German Firm Introduces Stryker Launched Assault Bridge

Caption: The Stryker Launched Assault Bridge developed by the German firm Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (Photo courtesy KMW)Caption: The Stryker Launched Assault Bridge developed by the German firm Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (Photo courtesy KMW)

Forget a bridge too far. German tank maker Krauss-Maffei Wegmann has a solution when the bridge is not there.

Enter the Stryker Launched Assault Bridge, an aluminum bridge designed to enable tactical vehicles with little or no gap-crossing capabilities to keep rolling in the face of short divides that otherwise might keep them sidelined.

A scale model and video depicting the bridge vehicle was on display this month at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual exhibition in Washington, DC.

The bridge is 12 meters long and able to make passable a gap up to 11 meters. As the vehicle name indicates, the bridge is carried atop of Stryker vehicle. Hydraulic arms at the front position and launch the bridge and are able to have it in place within two minutes, according to the manufacturer.

According to the design specs, the bridge would accommodate vehicles up to 40 tons.

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, or KMW, is a major European manufacture of tanks and other tracked vehicles, including the line of Leopard tanks that have been used by the German army since the 1970s.

-Bryant Jordan can be reached at Follow him on Twitter at @bryantjordan.

About the Author

Bryant Jordan
Bryant Jordan is a reporter for He can be reached at Follow him on Twitter at @BryantJordan.
  • Edward

    Waste of time and money the A1 AVLIB and M-60 AVLIB in use do the job just fine don’t need to waste millions on more junk we don’t need.

    • blight_asdfljk

      So…you just put a AVLB with the Stryker brigade…airlanded via C-130?

      Ha ha ha.

      • oblatt23

        You want to airland a Striker brigade by C-130 LOL

        • blight_


          Stryker was, as usual, oversold. There’s no penalty to oversell to DoD…they just give you more money to try!

    • shon

      I don’t think a SBCT wants to wait for a ABCT to lay a bridge…
      This is about giving a SBCT the organic capability to overcome obstacles that fits in their logistical footprint.

      • blight_

        Indeed. After all an SBCT has its own Engineering Vehicles too, rather than using other vehicles already in the system.

  • Dan Morton

    I have work at GDLS and this same thing was done with the M1A1 tank over 35 yrs ago and also was done with the M60 tanks. We in the defense industry do not need to reinvent the wheel again? Just for FYI I did work on the Stryker program over ten years ago!!!

    • blight_asdfljk

      With your logic, they would not have made a bridge layer for the M1, they would have used the M-60 one.

      • Randallj

        Yup, it worked so well on the M1, that the Marine Corps still uses the M60 AVLB. The M1 AVLB is a nightmare.

  • Beef Stick

    Two minutes is quick. Well done!

  • LPF

    Apart from it being put on a Stryker chassis , how is this innovative? I mean seriously bridge layers using armoured chassis have been in use since world war 2!

    • blight_

      It isn’t. But who’s actually using Strykers anyways?

  • Dfens

    Alton Brown hates “single-purpose kitchen gadgets.”

  • Dfens

    This new procurement rule will make it that much more difficult for the military to buy weapons developed using any funding other than your tax dollars:… Do you give a damn? Of course not. But you’ll be happy to complain when things take longer and cost more.

  • m1a3

    German industry is very powerful

    Because the German manufacturing industry is very powerful

    So the military industry is very strong

    The Germans do not engage in financial innovation

    Germany attaches importance to the development of industrial economy

  • Curt

    KMW is trying to sell it to the Army. I would guess the Bundesheer paid to develop a similar capability for the Boxer, and someone realized that any 8 wheeled APC can used to carry this, so why not try to sell it to everyone else. It will only be a matter of time before we see a similiar pitch to every other country with 8×8 APCs.

  • James62

    We cross no river until it time…, small enough.

  • KenLand

    We need to invent the Land Amphibious Vehicle lol

  • d kellogg

    Part of the premise the Stryker vehicle system was marketed to the US military was that of airmobility, more specifically at the time of the once called “Interim Brigade Combat Team”, seen as interim until the FCS was procured, which didn’t happen, so it became them the Infantry Brigade Combat Team and now just SBCT Stryker Brigade Combat Team…
    Anyhow, it was originally envisioned to be C-130 transportable. Obviously when “bird cage” armor packages needed added, and the newer double V hull design fielded, the latest Strykers cannot be mover anywhere by C-130. This bridge laying monstrosity certainly won’t either. How many separate loads does the bridge and mechanism need to ship as, then assembled onsite onto a single mission only Stryker variant?

  • James B.

    A Stryker-based AVLB is a useful capability, if the price is right. A 40-ton bridge won’t replace the 70-ton bridges for tanks, but it will give an SBCT a bridge capability if they need it. If the Army has any extra Strykers, the retrofit is probably worthwhile even if most just get warehoused as pre-po gear.