Replies

I have worked in and around Strykers since the first two Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (3/2, 1/25) were first stood up at Fort Lewis.

It is NOT a TANK. It is an Armored Personnel Carrier. It is a LIGHTLY ARMORED APC. It is basically an aluminum hull hull with bolt on ballistic armor plates. Much better than an up-armored humvee, but not near as good protection as a Bradley. It is vulnerable to RPGs.

The Strykers that deployed to Iraq got "slat armor" upgrades that were supposed to help against RPG's The troops call it "brush kit" armor, because it basically a steel frame "fence" a foot out all around the perimeter of the vehicle. The idea is that the RPG shaped charge would hit the fence first and prematurely detonate, thwarting penetration. I think it is safe to say the jury is stil out on the effectiveness of this approach.

There are several variants of the Stryker - the most common one being the Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV). It is armed only with a single cupola-mounter M2 .50 Cal MG, but it can be controlled remotely from inside the vehicle using the "Remote Weapon Station", which includes a thermal sight/camera. It is nice as you can put rounds nicely into a window from a klick away rather easily and consistently. In the camp I was at, soldiers were getting in trouble for using the thermal sight to 'track' female soldiers (If you've ever used an advanced thermal sight - you know what imean). The M2 is replaced by a Mk19 on some variants. There are also AT, mortar carrier, ambulance, and command vehicle variants. They all have the "digital" FBCB2 applique. There is also a planned direct fire AT variant (Mobile Gun System), but it hasn;t made it out of test yet. (the gun 's recoil would tear it out of the vehicles chassis mount).

The Stryker is EXTREMELY quiet compared to the M1/Bradley. I had one pass me while driving cross country in the Kuwaiti desert, and I had no clue it was there until I was eating dust. It scares the beejeebus out of the AIF's, as they never hear them coming.

The vehicles themselves are made by a joint venture between General Dynamics and GM. The ones used by the 3/2 and 1/25 were actually destined for the Canadian Army. The Army cut a deal to take the CA production early in exchange for cash.

The Strykers are the brainchild of former Army CoS Shinseki. The concept for the Strykers was born when the Russians took the strategic Pristina airport ahead of the U.S. when Serbia threw in the towel. The Russians put together a fast moving force consisting of BTR-50/60 wheeled APC's and got there far ahead of U.S. forces. Although many attribute this failing to the ineptitude of Wes Clarke, the idea was planted that we needed a 'Medium' force that could deploy quickly.

Under this 'medium' force concept, the Strykers don't need to be heavily armored, as their 'digital' capabilites will allow them to find, maneuver and engage the enemy before they know they are there. The SBCT Brigades have little 'tail', being designed to go into combat quickly. At Lewis, vehicle maintenence was performed by contractors, and they have very little heavy trucks. They only carry enough log to fight 48-96 hours, after which it is expected that they would be relieved by a 'heavy' unit. Of course, that is not how they are being used in Iraq. When I was in country with 3/2 (1SBCT), they had been augmented with a whole CSB+, plus a Cav Bn from 10th Mtn. I haven't been out with 1/25, but I have heard that they have been similarly reinforced.

Shinseki's (and perhaps Rumsfelds cabal) vision was that the Strykers were the future of the Army. While I think the Stryker itself has a role, I think that it is safe to say that the 'heavy force' is safe for the forseeable future.