Study Faults Army Vehicle-(stryker is not a tank appears-reporters wisdom)

Wash Post ^ | March 31, 2005 | By R. Jeffrey Smith

[freeplancer]

I am currently at Camp Endurance outside of Mosul and I assure you our Strykers are not a hunk of junk. They are respected outside the gates and provide us plenty of confidence. I don't mean to sound rude, but I do know exactly what I am talking about.

[Lion Den Dan]

The Stryker is broke and not worth a fraction of the money spent upon it. The faunted commo network involved with the Stryker seems dead due to cost as is the cockeyed Mobile Gun System based upon the Stryker. Gkood riddance to this tin can.

True, it is better than an armored Hummer but not as good as the M113 which is being pulled out of storage and introduced into operations.

[GreyFriar]

The M-60A2 was the only version of the M-60 that I served on as a crew member (gunner & TC) for 2 years, 76-78. Company B, 1st Battalion, 32nd Armor, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Armored Divsion at Friedberg, Germany. I was the company's field artillery forward observer. It was the test period for fielding what are now known as FIST Teams.

Firing the main gun with HE always caused problems with the Shileagh missile firing system. And the weight of the A-2 turret caused the vehicle to exceed the weight rating for the tracks.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Stryker Ping

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Stryker Brigade Combat Team Tactical Studies Group (Chairborne)

[Darksheare]

Thanks for the ping, good to see you.

[SLB]

Some mighty interesting comments here, but I only see one that I would put any faith in. FREEPLANCER - my hat is off to you.

Some of you folks making comments here might remember that a few years back I was one of the most vocal opponents of the Stryker. Now I know more about the actual O&O of the SBCT (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) and exactly how they are deployed and operate (operate = one of the "O" in O&O) in combat. The vehicle is NOT the center of the universe for the SBCT, for the most part the Stryker is only a taxi.

I read the article today, I am currently taking the Combat Development Course, during breaks and then the class discussed it. It is journalism, remember that, the author wanted to get attention and so he puts in a few statements that grab our attention. Example - replacing 11 tires a day. Heck for a brigade in the desert I think that is pretty darn good. We went through more that that at the NTC with the 2nd Armored Division and we had M1's and M2/3's.

If you really want to see some bungling in the world of procurement of military equipment may I recommend viewing "The Pentagon Wars". HBO might have jazzed up a few things, but the basic facts are true. We watched it in class today and then spent an hour discussing how much the acquisition system within the Army has changed in the past 20 - 25 years.

[Squantos]

There ya go then !.........Thanks !

Ya'll Stay safe !

[WesternPacific]

My son is also stationed outside Mosul (FOB Sykes). He is a Stryker driver and also considers the Stryker a great vehicle. I assure the naysayers this vehicle and its slat armor has protected and saved many of our warriors (as relayed from son to father).

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Haven't been on much lately. Gotta get up pretty early in the morning to get a computer around here. 0355 was early enough.

[archy]

To be honest, there are really only two vehicles on the planet that are not vulnerable to modern RPGs, the Abrams and the Bradley. Everthing else goes ka-boom when hit by one or more RPGs.

If only our only problem was the RPGs. But the Russian TM-46/ TM-57 and other similar 15-20 pound antitank landmines will usually not only blow apart the track and support wheels of any light tracked armored vehicle that encounters one, but will often roll the vehicle onto its side as well, offering the thin-skinned underbelly to small arms and RPG fire. In addition, if the mine detonates on the fuel tank side of the vehicle, the tank or fuel bladder [M113/M113A1] will generally rupture, compounding the problem.

Neither the tracked Bradleys, the M113 *Bucket*, the Soviet BMP/BMD nor the wheeled Stryker/LAV/BTR-80 wheelies are immune to such weapons and their effects, and should one such mine not be sufficient, as with a tank or tank-based APC, two mines can easily be stacked together. The convenient carrying handles on the mine make it a fairly easy matter for one to be carried in either hand for reasonable distances, and should the sapper planting them be accompanied by a security element, multiples of two can be further added as needed, requiring only a slightly deeper hole in which to emplace them.

Even the South African Casspir transport vehicle, probably the most mine-resistant vehicle in service, is certified to protect its occupants against the effects of a triple-stacked TM-57 mine blast (equivalent to 21kg of TNT) under any wheel, or a double mine (14kg of TNT) anywhere under the hull. Do not bet your life on even such a vehicle, or anything lesser, handling four.

[Darksheare]

Yeah, I keep forgetting the time difference between here and there.
Good to see you though.
Stay relatively safe.

[Travis McGee]

I thought every soldier was supposed to have his own personal M1-Abrams by now?

The new kind, with the invisibility cloak, which also flies.

[Wiz]

Here is a hot topic discussed on Strategy Page. Stryker is once again slashed.

Strategy Page - M113A4 MTLV is much better than Styrker

[Travis McGee]

War stories are always welcome here, soldier! Fire for effect!

We are so far back in CONUS here we can't even see the REMFs, and we love getting it right from the horse's mouth.

[Squantos]

Doesn't the TM 57 use a MS effect vs just blast ?

[SLB]

Funny you should bring up flying tanks. In the Combat Development Course I am in we had to write an abbreviated requirement to solve a perceived problem for a practical exercise. Our problem was the speed of getting ammunition resupplies to the front. Our materiel solution was a truck that would have the capability to fly for short distances. I don't know how the material developer will solve the problem, but then that is why they make the big bucks.

[Alter Kaker]

Well, in the case of the Bradley and, apparently, the Stryker, the criticism is justified. Over-expensive, under-armed, under-protected boondoggles that put American troops in unnecessary risk. There's nothing patriotic about blindly following Pentagon procurement policies when they weaken US national security.

[Flavius]

So my earlier comment stand that the reports s.ck and that its better then driving around in a gm truck..

and thanks for the service