Posted on 12/08/2004 4:16:13 PM PST by Vetvoice
In recent weeks, the Army has ratcheted up its public relations machine touting the merits of its latest combat toy being deployed in Iraq, the $3 million-plus per copy wheeled armored vehicle known as the Stryker. With the insurgency’s offensive heating up recently in Mosul, Iraq, the Stryker is seeing some action and it’s obviously become tougher to keep the 300 or so Stryker armored vehicles out of harms way.
Case in point: Two Army soldiers were killed on Dec. 4 when their Stryker “received enemy fire during convoy operations.” (There have been no details released yet by the Department of Defense as to specifics surrounding the incident, what type of fire hit the Stryker, or whether the new armored vehicle was destroyed.) For some time now, POGO has been monitoring the Stryker’s development and testing, and we continue to have questions on the vehicle’s survivability from certain types of enemy fire, namely rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs (improvised explosive devices.)
We’ve also been watching the press reports, which have generally been very positive in recent weeks, but lacking in detail or supporting data to merit such glowing performance ratings.
So we asked Lonnie Shoultz, a former paratrooper with the 101st Airborne Division and former Green Beret with the 5th Special Forces Group and one of the Stryker’s most vocal critics, what he thought about one of the stories that appeared in a defense publication recently. Here’s the story and his comments in red after the jump:
(Excerpt) Read more at pogoblog.typepad.com ...
there have been a number of first person bloggs posted here that say the opposite. to my ear, they have more credibility than this whiner.
I asked them what they thought of the Stryker. One looked me in the eye and said, "I wouldn't want to go back without one." All nodded agreement.
As a retired grunt, and vet of the RVN conflict, that's all I needed to hear.
Is there problems?.....no doubt...isn't a military vehicle in existence without issues.
Could it be better?...no doubt....most combat vehicles can't be all things...short of a science fiction novel, a la Colonel Alois Hammer's "Slammers", it isn't practical or possible at this time.
"I wouldn't want to go back without one."
Works for me.
My question would be is "the military getting the gripes" directly. GD is doing what is being asked. Trust me, I know.
Not sure; there will be gripes...always is.
Some people want more armor I'm sure.....more armor (weight) decreases mobility.
Some folks probably want more gun....more gun equates to less amount of rounds carried...bigger shells in limited amount of space = less bullets.
You can never have too much fuel or ammo on board, unless you're on fire.
Some folks want a tracked vehicle. Tracks have uses and in certain conditions may make more sense, but if you've ever had to replace a thrown track at night or under fire, I suspect you might be grateful for the "no flat tires", so you can get the h3ll out of Dodge.
I only read part of the linked article because the author was spinning it too much.
His comments alluding to the army only using it in the north because of of an unwillingness to engage the terrorists in the cities for instance.
Let me see if I can figure this out. Armored and lightly armored vehicles are probably best used in a mobile battle area. Fallujah ain't one of those....that's serious grunt work, though a case can be made to have the Stryker in the cities as a force protection element, their vulnerability goes up.
I've been retired 20 years, so my ideas about deployment might be outmoded, but when I was on active duty, the general rule of thumb was, in open terrain, armor leads infantry. In closed (or cities) terrain infantry leads.
Basically, you could put wheels on the Maginot Line and some one would b!tch about the lack of armor and not having enough firepower....so I'll refer to my earlier post and ask the man who own one...
" I asked them what they thought of the Stryker. One looked me in the eye and said, "I wouldn't want to go back without one." All nodded agreement. As a retired grunt, and vet of the RVN conflict, that's all I needed to hear."
Well, let talk about whiners. Did you read the blog or are you just whining because you never served your country? If you read the blog you read a long transcript of testimony from Colonel Douglas Macgregor, a Professor at the National Defense Institute. He said that the Army KNEW their weaknesses and placed them in the safest place in Iraq - with the Kurds.
The photos - oh, that's right, you didn't read it so I won't bother explaining the photographic evidence to you.
That is a photo of the Mobile Gun System. It will not fire up to specs. The contract calls for it to fire a minimum of 40 rounds. The most that General Dynamics can make it fire is 10 rounds before it melts.
The photo you posted is made on the General Dynamcis test range since there are no MGS vehicles currently in the Army.
Read the Macgregor transcript displayed on the website and then you will have some background to speak.
If you had read the entire blog you would have read the transcript of a Professor at the National Defense University when he addressed Congress. In his testimony he gives away the Army's greatest secret. The Strykers were KNOWN to not be able to take a punch so they were assigned to the most placid area in Iraq - among the Kurds.
I don't blame the kids for saying what they did - they have not been to war - they have only been sightseeing in Mosul.
Read the blog add you'll see photographs to prove the point of fragility of the armored trucks.
You did not read Colonel Macgregor's testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. HE is the one sho said they were hidden in the north - not me. He did not say the men lacked the courage to engage - he said the rubber tired vehicle burned like a charcoal briquet. READ the transcript and look at the photos.
Col MacGregor advances theories or possible facts that warrant consideration or further study, but not by me, I don't have access to all the information nor to the equipment for independent testing.
I try to always check blog postings to see if there are other things to consider, such as nature of the blog, reputation, etc.
Also attempt to determine (if possible) motivation of folks rendering reports.
From a WAPO article re: Wes Clark here "Army Col. Douglas Macgregor is thankful he did. An author and strategist who has also had his fights with the Army brass, Macgregor said he will forever be indebted to Clark for taking a chance and naming him as director of planning at NATO headquarters in Belgium in 1997.
"There is this aspect of his character -- he is loyal to people he knows are capable and competent," Macgregor said. "As for his peers, it's a function of jealousy and envy, and it's a case of misunderstanding.
Is there a motivation for MacGregor to tacitly support Clark and is one of those times?
I certainly don't know, but I have a tendency to wait and see when a retired Colonel is all over the media with all kinds of comments about the military.
Maybe he is on a crusade to improve the military and only became more vocal after retirement and he's doing it for all the right reasons; I certainly hope so, but his is not the only opinion or study.
Google MacGregor, he's got a lot to say, I'll reserve judgment.
BTW, POGO describes MacGregor as a Defense Consultant. Defense Consultant to or for whom?
At the same time, I vividly recall the Bradley's experience. Your Maginot observation was dead on. One of the funniest things about the Bradley experience was the howling of congress critters that it blew up when hit by a tank round.
Tanks blow up when hit by tank rounds, of course a personnel carrier, purposely designed (for a whole host of good reasons) well under that criteria will. Most everything does, short of x number of yards of reinforced concrete. And concrete is tough to air lift, a bitch to air drop/extract, and generally doesn't move well across most terrain (except very steep slopes, down). (A la Maginot.)
The whole business of weapons/systems development in the military has issues. One of my favorite films about this process is "The Pentagon Wars", funny, sad, and a bit unsettling, and I suspect based on quite a bit of truth re the development of the Bradley.
As far as keeping them out of things, maybe, they did, but military planners tend to tailor forces to respond to conditions. You don't use paratroopers against an Armored Division, or use Armor in the Alps.
The Stryker is a troop carrier, so is the Bradley for that matter. The basic purpose is to move a squad of grunts, to a point where they dismount and take care of business. It offers more protection than a fatigue shirt and a name tag, and carries more gear than a trooper can carry on his back, and they arrive at the spot of trouble more refreshed and better able to fight the battle.
No troop carrier can be as armored as a tank (imagine a tank large enough to carry it's crew and a squad of fighters). Probably wouldn't as transportable as the Stryker either.
It can not be as thin skinned as a Taurus; the survivability factor precludes this. Comparing the Stryker to a Taurus was a funny line, but a ridiculous concept.
If I had my way, the troops would go to war in armored suits similar to the suits described in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers", but we ain't there yet.
If a good hard look at the Stryker finds it to be unsuitable for any type of combat, then a new concept will emerge, be developed, tested and deployed. Otherwise we would be still using M4 Shermans instead of M1A1 MBTs, or still be using Springfield '03s.
One of the factor's of warfare is, when you go to war, you go with the army you have, not with the army you wish you had.
This does not mean stopping further development and change as necessary, it means exactly what it said.
Personal experience here: Viet Nam, M16 rifle. Deployed with three prongs for a flash hider. Twigs used to get caught in the suppressor and could cause serious problems, although it did make it easier to open C rat boxes. Design change added a ring around the flash hider to solve that problem, and added a forward assist to ensure full seating of the bolt. Someone was listening to the troops and took steps to correct a design issue.
As an aside....no, mine never jammed nor did any in the platoon to the best of my knowledge. Weapons were cleaned daily an myself and the platoon sergeant both inspected daily. I personally prefer the 7.62x54, but was often glad to have more magazines of .226 than I would have been able to carry had they been 30 cal.
I guess where I'm going with this is....It is impossible to build a perfect system...as long as someone is looking toward improving what we deliver to the troops within operational needs, I'm OK with it.
It's impossible to actually determine suitability in laboratory conditions. We'll learn more about the Stryker here and it will be improved as much as possible.
Macgregor holds a PhD and is a professor at the National Defense Institute. That fact alone makes him a defense analyst, military analyst or any other name you care to give it. The man is a scholar.
The appointment you speak of in 1997 was before Clark ordered British Lt. Gen. Mike Jackson to "use his paratroopers" to cut off the Russians headed for Pristina airport. Jackson refused the order and told Clark, "I will not start WW III for you." Both turned to their governmnets for instructions. In the meantime the Department of State had the matter at the airport worked out in an hour.
Clark was fired. His linatic antics did not play well as an 0-10. The British Lt. Gen. at that time, Mike Jackson, is now General Sir Michael Jackson and holds the job of the British equivalent of our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He won. Clark lost. Macgregor was a grunt on the ground. He had nothing to gain or lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.