Jump to content
Markoxx

How the stryker actually looks like in combat

Recommended Posts

Markoxx   

Hi guys! I was wondering if you ever thought about how the stryker looks like now and how it actually looks like o combat both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All strykers deployed have a kind of extra protection around the vehicle. Is ther any plans of adding this beautiful protection in squad in the future? and change the vehicle damage so it takes around 3 RPGs to take a stryker or f the future A LAV down?

 

your thoughts

 

Some pics from combat zones both Iraq and Afghanistan

 

Stryker.jpg

100304_F_2405_V_002.jpg
d06fbf36f664b1e688028ab1981a3a7b.jpg

 

Edited by Markoxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe they commented on the slat armor before stating it would most likely not make it in, but that was a while back iirc. As a visual effect? Who knows.

Edited by DoctorKamikaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shields   

The purpose of that is for the RPG's to ignite prematurely so by the time it makes to the real armor it will be ineffective, won't penetrate as much.
Again lets remember

Balance > Realism.

Gameplay > Realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stom   

From what I remember the devs haven't included the slat armour with this first release of the vehicle because it would be imbalanced for it to work properly, but I remember reading that they may add it later when more AT is added along with a proper localised damage system for vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peerun   
10 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Pretty sad that you have to upgrade and put a jungle gym around an armored vehicles that costs over a million apiece.


Why? It's the same logic for why you put a piece of plastic on an expensive smartphone screen. Sure, it's supposed to withstand a lot of trauma, but why not protect your investment(and in this case lives), if all it takes is a realtively cheap addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they  did that it would have very few weak points and one of them would be in the lower front.  I really don't think they should add the armor because it would be a too big of an advantage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peerun   
9 minutes ago, cubaman504 said:

If they  did that it would have very few weak points and one of them would be in the lower front.  I really don't think they should add the armor because it would be a too big of an advantage.

 


I think there should be both versions - with and without and the one with would cost more tickets and obviously it'd be harder to get around with it, because it's wider. And it'd be a little slower too I guess, so I think that's an excellent balance actually.

Edited by Peerun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peerun said:


Why? It's the same logic for why you put a piece of plastic on an expensive smartphone screen. Sure, it's supposed to withstand a lot of trauma, but why not protect your investment(and in this case lives), if all it takes is a realtively cheap addition.

An armored vehicle and a cell phone aren't analogous at all. They are mutually exclusive items. The Stryker was the direct result of cronyism, poor engineering and massive cost overruns which resulted in a finished product that ended up in Afghanistan and Iraq looking like a bloated hillbilly scrapyard reject not a sleek armored vehicle that was supposed to deploy a brigade of mechanized infantry anywhere in the world in 96 hours.

 

So yeah, just Google "Stryker Controversy" because I don't feel like writing a multiple paragraph essay explaining every detail why to you but suffice it to say the Israeli Army summed it up by saying the Stryker was a "piece of junk"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peerun   
2 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

An armored vehicle and a cell phone aren't analogous at all. They are mutually exclusive items. The Stryker was the direct result of cronyism, poor engineering and massive cost overruns which resulted in a finished product that ended up in Afghanistan and Iraq looking like a bloated hillbilly scrapyard reject not a sleek armored vehicle that was supposed to deploy a brigade of mechanized infantry anywhere in the world in 96 hours.

 

So yeah, just Google "Stryker Controversy" because I don't feel like writing a multiple paragraph essay explaining every detail why to you but suffice it to say the Israeli Army summed it up by saying the Stryker was a "piece of junk"...


Fair enough, but my point still stands. Actually more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suds   

would be cool if it broke off if you rammed it against stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, suds said:

would be cool if it broke off if you rammed it against stuff

Yeah having a larger collision box and also being able to break it off would help balance things out a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sweeziee   

I for one would love if the vehicles would have some bags 'n stuff loaded on them to give them more of a 'battle ready' look

As for the extra protection, I'm not sure  on that one tbh.. Maybe at some point in the distant future when they got most of the game ready

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sweeziee said:

I for one would love if the vehicles would have some bags 'n stuff loaded on them to give them more of a 'battle ready' look

 

 

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hate it, since it would be much harder to drive off road then because it would be broader. Since you can get stuck on all the trees and bushes more easily. 

Edited by steffenbk1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modders will add it for sure, but I highly doubt the OWI will due to balance issues. It's a game after all, and making something almost indestructible is kinda a no-no.

It's called BAR armor btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40mmrain   

Slat armour sure as hell does not make armour invincible. It had a 50% effectiveness of defeating shaped charges at best. Nevermind ballistic rounds, mines, IEDs, or just shooting at parts of the vehicle not covered in slats.

 

People have such a silly perception of balance in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZiGreen   

 

f5Xs0Fj.png

 

This grafh shows the correlation between proximity of disruption of detonation (vertical axis) and angle of interaction between munition and slat screen( horizontal axis), diameter of screen rods is designated with "d".

 

0SvfFCA.png

 

This one shows the correlation between proximity of disruption of detonation (vertical axis) and distance between rods of screen (horizontal axis).

 

There are also such factors as quality of munition and distance between screen and hull of vehicle (precisely manufactured charges lose efectiveness less with range). Also, slat armor doesn't really protect against HE rounds due to thin armor, that's why there were so many issues with development of reactive armor for light armored vehicles.

 

As you see, slat armor has cons and pros, which can be effectively used for both balance and realism features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/05/2017 at 11:07 AM, Shields said:

The purpose of that is for the RPG's to ignite prematurely so by the time it makes to the real armor it will be ineffective, won't penetrate as much.
Again lets remember

Balance > Realism.

Gameplay > Realism.

 

Agreed. And that's the very reason i didn't bought Arma but Squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TinyTimm   
On 5/29/2017 at 4:07 AM, Shields said:

The purpose of that is for the RPG's to ignite prematurely so by the time it makes to the real armor it will be ineffective, won't penetrate as much.
Again lets remember

Balance > Realism.

Gameplay > Realism.

 

Uh, I can't say I ever drew that conclusion about Squad. More-so an equivalent relationship. Realism = Balance = Gameplay.

 

To put realism below those two is to utterly ignore the longing that birthed this style of game. Sacrifices are made for each one individually at the cost of the others, but realism is the heart and soul of the whole affair. It always has been so. Why else would Squad (and PR previously) have been conceived if it was treated as such a lesser element? That's how you get games like BF2, BF3, and so forth. Nothing against those games, but they treat realism as the least important aspect of their games while still being considered.

Edited by TinyTimm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-MG   
On 2017-5-29 at 11:07 AM, Shields said:

 

Balance > Realism.

Gameplay > Realism.


So you're telling me realistic armour is a little too much ?....But being able to spam unlimited RPG/tandem's like farts after beans/onion soup isn't ?.
This makes vehicles obsolete....and i can confirm cuz i already been in barrages of RPG's. 3 to 4 at once back to back to back. Now let's see if the Balance over Realism is till going to be a thing when guided armaments come out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ill say it now not all strykers we're lucky enough to be deployed with extra armour thats for sure and i wouldnt be surprised to see both varients in the end game

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×