2nd ACR takes delivery of new Strykers

| September 9, 2017 | 62 Comments

Stars & Stripes reports that the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment has taken delivery of new upgunned version of the Stryker fighting vehicles with a 30 millimeter main gun, and the Javelin anti-armor missile and it will be better-equipped to face-off with the Soviet BMP-30;

The 2nd Cavalry Regiment will begin fielding the first of a new fleet of upgraded Stryker armored combat vehicles next summer, the result of a two-year push to give the unit greater range and firepower in response to concerns about a more assertive Russia.

Half of the regiment’s new Strykers will come equipped with a 30 mm Bushmaster cannon, which boasts a range of more than 9,000 feet — far greater than the current M2 .50-caliber machine gun or Mk-19 grenade launcher.

A year ago, Popular Mechanics wrote about the new version;

The 30-millimeter gun will actually be a larger version of the Bushmaster cannon mounted on the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. As such, it will have slightly better range and penetration against armored targets, at the cost of storing fewer rounds. The 30-millimeter gun would be useful against Russian BMP and BTR infantry fighting vehicles, and the new generation of Boomerang combat vehicles. It should also be effective against helicopters.

The plan is that half of the Strykers will be able to kill pretty much anything, while the other half will be able to kill lighter armored vehicles in the same class as themselves. While it would be nice to upgrade all Strykers with a turret that mounts both missiles and guns, like the Bradley has, in this age of budget austerity one must settle for a reasonable compromise.

From Army.mil;

The 30 mm cannon was integrated on the Stryker ICV platform to meet emerging operational requirements and to improve lethality. The upgraded Stryker vehicle will be known as the, Dragoon, the name of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. With the further integration of Engineering Change Proposal 1 providing greater horsepower and electrical output, along with a more robust suspension and in-vehicle network, the Stryker will be an even more capable platform.

Category: Army News

Comments (62)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. In The Mailbox: 09.11.17 : The Other McCain | September 11, 2017
  1. Deplorable B Wdoodman says:

    I can remember when the 2ACR was in Germany (Neurnberg, Amberg, Bamberg, Binloch) and had the M60 tanks. Yeah. That long ago.

  2. Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

    Not in my field of expertise so I will learn from the posted comments of the ones in the know.

  3. Sapper3307 says:

    That’s a nice BFG, but that is a lot of ammo. Can it still carry an infantry squad and all their gear into battle.

    • MSG Eric says:

      Not all Strykers are able to carry infantry. Only the Infantry Carrier can carry a full squad of 9 troops with 2 crew, from what I’ve read.

      • Twist says:

        I deployed with the 172nd SBCT (just to establish my Stryker cred) and I can tell you that you are right. The ICV carries a squad of Infantryman while vehicles like the ATGM (anti tank) carry just the crew, the MEV (medical evac vehicle) carries the crew a medic and casualties, the MCV (mortar carrier vehicle, also known as the grenade catcher) carries just a mortar crew.

        • Yef says:

          You forgot to mention the recon stryker.

          It is supposed to carry only a 5-man recon team in the back, plus a crew of two, but when you mount the LRRS on top you get more extra empty space inside, so Recon platoons put a bench in there to add a 3-man sniper team to the stryket.

          • Twist says:

            I know I left a few out.

            War Story Alert

            I remember being in Mosul after an IED attack and looking for the trigger man that killed one of ours. I was on the ground with the IA while a Soldier on a recon vehicle was screaming “the (insert code word here) is in that building”. I had them drop ramp and climbed in asking what the hell (insert code word here) meant. I then went into the building with the Kurdish IA and balled the guy up. Man, I love the Kurdish.

            • OldManchu says:

              Twist. If I may ask what year was your Mosul deployment? By any chance was it 2004 -2005?

              • Twist says:

                05-06 with the 172nd SBCT. If you were there in 04-05 with 1/25 SBCT (which we became when we got back) we relieved you. On a side note, those camo net kits that are on all the vehicles today was an idea that a PL/PSG in my Battalion came up with after we were extended and sent to Baghdad. We had a problem with Soldiers in hatches getting sniped even while the vehicle was moving. After they lost a Soldier they welded some rebar on their Strykers and draped camo nets over them and voila we stopped losing Soldiers.

                • OldManchu says:

                  Wow what a good solution with the rebar and nets. Makes sense! I was not there in 04-05 or at all. I ETS’d in 1992 (old man. Lol) but a good friend from my time in service (1989-1992) stayed in as a lifer and became in officer along the way. He was a company commander in a Stryker unit the 04-05 tour. Don’t know which brigade. Captain Ron Schow at that time. Wondered if you knew him. The only person I personally know with a star in his CIB. (Panama and then of course Mosul). Thanks for replying. Glad you made it out of that hell hole. Welcome Home.

          • MSG Eric says:

            There are 8 different configurations currently, I don’t know if that counts this one as the 9th or not. They already have a “heavy gun” style so who knows.

    • TankBoy says:

      The answer is yes. This is a remote turret, so it is an ICV with a big gun. Carries the entire squad.

  4. Twist says:

    With the added weight, will they still be able to be airlifted?

  5. Mr. Pete says:

    I’ve got some familiarity with this General Dynamics vehicles.

    These are great vehicles and this is a great upgrade.

  6. Green Thumb says:

    Looks like one of those Dutch FUCHS or similar vehicles.

  7. LiRight says:

    I wish we had these 50 years ago! Fifty years??!! OMG, I’m getting old….come to think of it, I am old!!

    The M-60 was used in training but not used in Viet Nam – the M-48-A3 was…..as I recall it was weight and it fired the beehive round.

    Anyone know a better answer? I just don’t remember.

  8. Roh-Dog says:

    I just made a mess in me pants, both front and back.
    I did like certain aspects of Strykers, speed, maintenance schedules, quiet…
    The mech mentality that came along with them sucked, light was more funner.
    I’m glad that they’re a more formidable threat to Russian steel as was always a mag or complaint.
    1-21 IN (GIMLET), 2nd BCT, 25 ID ’02-’09
    5th Stryker Brigade (I think…)

  9. Sparks says:

    These would have been so good in Vietnam. Especially with the 30mm Master Blaster Bushmaster. “Bushmaster” would have taken on a whole new meaning back then.

  10. Devtun says:

    Stryker, another genius Shinseki idea.

    • Stacy0311 says:

      Shinseki- “You know those LAV-25s the Marines have are pretty cool. Let’s take the turret off, add a few thousand pounds of armor and electronics, call it a ‘Stryker’ and act like we came up with a genius idea so we don’t have to admit we stole it from the Jarheads.”

      20 years later-“you know, these Stykers need a more firepower. Let’s add a turret!”

      Consider this a Jarhead’s “I told you so.”

  11. SFC (R) Blizz says:

    I don’t think the turret is manned. I thought I read that someplace or watched in a video.

  12. Casey says:

    As I have observed before, back in the 1930s 30mm was considered a valid caliber for a tank gun.

    …One wonders how the armored genre will develop, given that main battle tanks were deemed not able to survive in a modern urban setting. IIRC there was widespread prediction of the mass slaughter of M-1 Abrams in Iraq cities when the 2003 invasion kicked off.

    • Reddevil says:

      We knew tanks are not effective against dismounts in cities without infantry support, but the consensus was that they were survivable in general. The fear was complex ATGM ambushes with AT mines and obstacles.

      We were a bit surprised when we lost tanks to RPGs, and the IEDs were inevitable. String enough 152 rounds together and you can blow anything up.

  13. Reddevil says:

    This seems to be a good idea common sense wise, but it’s actually a mistake at the operational and theater strategic level.

    The SBCT was intended to be a medium weight ‘early entry’ force meant to fill the gap between light and heavy. They were meant to be more strategically deplorable than the heavy force and more survivable and powerful than the light force. They were meant to move mounted but fight dismounted like light infantry. The turrets were left off the infantry vehicle by design because the Stryker was not meant to fight heavy forces toe to toe.

    In other words, by making the Strker too heavy to fly we have taken away its strategic and operational mobility but it is still not powerful enough to fight a heavy Russian brigade. I

    If the brigade in Europe is too light and undergunned to fight the threat in Europe, then we need to put an ABCT on the ground, complete with Bradleys and M1s and Paladin howitzers. We really need an entire heavy division, but we have to start somewhere. Currently we have one SBCT, one IBCT, and a rotational ABCT. Half measures, and the Russians know it

    OBTW, the new gun may defeat the BMP 30, but the BMP 30 is yesterday’s threat. We should be looking at how to defeat the Kurganet and the Armata.

    • TankBoy says:

      They are still not meant to duke it out. This is still a bus with a bigger gun for more self defense than you get with a .50. The Stryker brigade still fills the same mission it had when initially deployed.

      The vehicle still flies, just not in a C-130, which was always more a check in the box than a viable reality.

      OBTW, the gun will kill them too, and the gun itself is easily upgradeable to a 40mm.

      • Reddevil says:

        Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of the Stryker program- I was in 3/2 when it was the Interim brigade Combat Team, before they came up with the vehicle or the name Stryker.

        You are right, the SBCT still fills the same mission doctrinally, but we’ve got it sitting in Europe facing the Russians, which is not what it was meant to do.

        It still flies, but fewer fit on an aircraft, meaning you need more aircraft, meaning it takes longer. This was absolutely the concept behind the brigade and fundamental to where it fit in the force structure.

        I completely agree that the vehicle and brigade are awesome. I disagree with the strategy that has three BCTs toeing the line in Europe. This is a bandaid that will lull us into thinking we have a credible force on the ground when we don’t. Upgunning the Stryker is great, but we should also put a full heavy division on the ground.

        The gun may kill a Kurganet but not a tank. The Kurganet mounts 2 Kornets Thant outranges the Stryker.

        • TankBoy says:

          Reason they went with a gun that could be easily upgraded to 40, and team it with half the ICV,s carrying CROWS-J (javeline).

          The aircraft issue is already moot, and was years ago. This platform got heavier quicker than just about anything in armored history (at least according to the transportation command brief I sat through).

    • timactual says:

      I think BMP-30 was a misprint. The BMP-30 is a Bulgarian vehicle and they only built about 20 of them. They probably meant BMP-3.

      In any case it’s a bit late to be worrying about taking on Russian BMPs. Even the BMP-1 outguns the Stryker.

  14. Reddevil says:

    I meant deployable not deplorable, but deplorable is kind of funny

  15. Dinotanker says:

    Well damn. Here I was thinking they had just turned the Stryker into a wheeled Bradley.

    (BTW do we spell everything wrong nowadays? Or was there a hardass named Stryker that I am ignorant of?).

    My time in a National Guard cavalry troop and ACR (two states, two different units)still saw the use of the M113 and its mortar carrying buddy as well as the M60A1. By the time I showed up at 2/1 Cavalry as a 2LT they had transitioned to Bradleys and I have to say I kind of liked them basterds. 🙂

    Tank Boy is 100% correct the Brad’s and I imagine the Strykers, while having an anti-tank capability were NOT intended to go toe to toe with T72’s. The M3 fit the cavalry role pretty well, find the bad guys, fire em up,causing the evil red horde to slow and deploy to an attack formation, call for the heavies,arty and air and run like hell to the next terrain feature.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *