Army's Stryker vehicle a "strykeout"

combatreform.com ^ | 9 OCT 202 | Don Loughlin

[x1stcav]

Now called the 'Stryker' ICV (Infantry Carrier Vehicle), named after two deceased American soldier-heroes.

And all this time I thought it was named after the John Wayne character in Sands of Iwo Jima.

[Norse]

http://www.pirania-kto.pl/html/prasa/stryker06.jpg

[John Jorsett]

How dare they name a vehicle after him after what happened over Macho Grande.

[Saturnalia]

I am most impressed that the formatting was not screwed.

[LS]

This is getting old. Every time ANY service tries to implement a new weapons program you get a host of naysayers complaining that a) it doesn't work; b) it's too expensive and c) it isn't compatible.

I heard the exact same arguments about the BRADLEY that the Stryker is supposedly going to replace!! Similar complaints were launched about the Abrams when it first came out; and the M-16.

Every new system has a whole range of glitches. For years, we allowed the Soviets to get ahead of us in several areas because they would deploy a weapon with a glitch while they FIXED it, so that when it was fixed, the entire force was easily upgraded; while we procrastinate and wait until something is "perfect."

Now, there may be good reasons not to have this, but just because a Clinton-era general started it isn't one of 'em.

[Celtic Conservative]

Over macho Grande?, No, I'll never be over macho grande!

Slainte,

CC

[Cribb]

Stryker

[FreedomPoster]

Are you here? Or there?

In any case, you need to see this thread. I think you'll strongly agree with the premise. Hope you and the Missus are well.

[strela]

Sure could use an executive summary of all that information ...

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Jesus! Who needs an AFV? We could defeat the enemy simply by dropping all the paper generated in the Pentagon on them! Talk about too high of a head-to-tail ratio...

[FreedomPoster]

>>Now, there may be good reasons not to have this, but just because a Clinton-era general started it isn't one of 'em

Agreed.

I'm no expert, but the issues I see are:

Wheels have poor off-road mobility.

The vehicle is vulnerable to 12.7mm HMG fire. It ain't no Bradley in this respect.

It won't fit on a C-130, as advertized.

Heavy armor that can take an RPG hit is A Good Thing. Air-mobile armor is highly overrated; armor almost never gets moved by air. And M113-based designs are tracked and much cheaper than Stryker, and have similar functionality, if you really need air mobility.

[CatoRenasci]

I spent time as an artillery officer and spent two years with light (26ton M-26) and medium (M-48) tanks in armor branch-specific ROTC at VMI in the '60s-- I wouldn't go to war with a wheeled armored vehicle weighting more that about 10 tons, they're simply not as capable. I worked with both tracked and wheeled artillery, and with light and medium tanks. Also older armored cars. No contest.

[Khurkris]

Ain't FOIA a wonderful thing. Keep banging their cages. Troops on the ground need the help.

[tet68]

My question would be what is Israel using?
Are they using LAVs?

[Lion Den Dan]

I am here. The mission to there is scrubbed.

The rain we had last week put a halt to the ongoing Stryker side by side testing. Too muddy. Go figure.

[spokeshave]

They should strike the Stryker and go to the light weight ceramic armoured tracked vehicle developed in UK

[Tailback]

The Stryker does absolutely nothing better than the M-113A3 except drive down paved roads. The Stryker vehicle is not as easily deployed on ANY cargo vehicle as either the M113A3 or the M-8 AGS. The Stryker vehicle is much more expensive than upgrading the M-113 family to either M-113A3 or MTVL status. The Stryker has a higher silhouette and is longer while at the same time having less room internally than an M-113. Stryker is junk IMHO.

[green team 1999]

i have seen pictures on the news of merkava tanks and M-113`s

[Tailback]

cargo vehicle=cargo plane

oops