Stryker Dragoon

File: IFV_Puma_2015_(19727694195).jpg (1MB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1440px

>>32958672
>no tracks

A belated answer to 82a? All of the US up gunned versions of 8x armor were already done by the Europeans. There's dozen better AAVs in production, all cost less money than the cost just to upgun the Stryker.

If I was planning for US Army, I would be focusing more on the Russian artillery operations in recent times than purely their armored forces

>>32958672
Turrets in the back, should be as close to the front as possible.

>>32958825
So many words and so little basis in reality

>>32958825
>artillery operations
Burgers rely on air superiority, no need for artillery. It doesn't fit in their doctrine

>>32958898
Air superiority is not a presumption on eastern front.

>>32958908
In the first week, sure.

>>32958672

No tracks, no armor, is still a Stryker, etc

>>32958884
>Turrets in the back, should be as close to the front as possible.

Why?

>>32958943
Likely a WoT player who thinks its game mechanics reflect reality.

>>32958981
Nope never played it.

>>32958943
So you don't have to expose the vehicle too much to use the gun.

>>32959102
>So you don't have to expose the vehicle too much to use the gun.

You really need to stop playing so many videogames.

>>32958898
Yeah, the American army doesn't have artillery. Quite right.

File: LAV-25 railgun.jpg (76KB, 1024x685px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1024x685px

>>32958884
>Turrets in the back, should be as close to the front as possible.
>>32959102
>So you don't have to expose the vehicle too much to use the gun.

Do you even mass distribution and center of gravity ?

>>32959102

In the real world, vehicles do not "peek out" from behind buildings to shoot at things. Most buildings don't stop the things that kill vehicles (or even small arms fire).

What vehicles are actually designed to do is fight hull-down. That's why all of their optics and weapons are located on the roof of the vehicle. When you're fighting hull-down, you're hiding behind the earth, which CAN stop things that kill vehicles.

Never read into the Stryker. Aren't they more heavily armored LAV's or am I being retarded?

>We need a new light weight, cheap, simple troop transport
>Develop Bradley
>Winds up heavy, expensive, complex
>Sir, we need to do something about our over complicated expensive piece of shit Bradley
>Makes Stryker
>Sir, the Stryker is too lightweight, too simple, and doesn't pump enough money into our politically connected defense contractors
>Makes Stryker turn into new Bradley

>>32958672

single rpg can penetrate the armor
killing the crew

>>32959354
t. idiot

File: M1128 MGS from 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division at Baqubah 3.jpg (126KB, 800x512px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x512px

>>32959327
Strykers are the American subfamily of the LAV III.

Does it have any cup holders?

>>32959454
I'll read into LAV III, but can I get a spoiler? Do they suck? ie, Too heavy, abhorrent fuel consumption, shit tier armor?

>>32959508
>can I get a spoiler?

Are you literally 12 years old?

This is not a movie, there is no plot. You are not going to find a "spoiler", or a "red pill" or whatever the fuck retarded term you've invented for "Just google the fucking thing and find out yourself you dumb fucker"

File: 1478308690992.png (102KB, 280x246px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 280x246px

>>32959526
>Asking for an opinion on a board that specializes in these topics.
>STFU faggu, Google bitch
mfw

>>32959462
this!

File: 1751850.jpg (325KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1600x1067px

>>32959508
>>32959526
To be fair if he just googles it he is likely to get bullshit like Blacktail videos.

>Too heavy

No, the are 16-25 tons depending on variant and armor package. If anything they are light compared to some of the 'newer' 8x8 like the Boxer, Terrex or Eitan.

>abhorrent fuel consumption

Their fuel consumption is fine, although you could argue that their fuel tanks could be larger.

>shit tier armor?

Their armor is about what you would expect for their weight, rated for 14.5mm on the front and sides with the standard armor package (STANAG 4) and the ability to mount things like cage armor, additional belly armor or ERA depending on the variant and theater requirements. A more recent development that has not been fielded yet is applique armor to make it 30mm resistant on the front.

>>32959508
>>32959327
>>32959398
>>32959508

Kinetic Energy

7.62×51mm AP (WC core) at 30 meters with 930 m/s
Angle: azimuth 360°; elevation 0-30°

Grenade and Mine Blast Threat

8 kg (explosive mass) Blast AT Mine:
Mine Explosion pressure activated under any wheel or track location.
Mine Explosion under center.

Artillery

155 mm High Explosive at 60 m
Angle: azimuth 360°; elevation: 0 - 30°

A ceramic appliqué armour can be added, which protects against 14.5×114mm heavy calibre rounds from 500 meters.

The LAV III can be also fitted with cage armour, which provides protection against shaped charges.

File: 08_pg_0008.jpg (462KB, 1200x1722px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1200x1722px

>>32959526
It's people like you who made /k/ as shit as it is.

>>32958672
no Apricots

>>32959327
Stryker's are just LAV III's with minor differences in weapons systems.

>>32960090
Encouraging cancer, like you are doing, is what makes /k/ shitty.

>>32960345
So... about that Dragoon.
>inb4 thread gets derailed and begins multi track drifting

File: bridge-slide-1255x613.jpg (185KB, 1255x613px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1255x613px

>>32960480
>So... about that Dragoon.

The army has 4 of them currently. https://www.army.mil/article/181203/soldiers_test_stryker_with_30_mm_cannon_more_upgrades_to_come

What is curious is that despite the comments that they plan on giving regular ICV's the ability to mount Javelins there doesn't seem to be any movement in making it happen yet. Perhaps that is something that will come later when the decision is made to convert more than this initial ~80 Strykers to Dragoons.

>>32960747
>bridging stryker
>autocannon stryker
>more ATGM's bolted onto strykers
>still not amphibious

is shit. schwimstryker when

>>32961241

The Army doesn't need an amphibious AFV and the Marines are getting their own thing.

>>32961272
fair enough. major river crossings aren't that much of a thing nowadays. hence the bridging stryker to bridge that gap in capability. i shall stop decrying the stryker as shit.