?

>>29073756
The M2 Bradley destroyed more Iraqi tanks in the gulf war than the M1 Abrams

>>29074592

Totally irrelevant, American! The Bradley is a FAILURE.

Because I say so.

>>29073789
The 113 was a horrible vehicle in the first place. The Bradley is a great improvement in every way except troop capacity.

>>29074440
Gets rekt by the DF-21

>>29074073
Underrated Post

>>29074066
So we need a medium turretless tanks, in the 30-40t range
Which should all tow armored "chariots" where infantry can ride in & shoot out of

this will replace all APC's and IFV's, there is no place infantry should be going without armored fire support.

File: 1456023456817.png (243KB, 550x578px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 550x578px

>>29074592

>doubt

>>29074440
You forgot 'easily killed by .22'

>>29076020
>Which should all tow armored "chariots" where infantry can ride in & shoot out of
This sounds like some shit from an old Popular Mechanics

>>29073803
If i could buy a pallet of 7n6 right now, i would have the biggest boner.

>>29076030
True story. Because zerg tactics with TOW.

>>29076020
Yeah, maaan.<tokes> fuuuuh <exhales>. And like, what if, like, we plate it with diamonds and mithril and stuff.

>>29074592
>The M2 Bradley destroyed more Iraqi tanks in the gulf war than the M1 Abrams
fanatics on foot and toyotas routed entire battalions of Iraqi tanks.

>>29076804
>things that never happened

>>29076020

You know, having a tank-based APC wouldn't be as shitty an idea as you're making it sound, but it wouldn't really fit the US's doctrine.

>>29076030
Yeah, that's the idea

>>29076035

Ahh my bad.

they raised its centre of mass
regular LAV dont have the problems it has

>>29074592
if the irakis had decent night vision tho nothing would have remained of those bradleys.

>>29077028
tank based apc sounds awfully jewish to me

File: 14307620383130.jpg (57KB, 951x482px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 951x482px

>>29078431

>>29073730
because this is what happens when a SF General runs the show and he can't get over his "lighter/ faster > all" mentality

>>29073756
I was in 3/7 Inf during the invasion, you should have heard the platoon of tanks attached to my company crying over coms that we weren't leaving then anything to kill during the battle of Obj Peach

>>29074440
>F-23 should have won

>>29073730
The MOWAG Piranha was an all-modern and well-balanced integrated APC design
>in 1972

>>29073789
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

This one?

>>29078545
I don't know how we took such a proven platform and turned it into shit.

Fucking MIC does the same thing will all the handguns as well

>>29073730

Flawed doctrine.

It's like when the retards in WW2 didn't want Shermans to fight enemy tanks. You were supposed to call up Tank Destroyers to support you. But in reality, war is a massive clusterfuck, so the stryker is an unacceptable design from the very start, being so inadequately armed, poorly armored, and lacking mobility. It just is a vehicle that doesn't make sense. What does it even do that a M113 cant, and the answer can't be that the M113 is too 'old'

>>29073730
>stryker failure

Yeah, no.

wheeled mobility advantages


triggered

Tracks are basically perfect and there is no possible argument against them other than
>muh road damage

>>29077028
not tank based APC
but a tank towing an armored trailer
Thereby eliminating the mapower need for drivers/commanders/gunners/etc in an APC