Stonewall Jackson is said to have preferred his straight. And so do I.
Also, says Miller, a new "cage" the Army has fashioned to the Strykers, in an effort to better protect them against RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and other explosives, may work well but only add to the vehicle's transport weight. Also, he says, the vehicles may be less agile and, ultimately, better targets. "When you add all that weight, for example, a 5,000-pound cage, what does that do to the aerodynamics of it?"
I'm not partularly concerned about the aerodynamics or looks of the Stryker unless they intend to put wings on them since they can't be flown inside transport aircraft. But in terms of fording streams or rivers, since the Stryker isn't amphibious like the Marine LAV III, I wonder how well they'll ford with an extra three tons of weight on board when they hit the muddy bottoms. Or are we supposed to forget the guys who drowned in their Strykers.
I have pretty much quit bitching about the vehicle. It is a done deal. We are getting 6 brigades of them whether we want them or not. I read the good news and the bad news and try to read between the lines to figure out the truth.
This is not the first time soldiers have been given problematical war machines and told to go forth and conquer with them. Constant negativity doesn't help the Stryker riders and worries their wives and mothers.
I would like to see those of us with experience doing difficult things with imperfect systems share what worked back then and maybe give these guys some ideas they might not otherwise have thought of. FreeRepublic is online in Mosul