Colonel Douglas Macgregor, PhD, USA (ret.) Testimony to House Armed Services Committee on 7/15/04

Congressional Record ^ | July 15, 2004 | Colonel Douglas Macgregor

[Vetvoice]

The current Stryker brigade combat team lacks the joint C4ISR, firepower, protection, mobility and organic logistical support to be a full-dimensional war fighting organization and its operational utility will continue to be limited to peace support or paramilitary police operations. A glance at the Stryker brigade in Northern Iraq provides ample evidence for this statement. The Army's senior leadership wisely decided to keep the Stryker brigade remote from the scene of the action in Central Iraq where the lethal quality of close combat might inflict serious casualties on it. Frankly, in peace support operations, the block III LAV with its stabilized 25mm chain gun with stand-off engagement capability, though lighter and never designed for close combat, is more lethal and less expensive than the Stryker carrier.

According to its published doctrine, the Stryker brigade is designed to move light infantry quickly on primary or secondary roads to a point where the infantry will dismount and conduct combat operations on foot with unstabilized machine guns and, eventually, 105mm guns on Strykers in support, presuming the mobile gun system can be made to work.

This approach is familiar to anyone who has read tactical manuals for mechanized infantry in the 1960s. In anything but an environment where the enemy's anti-armor, artillery and mining capabilities are slim to nonexistent, these tactics are a prescription for mass slaughter. The lethality of small arms is simply too great. Lastly, the claim that this formation can deploy into action anywhere in the world on C130s in 96 hours is not supported by empirical evidence. iv Given the size, weight and volume of wheeled armored vehicles, the Stryker brigade is not suitable for strategic air lift and will deploy as a unit via sealift as seen quite recently when the Stryker brigade currently serving in Iraq arrived via ship in Kuwait City harbor.

RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that Congress curtail the acquisition of more Strykers and shift funds into the acquisition of more promising technologies and platforms with close combat capability in urban or complex terrain. Congress should also demand that the Army provide a plan for pooling Strykers in support of Army units rotating through peace support missions on the British Army model.

A cost-effective alternative to permanently equipping light infantry with Strykers would involve the purchase of a limited number of wheeled armored vehicles for use by Army units rotating through routine peace support missions. The British Army uses this approach in Ulster and Cyprus with considerable success.

[Vetvoice]

I have been researching and publishing information on the Stryker since begore it got its heroic name. The system is a loser that, corroborated by this Colonel, I've been telling you since last January that the military will not commit to combat. The only way people seem to get killed in the Styker Brigade is when those topheavy pieces of junk overturn and kill the occupants. We had two more die like that this past Wednesday. Added to the three that died in December, the brigade has already killed five soldiers by trying to make a square peg fir into a round hole.

[neverdem]

PING

[meenie]

The Osprey and now the Stryker. Can't we find something else for the defense industry to do to keep their bottom line intact? How about amphibious jet skis to storm the beaches of Baghdad?

Don't, but positively don't, do anything so crazy as to give the infantry a personnel carrier with protective armor to get him to the battle and firepower enought to help him when he gets there. Crusader you say, why would you encourage a mobile artillery force that can deliver iron on target far cheaper than flyboys in 200 million dollar flying machines? What would that do to the Air Force chain of command and budget? By golly, money in the defense budget makes us look good and strong.

[Valin]

Crusader you say, why would you encourage a mobile artillery force that can deliver iron on target far cheaper than flyboys in 200 million dollar flying machines?

Could it be because it was to big, to heavy, to overpriced?

[meenie]

Could be. Stealth fighters with 200 million dollar price tags are cheap? Carrying the iron for one volley of Crusaders? There are savings to be made and improvements to be made if so desired. If I knew all the answers, I would be the only one in the world to know it. I do get a little suspicious when I see relatives sending Kevlar flak jackets over to their relatives in Iraq and the add on armor so popular on the humvees.