What went wrong in the Stryker's production/procurement that it ended up the way it did?
>>34549852
And by "ended up the way it did, I mean
>Americans spend millions on trying to make a Boxer copy
>It's leagues worse than the Boxer
>>34549852
It's another example of why the Army can't be trusted with money.
>>34549852
The Stryker was intended to be an interim vehicle, but it ended up sticking around for far longer than intended
>>34549852
What's so bad about the stryker?
>>34549852
>"We want a light tank!"
>Produces something that is neither light nor a tank
>>34549852
America
>>34550285
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
>>34550222
This. FCS was supposed to replace it, but it choked and died (unexpectedly!).
>>34550285
>thinking the Stryker was intended to be a light tank
>>34551484
It was brought in to fill the gap in role that was caused by the Sheridan being retired and the lack of adoption of the M8 AGS. It's why it has the 105 mounted on it in spite of being an awkward platform for that gun.
>>34551591
>platform
>>34550285
>>34551591
This is not at all true. The Stryker was never meant to be a light tank, it was meant to be a light IFV that could respond faster than a full IFV could in the asymmetrical warfare the US finds itself in.
Even the MGS was meant as a fire support vehicle, not a light tank
>>34549852
lack of German engineers in American government projects these days
>>34551602
>thing another thing goes on top of
>>34549852
idk what the problem with the Stryker is
I used the Piranhas (Swiss Infantry) and they were ok
as for the doctrin
we had 4 Piranhas in a platoon of light infantry
we use them as normal cars instead of Humvees
>>34549852
>What went wrong in the Stryker's production/procurement that it ended up the way it did?
Bad project management.
>>34549876
Boxer is later development than Stryker. Besides, Stryker is literally licensed variant of Mowag Piranha.
>>34550285
Light vehicles are useless on the modern battlefield
There's a reason soft skin humvees never leave the wire
>>34552442
this
also out if interest
how good is the Humvees armor?
i wouldnt go into a fight with at least protection agaimst at least .50 bmg
>>34549852
>>34549852
How does the Stryker compare against the BTR, generally speaking?
>>34549852
How does something like this possibly cost $5 million? Just how much corruption is going on here?
>>34552527
Which one?
>>34552541
Ugh.....the Russian one?
>>34550242
OP won't answer this because this is a bait thread.
>>34552536
No Stryker variant costs $5 mil.
>>34552557
MGS, but you get the idea
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-wheeled-cannon-that-everyone-hates-d5e6d22bdfcc
>>34550285
>Strykers are light tanks! Now if you will excuse me I need to pound this square peg into a round hole.
>>34552570
Par for course with War is Boring, that article is rife with factual errors.
>>34552584
Which you won't actually point out because your post is bait
>>34552527
Strykers have better armor and better survivability, newer model BTR's have a 30mm gun that Strykers don't have (yet).
>>34552586
No A/C, gunpod is unarmored, etc etc. You don't have the knowledge to back up your position.
>>34552603
Both of those are true tho?
You've ever been around an MGS, son?
>>34552527
More armor ( which is irrelevant because 14.5 mm would kill both )
Less gats ( .50 vs 30 mm )
>>34552621
>Mobile Gun System
>Can't fire on the move
Top quality americucks
>>34552779
You're now realizing there are no videos of the MGS firing on the move
Stop making shit up just because you don't want to admit America can make mistakes
>>34552570
>warisboring
>>34552621
>Both of those are true tho?
>posts picture that shows the armor on the gunpod
>posts picture that hides the A/C unit
Good job.