Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study finds new Army vehicle too vulnerable.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | 26Aug03 | By Rowan Scarborough

Posted on 08/26/2003 6:13:43 AM PDT by .cnI redruM

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:07:10 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

The Army's new state-of-the art infantry vehicle slated to make its combat debut in Iraq in October is vulnerable to the kind of rocket-propelled grenades now being used by Saddam Hussein's guerrillas, a consultant's report charges.

The Army, which rebuts the report's findings, plans to send 300 Stryker armored vehicles and 3,600 soldiers to Iraq. This first Stryker brigade will help put down the resistance that has killed more 60 American troopers since May 1. It will also be a preview of a lighter, more mobile Army for the 21st century.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2id; 3rdbde; army; bang; btr80; kliverturret; miltech; sbct; stryker; transformation; wheeledarmor; wheelies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-277 next last
To: Gunrunner2
Hey, I didn't say it would be a good deal for you...just the best I can do at the moment!

On second thought, my son just went off to college with my car...and the wife always has the other one!
201 posted on 08/27/2003 5:17:54 PM PDT by Proud Legions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA; Squantos
The current 113 APC is basically just "cover", it doesn't stop anything above a 7.62 AP. Bradley is a little better but not much. They were just meant to hall more bodies around and throw more ammo down range, not really as better protection.
202 posted on 08/27/2003 5:18:43 PM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Proud Legions
Know what you mean. . mine went off to university last year and took a vehicle as well. . .moms mini-van.

Ha. . imagine being a college-age boy going to school and driving your mom's mini-van. . .at least the local cops don't give him a second look, and the insurance rates are great.

Of course, mom got new Toyota Highlander. . .to make up for the missing car. . .got a little kitten to make up for the empty nest thing. Worked too.
203 posted on 08/27/2003 5:21:35 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Proud Legions
No, if I painted you as a Shinseki bot, I'd tell you outright.
I'm only stating my experiences and extent of knowledge.
Does that clarify my position any?
Feel free to ask questions.

"takemore time to design our next vehicle so we get it right."
AMEN!
204 posted on 08/27/2003 5:27:39 PM PDT by Darksheare ("I sense something dark." No you don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: archy
OUCH!
205 posted on 08/27/2003 5:34:47 PM PDT by Darksheare ("I sense something dark." No you don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Proud Legions
Where do we go from here?

Air-Mech Strike to deploy the speed bumps.

Theater Support Vessels to bring the cavalry to the rescue.

How 'bout an Armored Expeditionary Force of reinforced Armored Cavalry Regiment size home stationed in Western Australia (NTC West with kangaroos, call it Camp Kidman) with dedicated Fast Sealift Ships in Perth?

206 posted on 08/27/2003 5:53:17 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 ("Leave the Artillerymen alone, they are an obstinate lot. . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

Comment #207 Removed by Moderator

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA
I don't know about anyone else, but I would not want to take an RPG broadside in a 113. 13 guys in a 113? Maybe for a very short distance, you're not going to live like that though. Make it an ITV by putting a dual TOW launcher on it (below) and you cut your crew down to 4 (driver, gunner, loader and TC). No 20 mm or even a .50 cal either, just a 60 for a turret gun.
208 posted on 08/28/2003 5:03:29 AM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Proud Legions
Again, I ask you guys, what is the purpose of a C-130? I thought it was to carry required payloads for combat forces. But now it turns out it can't do that except with very light forces.

So the AF came up with a C-17. But wait, it has trouble landing at most of the airstrips the ground forces need to go to, so it too can not handle the required mission.

Well, no. It's time and combat proven and tested, and pretty much a known quantity, though there are always idiots who will try to stretch it's capabilities way beyond those known limits. As an aircraft for airdropping circa 95 paratroopers it's superb; it has no particular problems associated with shortfield lansdings of supplies or LAPES deliveries onto unimproved airfields, and can get to them following repeat aerial refueling as required, a feature devoleped in later models not to be found on the original A and B models. But if a C-130 can take off with the load stuffed aboard, it can land with it, or get it delivered another way [though not a Stryker, which, like the Bradley, can't be airdropped]

Hmmm...and somehow you then say the Army guys are stupid and are developing the wrong equipment. What is wrong with this picture?

Well, you'd think they might have wanted a vehicle that's amphibious, so they don't have to come to a halt when they come to a river, since like the HUMVEE [and unlike the M113A3], the Stryker can't swim. And it's too heavy to be airlifted across rivers via CH47 $h!thook helo, the most common army cargo helo. Likewise the army screwed the pooch with the HUMVEE's inability to be carried inside a CH47, the reason the Army Ranger battalions are equipped with British-built Land Rovers.

Not that I am against the AF...I actually think they are a great service. But again, if neither the C130 nor the C-17 (nor the C-5) can handle the required missions for this nation in the coming decades, does anyone else see a problem with the logic being expoused here. Is the only solution to go with even lighter armored vehicles? Most on this thread have already stated emphatically they think the Stryker is too light to start with. Where do we go from here? Again, no insults on my part intended, evryone is bringing up great arguments; I am just expressing some of the frustration those of us working around the program have felt.

Again, it's not *just* the aircraft load requirement limitations, though they certainly play a part, though one supposed reason for the cancellation of the Army's proposed Crusader artillery system was the fact that only two could be moved aboard a C-17...the same number of Strykers that could be carried aboard one. Neither can the fault be said to lie solely with the USAF or their aircraft suppliers when the army's rotary wing aircraft often exhibit similar inadequacies and shortfalls.

But maybe if we're going to redisign our army to be transported primarily aboard Air Force *trash hauler* aircraft, some thought out to at least be given to coordinating the design of future Army AND Air Force equipment for compatability, even in the design stages.

I think the whole concept of the Stryker as an intirm wheelie for the air-delivered force is flawed; if they really wanted something that could be reasonably delivered via C130, they should have started with a six-wheel M35A2 truck chassis, start adding armor plate to protect the most vulnerable components and passengers, and we might have come up with an air-transportable vehicle that could carry 9 dismounts, [3 on either side facing outwards, plus one in the ashtray] would fit in the Hercules, and could swim. It probably wouldn't be .50 cal or 14.5mm gunfire resistant, no more than a Stryker or HUMVEE is, but the fromt armor could have been, and there are ways to defeat incoming RPG-7 shaped charges too; I used them in 1969 and '70 and they worked then. Give a half-dozen ordnance and Special Forces NCOs the requirement, materials and a reasonably well-equipped maintenance shop, and you'd have a more usable vehicle than the Stryker within a month.

It wouldn't be a *replacement* for the tank or even for the old tracked M113, and either an antitank weapon or mine could kill it as easily as they can a tank- you CAN'T get past that vulnerability factor, so you HAVE to develop operational tactics that minimize that very real vulnerability. But it might have been a lifesaver for the Rangers in Somalia who died aboard unarmored trucks and HUMVEEs [Stryker wouldn't have sufficed- the ambulance version only carries 2 nonwalking patients, same as the circa-1965 jeep-based FLA F/ront L/ine A/mbulance.]

But the point of the exercise hasn't been to develop and operate the most mission-capable vehicle for the Army; it's the opportunity for Shinseki's retired deputy to siphon off as mich of the 3 million dollars each of the development and procurement costs of the Stryker into his retirement fund and to create a few more such cozy positions for other soon-to-be-retired Friends of Eric who now get a reward for their Monica-like services during the Clinton years.

-archy-/-

209 posted on 08/28/2003 9:10:36 AM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Proud Legions
Again, I ask you guys, what is the purpose of a C-130? I thought it was to carry required payloads for combat forces. But now it turns out it can't do that except with very light forces.

So the AF came up with a C-17. But wait, it has trouble landing at most of the airstrips the ground forces need to go to, so it too can not handle the required mission.

Well, no. It's time and combat proven and tested, and pretty much a known quantity, though there are always idiots who will try to stretch it's capabilities way beyond those known limits. As an aircraft for airdropping circa 95 paratroopers it's superb; it has no particular problems associated with shortfield lansdings of supplies or LAPES deliveries onto unimproved airfields, and can get to them following repeat aerial refueling as required, a feature devoleped in later models not to be found on the original A and B models. But if a C-130 can take off with the load stuffed aboard, it can land with it, or get it delivered another way [though not a Stryker, which, like the Bradley, can't be airdropped]

Hmmm...and somehow you then say the Army guys are stupid and are developing the wrong equipment. What is wrong with this picture?

Well, you'd think they might have wanted a vehicle that's amphibious, so they don't have to come to a halt when they come to a river, since like the HUMVEE [and unlike the M113A3], the Stryker can't swim. And it's too heavy to be airlifted across rivers via CH47 $h!thook helo, the most common army cargo helo. Likewise the army screwed the pooch with the HUMVEE's inability to be carried inside a CH47, the reason the Army Ranger battalions are equipped with British-built Land Rovers.

Not that I am against the AF...I actually think they are a great service. But again, if neither the C130 nor the C-17 (nor the C-5) can handle the required missions for this nation in the coming decades, does anyone else see a problem with the logic being expoused here. Is the only solution to go with even lighter armored vehicles? Most on this thread have already stated emphatically they think the Stryker is too light to start with. Where do we go from here? Again, no insults on my part intended, evryone is bringing up great arguments; I am just expressing some of the frustration those of us working around the program have felt.

Again, it's not *just* the aircraft load requirement limitations, though they certainly play a part, though one supposed reason for the cancellation of the Army's proposed Crusader artillery system was the fact that only two could be moved aboard a C-17...the same number of Strykers that could be carried aboard one. Neither can the fault be said to lie solely with the USAF or their aircraft suppliers when the army's rotary wing aircraft often exhibit similar inadequacies and shortfalls.

But maybe if we're going to redisign our army to be transported primarily aboard Air Force *trash hauler* aircraft, some thought out to at least be given to coordinating the design of future Army AND Air Force equipment for compatability, even in the design stages.

I think the whole concept of the Stryker as an intirm wheelie for the air-delivered force is flawed; if they really wanted something that could be reasonably delivered via C130, they should have started with a six-wheel M35A2 truck chassis, start adding armor plate to protect the most vulnerable components and passengers, and we might have come up with an air-transportable vehicle that could carry 9 dismounts, [3 on either side facing outwards, plus one in the ashtray] would fit in the Hercules, and could swim. It probably wouldn't be .50 cal or 14.5mm gunfire resistant, no more than a Stryker or HUMVEE is, but the fromt armor could have been, and there are ways to defeat incoming RPG-7 shaped charges too; I used them in 1969 and '70 and they worked then. Give a half-dozen ordnance and Special Forces NCOs the requirement, materials and a reasonably well-equipped maintenance shop, and you'd have a more usable vehicle than the Stryker within a month.

It wouldn't be a *replacement* for the tank or even for the old tracked M113, and either an antitank weapon or mine could kill it as easily as they can a tank- you CAN'T get past that vulnerability factor, so you HAVE to develop operational tactics that minimize that very real vulnerability. But it might have been a lifesaver for the Rangers in Somalia who died aboard unarmored trucks and HUMVEEs [Stryker wouldn't have sufficed- the ambulance version only carries 2 nonwalking patients, same as the circa-1965 jeep-based FLA F/ront L/ine A/mbulance.]

But the point of the exercise hasn't been to develop and operate the most mission-capable vehicle for the Army; it's the opportunity for Shinseki's retired deputy to siphon off as mich of the 3 million dollars each of the development and procurement costs of the Stryker into his retirement fund and to create a few more such cozy positions for other soon-to-be-retired Friends of Eric who now get a reward for their Monica-like services during the Clinton years.

-archy-/-

210 posted on 08/28/2003 9:11:17 AM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
OUCH!

Check out this interesting M113 variant, and give me your opinion from the redleg's point of view. And there was an earlier version that used that British 105 light gun, as per the Brit's Abbott 105 SP gun.

Air transportable and amphibious, with a seven-man crew. Too practical. Instead we field a heavier 8-wheel armoured car with a 120mm mortar that can't be fired from inside the vehicle, but has to be set up outside, then broken down [or abandoned in place, if in a real hurry, like when it starts raining counterbattery fire] before relocating to a new position. Brilliant.

-archy-/-

211 posted on 08/28/2003 9:20:00 AM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Proud Legions
For instance, if the optimum vehicle that will outfit the entire Army from 2010 to 2050 should be 22 tons, is there no way the AF can start coming up with improvements in its C-130s so they can handle that much weight, given the fact they would have 7 years to do so? I understand budgets and POMs, etc, but again it seems the entire DoD needs to transform their thinking.

When recently asked by a congressional aide who was buying my dinner if I saw no potential use for the Stryker, I helpfully suggested they might be given to the Air Force for airfield defense, or could be used by concentration camp guards presumably operating against *internees* without access to RPG-7s.

A usable mortar fire support version can probably be developed, though it may have to use an 81 or 82mm or even a 60mm rather than the 120, but it's at least a possibility. And a twin-gun or combination 20mm Gatling and multiple Stinger AA missile launcher is certainly very possible; there's already a HUMMVEE version of just that.

But when further armtwisted as to a possible eventual role for the leftover 2000 *intirm* vehicles after something better hopefully comes along, I suggested that only if a secret development of a Star Treck-style materiel transporter with a mass/weight limitation of around 25 tons is under development does the Stryker make any sense. The problems associated with Stryker's air transport are as much a matter of size as weight, and until new aircraft come along, it's not particularly compastable with what we have.

-archy-/-

212 posted on 08/28/2003 9:34:34 AM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom
I'd rather be in a Stryker instead of a Hummer ANY day of the week.

Not if a bridge underneath me gives way that day.

-archy-/-

213 posted on 08/28/2003 9:35:40 AM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
Back to the Stryker:

External fuel tanks by rear exit door.
Bad idea, the Russians learned from it in Afghanistan.

Also fitted with sidesaddle tanks now, inside the wheel well, between the third and rear non-steering tires. The good news is they're not in the crew compartment in the event of rupture and fuel fire; the bad news is they're 7.62mm vulnerable and either a RPG or 40mm M203 HEDP or Russian GP30 round can rupture and ignite them, burning the tires off that side for a mobility kill. Neither are the racks for four 5-gallon plastic jerrycans of additional fuel on either side a great help in this regard.

So long as our potential enemies are sporting gentlemen who wouldn't shoot at a sitting duck target, no problem for the crew.

Was supposed to be C-130 transportable, but isn't.
It truly IS overweight for that task.
Just like the Crusader ended up overweight.
Isn't even truly 'finished' considering they have to add on armor to give it even moderate protection.


*Remote .50 M2 gun system has to be reloaded from outside, not under armor. Last actual firing test ended when gun wouldn't operate beyond 45 rounds.

*120mm mortar version won't permit use of gun tube from within vehicle; has to be set up outside, as per truck-mounted *motorized infantry* mortar crews in 3/4-tom weapons carriers of WWII- even the White Half-track mortar carrier with 4.2 inch mortar and ammo supply aboard was an improvement.

*Not amphibious like a M113.

*½-inch side armor, said to be 14.5mm MG resistant, has been penetrated by 7.62 Russian PK MG fire and 7.62mm NATO in tests. 7.62x39 M43 from SovBloc RPK SAWs with 24 inch barrel will perobably manage to penetrate Stryker side and top armor as well. And it's brittle enough that it develops cracks, particularly bad news if ever faced with fire from weapons using British HESH or US-type HEP ammunition, or improvised equivalents.

214 posted on 08/28/2003 9:52:48 AM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
This is absolutely mind boggling. With full knowledge that 90% of the 3rd world shitholes in the world are inundated with RPG's, some idiot in Washington never SEES the need before production, to protect these vehicles from that kind of attack??

Somone needs to have their job ripped from them.

This is only slightly worse than a Tank the Germans made in WWII. The name escapes me, but the vehicle came with no secondary arms, only the main gun. The germans who had to use it found they were much more vulnerable to infantry than they had been in any other tank they drove.

Unbelievable.
215 posted on 08/28/2003 10:02:14 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (If you continue to do what you've always done, you will continue to get what you've always got.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom
lol I've always looked at reactive armor as having the same effect as wrapping strings of M80's around a trash can and then getting inside, closing the lid and having someone light them off one at a time.

Major headache.
216 posted on 08/28/2003 10:04:37 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (If you continue to do what you've always done, you will continue to get what you've always got.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
I am not aware of any effort to reinforce Bataan with armor in 1942. My understanding of the history was that the decision was made early on not to reinforce Bataan but to organize a defence of Australia. I believe that decision was made when Eisenhower was in war plans.
217 posted on 08/28/2003 11:09:35 AM PDT by colorado tanker (Iron Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Your understanding of history was superior to mine. MacArthur did not ask for any more tanks.

After some hours of thought, Eisenhower returned to the Chief of Staff with his answer. He admitted that there was little chance that the garrison in the Philippines could hold out for long, but declared that everything possible should be done to support it. The risks and the money involved should not deter the United States from making a determined effort to help the Philippine Commonwealth. The trust and friendship of the people of Asia were important to the United States; failure might be excused, but never abandonment. To aid General MacArthur, Eisenhower believed, it would be necessary to convert Australia into a military base from which supplies might be ferried northward to the Philippines.

218 posted on 08/28/2003 1:43:13 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 ("Leave the Artillerymen alone, they are an obstinate lot. . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"In 2020? EVERYBODY. Moore's Law works for everyone, not just the US of A."

Oh PUH-lease. By that time, the "Maurauder Fighting Suit" of Starship Troopers might be a reality and tracked armored warfare but a memory and the stuff of museums. I care about the here and now...maybe the "here and a couple of years out;" but not seventeen years.

219 posted on 08/28/2003 2:32:58 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Oderint dum metuant: "Let them hate so long as they fear")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
Oh PUH-lease. By that time, the "Maurauder Fighting Suit" of Starship Troopers might be a reality and tracked armored warfare but a memory and the stuff of museums. I care about the here and now...maybe the "here and a couple of years out;" but not seventeen years.

That's about one acquisition cycle. You'd BETTER care about it now, or we'll still be driving M1A2s in 2020.

220 posted on 08/28/2003 2:33:56 PM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-277 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson