The Strykers have generally gotten good reviews from the troops that are using them from what I recall reading about them.
One big advantage that the Strykers have is that they are “relatively” quiet when compared to the Bradleys and Abrams tracked vehicle.
And it was the Israelis who have lost a couple of there Merkava tanks to IEDs that where in the hundreds of pound range as I recall.
Thanks for the ping-a-roo Snippy:-)
Regards
alfa6 ;>}
Pretty good article, it correctly points out that no armored vehicle can survive the detonation of a 1,500 lb IED, and that includes a M-1 tank.
What is missing from the story is probably fairly well understood inside the classified IED forensics world. The vast majority of the KIA’s in the 5th Stryker Bde come from one battalion, and most of those from one company. Is that company just operating in a bad neighborhood, or is that company making some tactical decisions that others have not. I don’t know, but I bet that the battalion and brigade commanders have a pretty good idea, and I bet that the TTP are being looked at closely.
This is the first time we’ve used Strykers in Afghanistan and we are employing them at the same time the enemy is rapidly upramping their use of IED’s. I’ve noticed that most of these IED attacks appear to be command wire detonated. Our counter IED methods in Iraq focused on wireless detonation because that was the threat. Command wire means that jammers and IR detectors don’t work.
BTW, I just finished reading extracts from the operations logs of the 1st Bn, 5th Infantry (Mech) during 1966-70 in the 25th Inf Divs AO in III Corps Area, Vietnam Available online at the 5th Inf Regt Assoc website). Their experience with mines and RPGs sounds very much like what units faced in Iraq and are now facing in Afghanistan. Some things don’t change, except that the Stryker appears to be holding up much better than the M-113 (are you out there Sparky?)
