Stryker Vehicle Destroyed

komo news ^ | 13 December 2003 | KOMO Staff

[archy]

you've got a particularly sadistic streak crossed with a bit of the practical joker

Sounds like a character from Shakespeare

Among the Germans, you'd be describing Till Eulenspiegel. In the Viking and Norse panopoly, it's be Loki

Around the Brits, they're Royal Engineers seconded to *The Det.* Sometimes called *The Chessplayers*.

[Jeff Chandler]

For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne petar" -- Shakespeare, Hamlet III iv. "Hoist" was in Shakespeare's time the past participles of a verb "to hoise", which meant what "to hoist" does now: to lift. A petard (see under "peter out" for the etymology) was an explosive charge detonated by a slowly burning fuse. If the petard went off prematurely, then the sapper (military engineer; Shakespeare's "enginer") who planted it would be hurled into the air by the explosion. (Compare "up" in "to blow up".) A modern rendition might be: "It's fun to see the engineer blown up with his own bomb."

From: http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhoistw.html

[archy]

They intend that Stryker replace the Hummer, so you better be damn sure that it won't get more people killed because people think they can hid in it. No vehicle, including the MIAI is going to survive a well-timed IED.

The good news is that we've developed a 5-million dollar Stryker mine countermeasures vehicle variant, which has heavy rollers stout enough to set of an antitank mine and withstand the blast of most such devices.

The bad news is that the Israelis report the appearance of a $25 time fuze for the Russian antitank mines with a 15 second delay, triggered by such mine rollers, then detonating the 20-pound mine's explosive charge under the parent vehicle a quarter of a minute later.

Back to the drawing board....

[SAMWolf]

The biggest problem with the Stryker is not its limmitations, but the high expectations of it by some in the Pentagon and its misuse.

Exactly!

[American in Israel]

The Pali's have taken out a couple of Merkav tanks with IED's in roadways, how can any vehicle survive? It all depends on how much explosives they use.

[archy]

For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne petar" -- Shakespeare, Hamlet III iv.

Oft qouted in British Isles circles on 05 November, celebrated as *Guy Fawkes Day* after the bomber who attempted to reform by attempting to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1601. For the 400 years since, Britons have celebrated the evening by lighting bonfires, since fireworkery can be a bit hard to come by, though the Guy's attempt was unsuccessful. You'll still hear some old-form Royal Engineers yell *Penny for the Guy!* before firing a demolition charge, just as Americans and others they've trained use the phrase *Fire in the hole,* three times as a safety warning.

The unsuccessful Mr. Fawkes, a Catholic at the wrong time to be professing that faith in Merry Olde England, was taken to the Tower of London and beheaded, following which a few additional modifications were carried out upon his remains. The British Parliament still officially opens its sessions by visiting the basement in a ceremonial [hopefully!] inspection for leftover or replacement infernal devices. Penny for the Guy, guv'nor?

[185JHP]

Thanks for your replies. I just read "War Is A Racket" this year, it's out in a reprint paperback. I want the best stuff available for the miliary, regardless. I agree about both parties being susceptible to corruption. "I don't want nothin' complicated, baby - I just want somethin' simple, like the truth" could be applied when the procurement people meet the moneymen.

[KellyAdmirer]

Two million bucks is pocket change if the crew is saved. Warfare cannot be done on the cheap, not then, not now, not ever.

It is fantastic that the crew was saved. If that is your only concern, then perhaps you think they should spend $25 million per vehicle and make really sure the crews survive? Or $200 million per glorified jeep? I'm sure if they spent $500 million per troop carrier, they could line the chassis with Titanium and lead and protect against just about anything short of a nuclear blast.

I don't think it is asking for warfare to be done "on the cheap" to look at the cost-effectiveness of army expenditures. I question the value of $2 million vehicles that can be written off so easily.

[Cacophonous]

But the Stryker replaced tanks not Hummers.

[Drammach]

I too, heard about the "wireless doorbell set" and have read about automotive lock remotes as well.
These all use fairly standard signals that should be available from the manufacturers.
Simple transmitters and a string of standard signals could be sent out ahead of a convoy to detonate any such radio/wireless devices before any vehicles reach them.

Likewise, planes and/or helicopters could do fly-overs of common bombing sites, and transmit detonation signals.
This could be done not only by day, but at night, when said devices are being "installed".

Such "nocturnal transmissions" could result in premature explosive activation, causing severe loss of self-esteem in the terrorist bomb squads, a lack of desire to try again, and a lack of vigor in pursuing additional engagements. (comedy double entente OFF)

[R. Scott]

Encourage the Islamowackos to pretest their explosive devices. A dud will really spoil your day

Test, test and retest!

[R. Scott]

I’ve been on a cable so long I forgot about the old 56K modem. Some people still use it?
I might have to have one of those types check the download time on my website. I might have to make some revisions.

[Darksheare]

Actually teh Crusader was a good program that was killed because of inter-discipline bigotry, disinformation, false information, and skewed thinking.
Like: "The fragments from it's artillery shells (155mm) woul;d be dangerous to Stryker/LAVIII tires."
The M109A6 Paladin's shell fragments are exactly the same.
The Paladin is also an insanely overage design that is rather slow.
It can't keep up with the heavies.
The Crusader was supposed to be faster.
Downside of the Crusader was that instead of choosing a powerplant that would be best, they let the contractor choose the powerplant.
Oops.

[verity]

Your home page is extremely informative!

[Proud Legions]

No, no , no....the Stryker vehicles are replacing light forces with medium forces. Again, the question is not if it is better than a tank, but is it better than a guy on foot or in a truck.

Of the 5 active duty brigades transforming to Styrker Bdes, three were light (as in move by jumping out of planes or by truck), and the other was the 2nd Cav Regt, which has been in Hummers for a decade now.

The second question is the vehicle the best we could do. Many of us say it was a good interim quick shot at it given very constrained time schedules. Others say we could have done better and need to look at other interim vehicles. All of us know that the Army is lookig at a totally new vehilce for the long term (called the Future Combat System), that has never been invisioned as an unpgraded Stryker or an Upgraded M113.

[gatorbait]

I don't think it is asking for warfare to be done "on the cheap" to look at the cost-effectiveness of army expenditures. I question the value of $2 million vehicles that can be written off so easily.


Well, I never gave a damn how expensive something was as long as it saved my a$$. So, it doesn't mean squat to me to see a $2mil vehicle .
My guess is that troopers manning it were none too concerned with the price , either.
Count your pennies elsewhere.

[gatorbait]

His name was Harry S. Truman. It could happen again.


He was a Senator,he atacked a program tha twas fairly successful(B 26 Marauder) .He also, post war, had Louis Johnson as Defense Secretary who gutted the military to save money for social programs. Found out the hard way in 1950, tha t Armies are not obsolete.

Other than that, fine points made.

[Cacophonous]

You are correct sir. Does that mean the 1/32 Armor and 1/33 Armor still have their tanks? If I correctly recall, the last TOE I saw for the Stryker Brigade itself had no tanks...Of course, I could be wrong or simply not have the most current info.

I know the move is toward intermediate forces. The real key is how the whole doctrine shakes out; I know the folks at Knox envision light tanks - a la the BFV - and the folks at Benning envision beefed up HMMWVs. Although if they can't figure out how to strap the 155 to it without knocking it over, it's kind of a moot point, I guess.

[tet68]

A petard was a cast bronze or fabricated iron sort of mortar filled with black powder afixed to a wooden base that was then hung or nailed to the doors of a fort or castle, then lit.

This required someone to drag it up to the doors, pound in nails and hang and light it. Sometimes the fuse was too fast or too short and the sapper was caught by his own device.

You know this, but the others don't.

[KellyAdmirer]

Oh, I count pennies everywhere. If the vehicles don't meet your satisfaction, don't serve in the armed forces.