I have been a fan of the South African Ratel since it was developed in the 1970s. Here is a quick and rudimentary video comparing the two. Background: the Ratel was developed for austere logistics from commercial sources.

Way back when we were testing all the vehicles to determine which we would buy, the vehicle that kicked everybody's ass was the M113, and it wasnt even close. Reason it was not chosen was because of its age. There was no way we could sell the public on putting their sons in platform what was over 50 years old and sending them into combat.

Who knows, we may have wanted to get the Ratel and they may not have bought off on us producing it under license in the States. The same thing happened with the Bradley. We wanted the German ICV but they would not allow us to produce it in the States, it had to be bought directly from the German manufacturer so the Bradley was chosen. The Stryker was made by a Canadian company, who was then bought by GD (I think) to make it an American produced vehicle.

clarythedrill said:

---

Way back when we were testing all the vehicles to determine which we would buy, the vehicle that kicked everybody's ass was the M113, and it wasnt even close. Reason it was not chosen was because of its age. There was no way we could sell the public on putting their sons in platform what was over 50 years old and sending them into combat.

Who knows, we may have wanted to get the Ratel and they may not have bought off on us producing it under license in the States. The same thing happened with the Bradley. We wanted the German ICV but they would not allow us to produce it in the States, it had to be bought directly from the German manufacturer so the Bradley was chosen. The Stryker was made by a Canadian company, who was then bought by GD (I think) to make it an American produced vehicle.

---

Belgium produced a Ratel clone called the SIBMAS but there weren't many takers. The advantage of the Ratel is its outstanding survivability against IEDs. Its engine could probably be replaced by something more modern, but it is very easy to drive and is very fast. Back in 1977 I was able to drive a Soviet BTR60 which was fun to drive, but ridiculous in being powered by 2 gasoline engines, which was probably a function of Soviet industry being able to produce enough civilian gasoline engines, but not enough smaller Diesel engines in the 200-300 hp range during the 1960s. Passengers also had to exit by sides or top, but not the rear. If I was to improve the Ratel, I would relocate the engine to the front and put a rear ramp in the back and incorporate a powered turret.

UTExan said:

---

clarythedrill said:

---

Way back when we were testing all the vehicles to determine which we would buy, the vehicle that kicked everybody's ass was the M113, and it wasnt even close. Reason it was not chosen was because of its age. There was no way we could sell the public on putting their sons in platform what was over 50 years old and sending them into combat.

Who knows, we may have wanted to get the Ratel and they may not have bought off on us producing it under license in the States. The same thing happened with the Bradley. We wanted the German ICV but they would not allow us to produce it in the States, it had to be bought directly from the German manufacturer so the Bradley was chosen. The Stryker was made by a Canadian company, who was then bought by GD (I think) to make it an American produced vehicle.

---

Belgium produced a Ratel clone called the SIBMAS but there weren't many takers. The advantage of the Ratel is its outstanding survivability against IEDs. Its engine could probably be replaced by something more modern, but it is very easy to drive and is very fast. Back in 1977 I was able to drive a Soviet BTR60 which was fun to drive, but ridiculous in being powered by 2 gasoline engines, which was probably a function of Soviet industry being able to produce enough civilian gasoline engines, but not enough smaller Diesel engines in the 200-300 hp range during the 1960s. Passengers also had to exit by sides or top, but not the rear. If I was to improve the Ratel, I would relocate the engine to the front and put a rear ramp in the back and incorporate a powered turret.

---

I do believe that the Army is testing a drop on turret for the Stryker that is basically the same as the Bradley turret. They figured out that sending a squad of Infantrymen into battle in a vehicle that would get its poop pushed in by a heavy machine gun was not a good idea. Heck, even the baby that the marines use has a decent little turret and gun on it.

For all of its known or imagined faults, I have never met anyone who was on the Stryker who did not absolutely love the platform. I was an Armor guy, so I never got out of the heavy units to experience one except for having a company attached to us at NTC. They did have a built in coffee maker in the Stryker, which I was quiet envious of.

74OA said:

---

IIRC, Stryker was bought to enhance global mobility with a more easily deployable vehicle. The debate has always been whether making it light enough to get quickly to a fight also makes it too light to survive it.

---

You are correct. Then, to make it more survivable, the Army added bolt on armor and RPG cages which then made it too heavy to fly around as originally desired. Now you need one C-130 for the vehicles and one for their armor. When you land you need to take to time to bolt it all on if you want the max protection.

We really need to come to the realization that mobility and max crew/vehicle protection do not belong in the same sentence. Sort of like the old saying with engines...we can make them either fast, light, or reliable. Choose any two.

clarythedrill said:

---

UTExan said:

---

clarythedrill said:

---

Way back when we were testing all the vehicles to determine which we would buy, the vehicle that kicked everybody's ass was the M113, and it wasnt even close. Reason it was not chosen was because of its age. There was no way we could sell the public on putting their sons in platform what was over 50 years old and sending them into combat.

Who knows, we may have wanted to get the Ratel and they may not have bought off on us producing it under license in the States. The same thing happened with the Bradley. We wanted the German ICV but they would not allow us to produce it in the States, it had to be bought directly from the German manufacturer so the Bradley was chosen. The Stryker was made by a Canadian company, who was then bought by GD (I think) to make it an American produced vehicle.

---

Belgium produced a Ratel clone called the SIBMAS but there weren't many takers. The advantage of the Ratel is its outstanding survivability against IEDs. Its engine could probably be replaced by something more modern, but it is very easy to drive and is very fast. Back in 1977 I was able to drive a Soviet BTR60 which was fun to drive, but ridiculous in being powered by 2 gasoline engines, which was probably a function of Soviet industry being able to produce enough civilian gasoline engines, but not enough smaller Diesel engines in the 200-300 hp range during the 1960s. Passengers also had to exit by sides or top, but not the rear. If I was to improve the Ratel, I would relocate the engine to the front and put a rear ramp in the back and incorporate a powered turret.

---

I do believe that the Army is testing a drop on turret for the Stryker that is basically the same as the Bradley turret. They figured out that sending a squad of Infantrymen into battle in a vehicle that would get its poop pushed in by a heavy machine gun was not a good idea. Heck, even the baby that the marines use has a decent little turret and gun on it.

For all of its known or imagined faults, I have never met anyone who was on the Stryker who did not absolutely love the platform. I was an Armor guy, so I never got out of the heavy units to experience one except for having a company attached to us at NTC. They did have a built in coffee maker in the Stryker, which I was quiet envious of.

---

At 30mm, the Stryker's new cannon is bigger than the Bradley's. Marines adopting 30mm, too.

TURRET

Somebody fill me in: is the Stryker a maintenance hog? Because the Ratel is not.

Yep. 2CR was the first to get the 30MM package on their strykers.

Now we're are focusing on unmanned Bradleys. Currently ongoing development and testing.

clarythedrill said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Somebody fill me in: is the Stryker a maintenance hog? Because the Ratel is not.

---

To my knowledge they are not. What they do have a problem with is flat tires. At Bliss and at NTC it was not unusual to see them limping around on all flats.

Also, it depends on who you talk to as to how hard the maintenance is. As a tanker, EVERYTHING is easier to maintain than an M1A2SEP. But, if you ask a light infantryman, they will say anything more than knocking mud off of their boots is maintenance intensive.

---

Did you retire yet? I was in Korea with you in 2016.

1st Team!

MarathonAg12 said:

---

clarythedrill said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Somebody fill me in: is the Stryker a maintenance hog? Because the Ratel is not.

---

To my knowledge they are not. What they do have a problem with is flat tires. At Bliss and at NTC it was not unusual to see them limping around on all flats.

Also, it depends on who you talk to as to how hard the maintenance is. As a tanker, EVERYTHING is easier to maintain than an M1A2SEP. But, if you ask a light infantryman, they will say anything more than knocking mud off of their boots is maintenance intensive.

---

Did you retire yet? I was in Korea with you in 2016.

1st Team!

---

Yes, I am retired now. Been officially out since 1 June 2020. I must admit that I miss being around Soldiers, but retirement is fun too. That rotation was a blast. Really good training and fun time. Only bad part was IH6, if you know what I mean.

clarythedrill said:

---

MarathonAg12 said:

---

clarythedrill said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Somebody fill me in: is the Stryker a maintenance hog? Because the Ratel is not.

---

To my knowledge they are not. What they do have a problem with is flat tires. At Bliss and at NTC it was not unusual to see them limping around on all flats.

Also, it depends on who you talk to as to how hard the maintenance is. As a tanker, EVERYTHING is easier to maintain than an M1A2SEP. But, if you ask a light infantryman, they will say anything more than knocking mud off of their boots is maintenance intensive.

---

Did you retire yet? I was in Korea with you in 2016.

1st Team!

---

Yes, I am retired now. Been officially out since 1 June 2020. I must admit that I miss being around Soldiers, but retirement is fun too. That rotation was a blast. Really good training and fun time. Only bad part was IH6, if you know what I mean.

---

I was a 1LT at the time, CPT now. As a SNCO, I'm glad you feel the same way as us young officers did. That man was the reason that a lot of my fellow peers didn't even stay in past CPT. I loved my NCOs and Soldiers. But my god, the air was toxic with that individual. I have yet to meet another senior leader who cares less about morale and Soldiers.

74OA said:

---

IIRC, Stryker was bought to enhance global mobility with a more easily deployable vehicle. The debate has always been whether making it light enough to get quickly to a fight also makes it too light to survive it.

---

This was indeed the intent. I was assigned to 3/2 at Ft Lewis when it was the Interim Brigade Combat Team, then the Stryker brigade. The entire brigade was supposed to be able to be airlifted in some number of C-130 sorties. (That's why the MGS platoons only had 3 vehicles instead of 4 - they couldn't make that many fit.) And the original version of the Stryker could just barely be shoehorned into a C-130. Loading it was a *****, because the fit was so tight.

The tire issue is largely terrain dependent. We had no issues at Lewis or Yakima, where the ground is mostly soft dirt, or at Fort Polk, in the sand. They got shredded at NTC, because the ground is rocky. The Strykers' ability to drive cross country at the box speed limit (25 mph, IIRC) didn't help either. (And the O/Cs hated it, because their HMMWVs couldn't keep up.)

One thing folks do tend to forget about the Stryker is that it is intended as an APC, not an IFV. It's job is to deliver the infantry to a cover and concealed position from which they can operate dismounted against the enemy. If the Stryker is in direct fire range of enemy armored vehicles, you screwed up. When I found out I was going to be going to the Interim brigade, I actually went and scrounged up a copy of the old FM 7-7 (M113 mech infantry, not to be confused with FM 7-7J, for Bradley platoons.)

MarathonAg12 said:

---

I was a 1LT at the time, CPT now. As a SNCO, I'm glad you feel the same way as us young officers did. That man was the reason that a lot of my fellow peers didn't even stay in past CPT. I loved my NCOs and Soldiers. But my god, the air was toxic with that individual. I have yet to meet another senior leader who cares less about morale and Soldiers.

---

I could tell you some stories about him, but this is not the forum for it. I think in some sick way he thought he was doing the right thing by his treatment of the men of his brigade, but he could not have been more wrong.

You do know his CSM is now under investigation for some comments about Pres. Trump while he was still in office? That poor excuse for a leader became Outlaw 40, then the CSM for 3ID, then the CSM for West Point. Amazing how the Army can get it so wrong at times when choosing its senior leaders.

clarythedrill said:

---

MarathonAg12 said:

---

I was a 1LT at the time, CPT now. As a SNCO, I'm glad you feel the same way as us young officers did. That man was the reason that a lot of my fellow peers didn't even stay in past CPT. I loved my NCOs and Soldiers. But my god, the air was toxic with that individual. I have yet to meet another senior leader who cares less about morale and Soldiers.

---

I could tell you some stories about him, but this is not the forum for it. I think in some sick way he thought he was doing the right thing by his treatment of the men of his brigade, but he could not have been more wrong.

You do know his CSM is now under investigation for some comments about Pres. Trump while he was still in office? That poor excuse for a leader became Outlaw 40, then the CSM for 3ID, then the CSM for West Point. Amazing how the Army can get it so wrong at times when choosing its senior leaders.

---

I was with 2/1 CD as a tank company commander when y'all came to RIP with us... I remember the dual BDE command team brief and worrying for y'all... IH6's former aide confirmed all my worries when he showed up at my reserve unit last year.

Toxic leadership, man.

I asked a fellow employee who was with the Ranger Battalion in Iraq and drove around in Stryker's. Preferred them over up armored Humvees and MRAPS. Said they tore up lots of RPG cages due to hitting buildings and walls. Said they rolled one over in a sh*t canal when the road shoulder gave way. He really liked them though. Said they really showed their stuff when they had to go off-roading. Couldn't do that with MRAPs and Humvees.