Posted on 05/14/2007 4:46:59 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
BAGHDAD — A string of heavy losses from powerful roadside bombs has raised new questions about the vulnerability of the Stryker, the Army's troop-carrying vehicle hailed by supporters as the key to a leaner, more mobile force.
Since the Strykers went into action in violent Diyala province north of Baghdad two months ago, losses of the vehicles have been rising steadily, U.S. officials said.
A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month in less than a week, according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost recently is classified.
In one of the biggest hits, six American soldiers and a journalist were killed when a huge bomb exploded beneath their Stryker on May 6. It was the biggest one-day loss for the battalion in more than two years.
(Excerpt) Read more at spokesmanreview.com ...
It’s physically impossible to build an invulnerable vehicle that can also do thinks, like, actually move.
Media seems to have a weird problem understanding the whole idea that all armored vehicles (including tanks of all kinds) have always had enormous losses, withe pretty much the sole exception of the M1 in Gulf War I.
The authors and the leaker ought to be in irons for this.
(I can dream, can't I?)
Just more template bad news from AP.
Why? You think the terrorists don't know how many Strykers they hit?
The only people these restrictions are keeping information from are the American taxpayers
There is a great deal of OPSEC-related information that is kept from the American taxpayers. Whether *you* agree with the decision to classify that data or not, it is nonetheless classified and must be protected. It's the law. Sadly, those laws are becoming more like the speed limit - to be followed or ignored on a whim.
Build a bigger, better, and more armored vehicle, and Harry Reid’s heroes will build bigger and better bombs.
Action and reaction.
I’ve always believed the Stryker became bloated and overweight because of “mission creep” in it’s design, but troops patrolling in and fighting from these vehicles have reported overwhelmingly positive results.
1. Superior up-time. Wheeled vehicles don’t take as much maintenance or incur down-time like their tracked counterparts. And they’re much easier to fix when they do go down.
2. Superior mobility. Strkyer can move quicker and quieter than tracked vehicles. I spent most of my military career with tracked vehicles and the Stryker does have an edge here.
3. Survivability. There are cases where Stryker’s have taken serious hits from IEDs and have been ROLLED BACK OVER to drive away. When you wire two or three 155mm shells together, no vehicle is going to survive without injury. Even the mighty Abrams has fallen to a few roadside blasts of high-order.
While the concept and implementation can be improved, the Stryker seems to be a very popular vehicle that is well-supported by the troops that use them.
The Stryker program originally was to make a vehicle that could be carried by ONE C-130. The current version takes 2 C-130’s to move it. Wheeled does have it’s advantages. M-1’s have had over 100 damaged so badly they had to be returned to the factory for repair. The South Africans have a beast(name escapes me at the moment) that has seen some action in Iraq. it does very well against IED’s and is light enough to be carried by a C-130.In the end a Stryker is better than an up armored Hummer but still not a silver bullet.
I swear, AP doesn't even use editors anymore.
Like ripples on a pond, the words of Pelosi and Reid are having their effect. Wouldn’t it have been lovely that rather than surrender, Pelosi and Reid had said “America will win this war”.
Don’t worry, Pelosi and Reid would have released the info about the Stryker if AP hadn’t.
Very true. SO has the magnificnt Merkava.
I have reservations about the Strykers, but don't think we have enough data yet - like you I've heard good and bad. I suspect they'll prove themselves valuable, just not as the cure-all magic fit-for-all-purposes vehicle some people astoundingly thought they would be. War, like any other human activity, requires a selection of different tools for different purposes. The Stryker is likely to be one of them.
Having been to Iraq with a Stryker Brigade I won’t get into OPSEC details, but it holds up better than the up-armored HMMMVs and even better than Bradleys. So it is survivable. The insurgents regretably deserve some credit here.
“Why? You think the terrorists don’t know how many Strykers they hit?
The only people these restrictions are keeping information from are the American taxpayers”
The Taxpayers don’t have a Need to know. Neither do the jihadi’s have a need to have their intelligence verified.
It’s called OPSEC for a reason.
Here’s another editor gaff:
“The Army introduced the $11 billion, eight-wheeled Stryker in 1999 as the cornerstone of a ground force of the future”
Damn, those things are expensive.
Worth their weight in gold. /s
“according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information.”
American soldiers releasing information they shouldn’t. That’s comforting.
Question: What are the Marine Corps losses with the LAV-25’s?
I’d say it might be a case of the failure of tactical doctrine instead of vehicle failure to perform the mission it was built for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.