The Stryker: US Military`s Great White Hope against Iraqi RPGs

At Camp Udairi in Kuwait, US armament technicians are working extra-hard in giant hangars on a Christmas gift for US troops plagued by guerrilla attacks in Iraq. It is the Stryker, an eight-wheel drive armored combat vehicle, the first new armored carrier to enter service in the US army since the Abrams tank was introduced in the 1980s.

DEBKAfile’s military sources quote US civil administrator Paul Bremer as informing the emergency White House consultations last month on the mounting guerrilla war in Iraq that soldiers of the US 2nd division fighting in the Baghdad area and the 4th division under constant attack in the Sunni triangle, “can’t wait to get their hands” on the Strykers.

These innovative vehicles are destined to eventually replace the heavy Abrams M1 battle tank and the Bradley M2 fighting vehicles in Iraq. They are more mobile and agile, have a far greater turn of speed, superior night visibility and unmatched high-tech instruments.

US military chiefs in Washington and Baghdad believe the Stryker, built by General Motors Defense of Canada and General Dynamics Land Systems Division of the United States, will provide American troops with a better response to the ubiquitous rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), favorite weapon of Saddam Hussein’s loyalists. They are expected to show their rapid- response mettle against the guerrillas’ agile RPG pick-up trucks, which turned up for the first time in the Samarra battle of November 30 after an absence of several months.

In that battle, heavy Iraqi casualties – the exact number is in dispute – were inflicted against pro-Saddam fighters dressed in Fedayeen uniforms.

Closely resembling a large green armadillo (see photo) , the Stryker’s slat armor “cage” is designed to trap an RPG and defuse it inches away from the vehicle’s skin - much in the way a baseball catcher’s mask protects his head from a 90-mile-an-hour fastball. The US military took its most state-of-the-art combat vehicle – already equipped with 14.5 mm-thick armor against machine gun rounds, mortars and artillery fragments -- and dressed it in a “crinoline” skirt, a green-painted steel grill bolted on to it sides. Only the Stryker’s roof and wheels remain exposed. Stryker tests have been underway for three years at Fort Lewis, Washington, where a dummy Iraqi village was built a year before the US invasion last March and where the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division trained and re-formed into the US Army’s first Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.

A vanguard force arrived in Kuwait in October and crossed into Iraq for the first real battlefield tests of the vehicles. The last of the Stryker Brigade's 5,000 soldiers arrived in Kuwait from Fort Lewis in mid-November. The brigade has 300 Strykers.

Named after Stewart Stryker, killed in action in World War Two, and Robert Stryker, a soldier killed in Vietnam, the 19-ton vehicle has eight giant tires, a range of 500 km (300 miles) and a maximum speed of 60 mph (100 km). In addition to its two-man crew, the Stryker can carry eight infantry troops or commandos.

One feature that arouses controversy among military experts is the comparatively mild punch packed by the novel contraption’s M2 0.50 caliber machine gun, 21.7 mm grenade launcher and 7.62 mm MK240 machine gun. It is also fitted with four smoke grenade launchers and a stabilizer system that enables on-the-move accurate fire.

But the vehicle is not designed for heavy combat, say its advocates. Its function is to race on its eight huge wheels to the edge of a battle zone, including urban areas, drop off infantry soldiers and lay down covering fire.

One of the Stryker’s most outstanding tools of war is its state-of-the-art digital communications system, the FBCB2, that keeps the entire fleet connected by text messaging and a GPS map network. The system – effectively a “tactical Internet” -- enables the commander of one Stryker vehicle to mark the position of enemy forces on a map for the benefit of all his fellows.

Each vehicle commander has the use of seven M45 periscopes and a thermal imager display by video camera that can identify enemy forces, including hidden snipers and RPG-toting ambush units.

The Stryker Brigade will be the first unit in history to be engaged in this way in computerized warfare. The unit coming closest to this is the “digitized” US 4th Infantry Division. A commander can click on a blue icon and electronically pinpoint for everyone else on the battle network the position of friendly forces. A click on a red icon marks the position of the enemy. No time is wasted on description and explanation. A commander does not need to go into the field and personally deploy his troops at their most effective combat points. He simply moves his resources around on a screen.

Each new brigade is furthermore equipped with a reconnaissance-intelligence battalion which consists of three times as many spotters as a regular battalion, four drones and a large array of sophisticated sensors.

The US army does not intend, in the first stage, to replace all its tanks in Iraq with Strykers. But it does want the new vehicles to back up its heavy armor on the battlefield. The army is also considering whether to use Strykers on rapid-response policing missions for urban flare-ups or spot roadblocks on intercity highways.

The novel contrivance has its critics. Some US commanders are saying that no sensor in the world, no matter how advanced, can tell the difference between a friendly civilian and a guerrilla – until the insurgent whips out a hand grenade and stares into the eyes of the Stryker’s 11-man contingent. There are military engineering experts who suggest that steel spikes should be fitted to the outside of the ”cage” to deflect flying grenades or projectiles away from the vehicle. US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld is less than pleased with the vehicle. Nonetheless, Congress poured another $35 million into the defense budget in September to speed up preparations for the deployment of the 5th and 6th Stryker brigades.

And the troops in Iraq are eagerly awaiting the deployment – only weeks away – of the first Stryker brigade in Iraq. They expect casualties to rise initially when the new system is first tested in battle. Further improvements will inevitably be called for. But running-in problems aside, the shift to Strykers marks the beginning of the end of the historic role heavy tanks, such as the Abrams and Israel’s Merkava 3 and 4, have played on the battlefield. Experts believe these 70-ton behemoths-on-tracks are being reduced to the dinosaurs of modern combat and that the 19-ton, eight-wheeled Stryker is poised to leap into the breach.

I love these "experts" who keep predicting the demise of the MBT only to be proven wrong again and again.

The M1 is here until at least 2025. At that time, hopefully sane military planners will replace it with another heavy vehicle.

Here's why:
1. Light vehicles, even tracked ones, can't push aside obsticles like a 50 ton+ vehicle can. UN wheeled LAVs fell prey to many roadblocks in Bosnia and they became effectly trapped. M1 Tanks entering Bosnia simply pushed the roadblocks aside and continued on.

2. Heavy vehicles pack more firepower, armor and survivability into 1 shell than light vehicles can.

3. Though harder to deploy, the heavier forces pack more punch and are actually more manuverable of most terrain than light wheeled forces. Just ask any OC (observer/controller) who's ever had to follow M1s on a training mission in a HMMWV.

4. Lastly is looks. A light vehicle is not very intimidating. This may sound silly at first, but many engagements (especially in places like Bosnia) were won just because the M1s showed up. No one wanted to challenge US forces on the region when an M1 equiped Quick Reaction Force arrived. They laughed at the HMMWV and the SISU (Dannish LAV), but when our M1s rolled out, not one Bosnian or Serb even chuckled.

This does not rule out a role for infantry carriers like the Stryker, but that is ALL the Stryker is: an Infantry Transporter, not a tank. Light tanks have thier valued role too, and I cannot wait for their return to the force. But the Heavy MBT (40-70 tons) is NOT a dinosaur like these "experts" say, it is a criticle part of the equation in a military engagement.

4. Lastly is looks. A light vehicle is not very intimidating. This may sound silly at first, but many engagements (especially in places like Bosnia) were won just because the M1s showed up.

It doesn't take a tank for a vehicle to be intimidating, in Kosovo or elsewhere. This one is, and neither the Serbs nor Croats nor the Albanian muslums cared to tangle with those in the unarmored Landrovers. But in the Strykers, the betting is that the infantrymen aboard will be told to remain *protected* inside, where mines or RPGs can take them all, without a chance to fire back. No exterior gun ports on a Stryker for those inside....

We are going to have troops in Iraq for decades, but they need not necessarily be armor/mech troops, or, if they are, the heavy brigades would likely occupy former Republican Guard kasernes and spend most of their time at NTC West while Constabulary troopers run the roads in wheeled vehicles.

Give a cigar! Exactly. and I have to believe that rationally, the Ft Knox types read their history and understand this concept as well. Armored cars are fine for some jobs, Tanks are fabulous for some jobs. .The rub is in wisdom of application.

I love these "experts" who keep predicting the demise of the MBT only to be proven wrong again and again.

I do not. Too many of them are in positions of political decision making or influence and have never spent a day in uniform, much less have the slightest clue as to what's going through the minds of those at Skidgel Hall at Knox or 11 Mile Road at Warren Michigan.

The M1 is here until at least 2025. At that time, hopefully sane military planners will replace it with another heavy vehicle.

From the posted story, paragraf 15:

...The US army does not intend, in the first stage, to replace all its tanks in Iraq with Strykers.

-archy-/-

I agree with you regarding the unrealistic expectations some people have for the Stryker. It shouldn't be compared to the Bradley or an MBT, because if we could airlift either of those sufficiently, there wouldn't be a need for it. However, I think one of the Stryker variants that was considered was armed with a 25 mm cannon, but for some reason they decided to go with the 40 mm AGL. The 25 mm would have been sufficient to kill enemy IFVs while the AGL is inadequate.

Maybe the Strykers will get some M1025 25mm Bushmaster-armed Humvees for escort vehicles....

"I bet its pretty effective for single hits or even two."
Some of our FR ordnance experts have already commented on this subject. I've read that the blast from a shaped charge RPG warhead may actually be more focused a few inches forward of the charge itself. In other words, detonation on the fence may cause more damage, not less, depending on the distance between the armor and the RPG when it detonates.

The usual PG-7M rocket antitank shaped charge warhead from an RPG-7 launcher has a maximum effective direct fire range of about 400 meters if it's not too windy, and can penetrate 330mm of armor with the jet from it's detonation, about 13 inches worth. The Iranian PG-7 Nader version, a little lighter to gain a but more range sacrifices some penetrative effect for higher velocity and more range, but it's still good for about 12 inches worth of penetration.

But the Russian PG-VR tandem warhead is rated at a penetrative ability of 750mm of armor, about 29 inches worth. It looks like the spacing of the slats on the Stryker slats is about half of that, which does not sound good should a PG-VR detonate a foot and a half or so from the Stryker's half-inch body plating.

The best news is that if standard PG-7 rockets are used, around half of them should fail to detonate, as the exterior shell is bashed into the charge liner and short-circuits its ability to carry the electrical charge from the piezo crystal in the nose to the detonator in the rear of the warhead. But that design flaw could be corrected with a nickel's worth of two-conductor wire, and other, more effective warheads for the 40mm launchers are also available that don't share that weakness of the PG-7 and PG-7M versions. And they'll be bad enough if they hit a fuel tank or unarmored fuel can rack, or one of the tires.

-archy-/-

"Someday, when you're like 59 or something," Bellisario said, "I'm going to call you up and say, 'Gokey! Wake up!"

Cripes, sounds like my old unit at Fort Drum doing the insane 24 hour operations for three days straight.
After two days, we were so bombed out from lack of sleep, that a midnight fuel stop turned into a nightmare.
We had only one gun section follow the XO to the area we were going to emplace at.
Seems when we stopped for fuel the guys right behind my crew drifted off to sleep.
No-one behind them saw the head of the column move, so they sat still.
We didn't notice that there wasn't anyone behind us for awhile since we were in blackout drive.
We didn't notice, that is, until some A-hole of an OC drove at us with his brights on and I looked into the sideviews to keep my eyes from popping out the back of my head.
And in the light of the OC's brights, I saw vast expanses of absolutely nothing behind me.
I look over at my A driver and go, "Sarge, you're not gonna believe me, but there's no-one behind us."
He says I'm s**tting him.
I told him to take a look himself and he does, curses, and then runs up to the Xo's vehicle where the above converstaion repeats itself.
My Sarge runs up next to the Xo's vehicle and the Xo looks at him running along for a bit before asking him what's up.
And that's when he gets told about half the battery missing.
His words, "You're s**itting me!"
That became the statement of the night.
*snort*
It was roughly two hours later when the rest of teh battery finally caught up to us.

I've read that the blast from a shaped charge RPG warhead may actually be more focused a few inches forward of the charge itself. In other words, detonation on the fence may cause more damage, not less, depending on the distance between the armor and the RPG when it detonates.

I've also read those posts in the past and I doubt the shape charge blast is more effective when it the RPG is set-off by the fence.

Most of the fence can be measured in feet from the Stryker's armored body. I would argue the blast of the shape charge dissipates at those distances. I feel confident the Army did completed functional tests that ensured a minimum fencing distance.

The news I'm hearing from fellow captains who just came back from Iraq is rolled-up cammo nets work well to stop RPGs. This sounds ridiculous, but the RPGs hitting the sides of M1s with rolled cammo nets fail to detonate. Of course, the poor loader had to get out every once in a while and dislodge the caught rounds.

It seems that rolled-up net doesn't provide enough resistance for the RPG to activate. The RPG's propulsion isn't strong enough to push through the net, so the round gets fouled in the net like a fish. How well this will work against the most modern RPGs is a question.

Doesn't sound ridiculous at all. And if it'd catch an RPGs switchblade tailfins and deflect the warhead even the slightest, the warhead might hit just enough off dead-center that the piezo-crystal nosecap wouldn't be crushed enough to initiate detination.

The RPG was a lousy answer for return fire into brush for that very reason. The only immediate downside I can think of is some risk of fire if soaked in Diesel fuel, either from a fuel tank or rupture under fire or routinely during refueling. There are probably both chemical treatments [borax] and fire-retardant materials that could lessen any such danger considerably.

I understand the Russians in Chechnya have been slinging water-filled pipe sections on the sides of BMPs/BTRs/MTLBs as both a similar antiarmor device and also a spare water or fuel source, though their idea is to provide a target that absorbs the warhead's blast rather than shortstopping it. Either sounds like a fair idea, but has to be remembered that as RPG-7/18 specific, could have very different results should another AT weapon be used.

It seems that rolled-up net doesn't provide enough resistance for the RPG to activate. The RPG's propulsion isn't strong enough to push through the net, so the round gets fouled in the net like a fish. How well this will work against the most modern RPGs is a question.

Looks like someone else figures the same thing, even with all the nice reactive armor fitted to their reworked T55M:

I had a battalion commander who believed in fighting his three-tank headquarters tank section as both a combat reserve *fire department* for any problems one of his line compant platoons got into, or as their replacement should one be knocked out, a far cry from the usual use of HQ company's tanks as a TOC guard force or for battalion combat trains escort. And often, our boss would also have one tank from each of the three companies attached to HQ tank section, giving us six tanks total, plus, sometimes, a pair of the four 4.2 mortar tracks in the battalion, and/or M114 scout tracks, and often a AVLB scissors bridge that had dropped it's load as a backup recovery vehicle; sometimes a medic track too. HQ tanks was sometime a real lethal little task force around our bunch, a far cry from the usual 2-tank *fighting pair* now commonly used.

So we sometimes drove a bunch. And once on the third or fourth night at it, on an icy German mountain road, the old man was concerned about his driver possibly nodding off th sleep, with quarter-mile dropoffs or worse to the sides on some of the road. Just to make things a little more entertaining and keep me alert, I was ordered to knock down every other kilometer marker post along the route, about 10 miles worth. I didn't doze off, and neither did any of the others following me. But OMG, did we ever pay, both in replacement costs and paperwork, afterward.

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.