ARMORED WARFARE: Stryker In Danger of Being Stricken

Strategypage.com ^ | April 17, 2003

[John Jorsett]

The U.S. Army's bold program to equip several "medium" (or IBCT) brigades with wheeled, light armored vehicles (the Stryker family of LAVs) is faltering. The LAV's kept growing in size to the point where most models have to be partially disassembled to get into a C-130 tactical transport (a primary requirement.) The tracked M-113, a half century old armored carrier still in wide use, was supposed to be left in the dust of the Stryker. This is not happening. New models of the M-113 keep appears, many of them more mobile, reliable and better protected than the Stryker. Perhaps the worst thing that happened to the Stryker of late is the Iraq war, where it was seen how important protection from RPGs is. To add that extra measure of protection to the Stryker (as it was earlier to the M-2 Bradley) would make the Stryker too heavy for the C-130. For these reasons, the IBCT effort is apparently going to be restricted to 3-4 brigades. The Stryker community is looking anxiously at new developments in add on armor. The stuff, sometimes in the form of a thick fabric, is getting lighter and more effective.

[John Jorsett]

From what I've read, the Stryker is one ill-conceived 'improvement' on the 113. If what's said is true, it deserves to be deep-sixed.

[dirtboy]

The LAV's kept growing in size to the point where most models have to be partially disassembled to get into a C-130 tactical transport

Here's the latest model:

[ErnBatavia]

This Stryker will never be stricken!

[John H K]

Coke.spew.monitor

My sense of humor is a bit odd but this is one of the funniest FR posts I've seen in a long time.

[skeeter]

Damn that was fast.

Where do you guys get these images?

[Fred Mertz]

LOL

[Hacksaw]

American Spectator has a good story on this. Basically, it is no better (and in many cases worse) than the tread vehicle it is supposed to replace.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Uurah :)

[eeman]

If I recall the plot from Star Wars (now labeled) episode III, Obi Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker discovered that the the version of the stryker you displayed did not stand up to well against the RPG's of the Empire's star troopers

[colorado tanker]

ROTFLOL!!!

Stryker was a bad idea from the beginning. You don't even need an RPG to kill a Stryker - a heavy MG will do. It doesn't fit in a C-130. There aren't enough C-130's available to start moving whole brigades, so the Strykers will go by ship just like M-1's - so much for "mobility." Wheeled vehicles can be blocked by terrain or conditions that don't slow tracked vehicles down.

Stryker was conceived by a Clintonized DOD who thought we'd fought our last war for decades and that Kosovo and Bosnia type conflicts were the future.

Good riddence to bad rubbish.

[AngryJawa]

Trust me, you don't want the Army tooling around in a Jawa sandcrawler. You think I took this nickname for nuthin'?

IMHO, it's too vulnerable to stormtrooper blaster fire. Slow too.

[ffusco]

Hahaha!

[ErnBatavia]

Damn that was fast. Where do you guys get these images?

In my case, I just happened to sit down for a few minutes of Freeping, and saw what I honestly thought was going to be a Sgt. Stryker thread!

(Google - image or AltaVista - image are my tools of choice)

[American Soldier]

My answer is buy more ships, and have heavy units close to ports so you don't waste time with railway loading procedures. Take all the M-1 Abrams you want...they make better scout vehicles than Bradleys, and I'd feel safer riding on top of one of them and inside of a Stryker (as long as there was no reactive armor or anything on it).

[wideminded]

Ha ha ha ha ha

Saw quite a few Strykers going down the highway the other day. They looked a lot better than that, but one obvious question is how well the tires stand up in combat. The unfortunate answer is that they don't even do that well in rough terrain. It must be a real drag for the guys that have to change them, not to mention a logistical problem.

[hchutch]

The answer of course, was virtually off-the-shelf:

The M8 Buford light tank cancelled to pay for Bosnia and the LAV-25 used by the USMC.

But did anyone think of such a thing?

[Poohbah]

Of course not.

[colorado tanker]

"If I can't teach you one way, I'll teach you the other, but I'll get the job done."

[colorado tanker]

I agree. Build the equipment to fit the mission and build the lift to fit the equipment, not vice versa. We don't have enough lift, period; building a cracker box won't change that.