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 ...
I have to admit I had some inside scoop on this particular episode of military history. I visited the Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kansas a year ago, where there is an extensive treatment of his World War II experience. Ike's work on the Phillipines problem is discussed and one of his original memos is displayed.
If you enjoy military history you might get on SAMWolf's ping list for the FReeper Foxhole, where there's a new military history post each day with interesting threads to go with them. Like most stuff around FR it can be addictive.
In a previous thread, Pioneering Army Unit to Debut in Iraq the similar profiles of the Stryker, BTR-60 and BTR-80 were noted. Most of the potential adversary states American troops might confront use Soviet and Russian BTR-series vehicles. Friendly fire is a big problem in our Army. Our television networks never fail to show angry widows and mothers tearfully demanding heads to roll every time such a tragedy occurs.
It would be interesting to compare the dimensions, weights, mobility, protection, and firepower of the BTR-90 and the Stryker, but it would be a purely academic exercise. None of our generals want to become vice presidents of Russian arms manufacturing companies when they retire.
Oh man, I don't even want to think about that.
Please stay with me on my next comments, they are not quite as insulting to you as they may at first seem...they are serious questions. Firstoff: No, I do not view your observations as insulting or any sort of attack either on me or on my perceptions of the Stryker, just a very reasonable disagreement, with both our opinions based on wanting the most versatile and survivable vehicle available for our troops, even if only for use in a *intirim* temporary period until something better can be fielded. No problem there.
I am confused by all your comments about the capabilities and "test results" of the Stryker. You have mentioned quite a number of failed tests on this thread that I have not seen or heard of, and I worked side-by-side the testing community and the fielding guys.
***But I will also be the first to admit my job had little to do with the actual vehicle.***
I worked the "How to Fight the Brigade" piece--the organization, operations, missions, tasks. One of the reasons they grabbed me was I was one of the few former tank battalion commanders with lots of cav experience and lots of experience with using armored vehicles in MOUT/urban operations. I was not the Stryker vehicle expert...other folks did that, and that is why I say I am not emotionally tied to this vehicle one way or the other.
Just so. There's experience, if not a world of it, with previous mogas-engined vehicles, from the US M8/M20 Greyhound and GMC Staghounds of WWII to the Cadillac Gage V100 and V150 convoy escort vehicles of Vietnam, as well as numerous ¼-ton and ¾-ton truck-based armored improvisations. And the capabilities and employment by allied and potential enemy forces is out there as well, it is NOT a matter of starting from a blank slate.
I've crewed in wheelies with varying results, both as an enlisted gunner aboard an MP V100 [once tagged by a B40/RPG2 round in one, BTW] and having dealt with wheelies in Rhodesia and Israel. And if my offer for a firsthand press visit to Chechnya are approved, I'll let you know what I think of the ones in use there and how they're used.
I was at Fort Lewis working with the Brigades, not at Monroe or DC or somewhere far away from the actual soldiers. None of that means you are wrong...just some of your comments do not match what I saw or what the soldiers in the Brigades told me, nor what my next door neighbor (one of the AF pilots involved) often told me. Does not mean they were all sold on the vehicle, just their comments were not nearly as damning to the vehicle as yours.
You have painted a picture to everyone of a disaster of a vehicle with no redeeming qaulities. Yet I saw it load up and fly more than 200 miles numerous times, and in near combat configuration. It was tight, but not nearly as tight a fit as some have remarked on this thread (1/4" clearance???).
Depends on whether or not any of the applique armor was in place, or, as interesting, the pressboard simulated add-on armor used in some of the troop trials of the Stryker- getting even 1/4 inch armor plate of a high hardness (500 Brinnel) to gave it ballistic protection against small arms fire up to .30 caliber at point blank range was at one point the goal with optional 3/8 inch thick armor on the front and sides to give protection from small arms fire up to .50 caliber at point blank range. The vehicle's supposed ability to shed 14.5mm fire like water off a duck's back is much more questionable, but easy enough to determine: I have access to a 14.5 and ammunition, and would be glad to do my best to shoot one up like a tin can if given the opportunity to do so. There's little doubt about what happens when a serious antitank weapon hits one, however, even if not capable of a kill against a fully-armored M1A1 tank. But there's no doubt's of the ability of a C130 to transport M113s.
My local Air National Guard unit is one slated to transition from C141B's to the C17 shortly, so the guys are quite interested in what their pals at Little Rock and Pope are doing with their C130s and the usual loads they get...and these guys pay attention to their loadmasters.> There were definately concerns about weight, but those centered around high attitude runways in very high heat and in high winds, etc. Not that those are not possible conditions, but they were also clearly worse case.
My understanding is that the armor has to be removed before the USAF will fly a Stryker in a C130, all fuel and armament has to be removed from the vehicle, and only 4 crewmen can fly along with it; that provides the ability for the C130 to take off and land with the Stryker load assuming in-flight refueling capability is not available [Air Guard C130 B models, I expect] over a distance of circa 200 air miles.
It seemed to do one heck of a job on a number of training events. You referring to the NTC tests, or to the *Minimal Challenge* [Millenimum Challenge '02 exercise*] where there were no MILES sensors on the wheels or external fuel tanks, and the troops covered the sensors topside with rucksacks? And even so, 14 or so of their vehicles were *killed* with mechanical breakdowns taking others out. And that's withiout shrapnel laying around to chew up their tires, as happened to Marine LAVs in Iraq.
I checked out its armor, and it sure seemed a lot better than the M113s I started in.
The M113 is of aluminum, of course [ever run across an XM117? Steel armor, as per the earlier M59s, which had their share of problems too. And the M59 wouldn't stop a .30 round from a tank's M37 co-ax, as I got to eat one up with tracers during an M48 familiarization an firepower demonstration for West Point cadets who'd chosen Armor as their branch. If tracers will knock holes through armor, you're invited to figure out what AP rounds will do. But the Marines played with some interesting composite armor for the M113 at one point, and that could provide some iteresting discussions.
Note that the numerous forces using M113 versions with KFOR have found ways to both provide RPG standoff and enhanced mine protection for the crews. That's less possible with wheeled vehicles, but there are some possibilities. And there are also cheap and easy ways of improving RPG ammo; I understand the launchers themselves have a production cost of around $35.00 each.
I did not check out the measurements but it seemed to have more room per soldier than my Bradleys did (but I could be wrong with this comment), the ride was much better (soldiers were not getting beat to death even on rides of many hours), etc.
With a 9-person squad inside, plus crew? My uderstanding was that in MOPP4, there's barely enough room inside a Stryker for the dismounts to even get to their canteens to hydrate themselves. Note the amount of gear carried on the Stryker in the nighttime/overturned pic in my post #182 *here* there's no room for it inside. Indeed, the failure of one Stryker's armor configured for combat engineer support occurred when an engineer demo charge carried externally was detonated and the blast shattered the armor plate, brittle as well as hard. And, of course the medic-configured version only carries 2 litter patients, same as the circa 1965 wheeled M170 Field Light Ambulances in the tank battalions of the 1960s...replaced with M113A1 ambulances that carried four patients and three crewmen okay, two medica and a driver.
The maintenance seemed to be holding up well for a vehicle in early production. I did worry about the weapon system, but also know it was the first chop at it and they were making major improvements as I left.
It can now fire more than 45 rounds without a stoppage? And it doesn't have to be reloaded [105-round ammo can] in the open, not from under armor?
Admittedly, I have serious doubts about the MGS...I actually don't think it will ever happen using a Stryker chasis.
Not if it's going to be transported aboard a C130...C17, maybe. And they'd better not fire it with the gun 90º to either side, or they'll be overturned on their side from the recoil and shifted weight when the tube and breech recoil. I think there might be a way to do it, though, but not with a 105mm/M68 gun.
Again, not saying you are wrong, nor that this is the right vehicle...just your experience with this seems so different than mine.
My viewpoint is that of a tanker, killing such vehicles, and so my outlook is to find their weaknesses and exploiting them. If we could give Strykers to a potential enemy, we'd have some very happy tankers in our ranks, busy painting/taping little white kill rings around their gun tubes.
There were problems. But then again the vehicle was fielded prior to testing on purpose (spiral development in an attempt to speed up the army acquisiton times). Sort of a design, field, test, adjust cycle. That has both good and bad connotations. If the basic design is good, then it clearly is a better way to field a vehicle. But if the basic concept is flawed, then it could lead to wasting tme and money. Maybe the Stryker falls in that category. If so, we should can the thing before soldiers get killed and missons fail. But then again, I would want to be sure before we pulled the plug on it and backed up 5 years and 4 billion dollars or some such to start all over. One of the problems we had with a number of the "expert" detractors (many who sent e-mails around saying how bad it was) was we would check out their background and discover they were under big contracts from competing design companies to help get the project cancelled. It was hard to find honest brokers out there.
I'd love to see a head-to-head competitive trial between Stryker [they got an XM number yet?] and the M113A3. And an M113 stretched version [MTLV] with a sixth roadwheel could be an even better possible answer. And it can swim, even with a mortar tube aboard. And a couple of modifidied versions using off-the-shelf foreign components or bits of obsolete versions could be even more suitable for accomplishing some of those tasks said to be so overwhelmingly in need of a real solution.
Still not sure if any vehicle can stand up to the scrutiny you are putting this one through. Air droppable, amphibious, impervious to any known weapons, lightweight yet no wheels, small but will hold lots of soldiers/weapons/ammo inside, fuel cells that are neither inside nor outside and can never be hit, will never flip over, can go anywhere, armed like an M1 tank, etc. A tough order to fill!
Air droppable,
Or at least air-deliverable via LAPES. The Bradley isn't [the stabilized gun mount and IGS sights won't take it, the reason a Bradley turret with TOW and 25mm gun on a Stryker or M113 chassis isn't a good likely answer. The air-dropped/delivered vehicle is to buy time until the Bradleys can get there...if not replaced with Strykers.
amphibious,
M113's have been doing it for years. And the Turks have an interesting offering from their Otocar firm, the Cobra, that's essentially an armored and amphibious Hummvee....
impervious to any known weapons,
At least tresistant as hell, and capable of being upgraded as necessary. Applique armor upggrade kits that are back at battalion maintenance or in depot aren't much help. But some theaters would likely require all-around RPG shielding, others would require primary front slope protection, and antimine belly kits would be needed under other circumstances. Modular upgrade ability seems to be the way to go, IF it's used and not just stockpiled.
lightweight yet no wheels,
Not necessarily no wheels. But don't expect a wheelie to perform like one with tracks, nor to have the ability to neutral steer out of trouble like an RPG-trap ambush in an Iraqi alley. Steel armor might not be the answer and aluminum might not be either. Those may be FCS answers rather than intirim ones, but it might be an opportunity to introduce the users to the new technology and shake it down first [Hey Sarge! You know our new armor dissolves when it gets rained on....]
i>small but will hold lots of soldiers/weapons/ammo inside,
Canadian *Lynx* with 4 roadwheels, M113A3 with 5m MTLV with 6, as needed. All shorter and lighter than a Strryker. I don't know if one of the Canadian Lynxs could be slingloaded under a CH47 or not, but I know a Strryker can't.
fuel cells that are neither inside nor outside and can never be hit,
Maybe lots of independent, self-sealing fuel cells not clustered in any one place where they make a real attractive target. The plastic bag fuel tank inside the walls of the early mogas M113 was a REALLY bad idea, but maybe something long and tubular, maybe jettisonable like aircraft drop tanks, might be worth looking at. 5 or ten gallons, 15 here and there seems less inviting a target than 30 or 60 in one place. And the Soviet idea of jettisonable *admin* fuel drums for road marches, to be driopped off once things *go tactical* seems worth pursuing.
will never flip over,
Or can at least upright itself, or be recovered using common platoon or unit maintenance assets if it does get rolled. A winch could be a good start in a lot of circumstances; so is a boom-eqyuipped member of the family, also helpful for changing out engine/transmission power packs.
can go anywhere,
Or can be carried over/around anything it can't cross on its own. But it really helps if it can swim, unless we intend to have it known that we ALWAYS stop at the blue lines on the map.
armed like an M1 tank,
No. Armed well enough that it can kill an M1 tank, from far enough out that the tank can't touch it. And not via just one means of doing so, either, but with a couple of different options. LOSAT and Ground-launched Hellfire sound like really good starting places, but the 9M123/9M127 Khrizantema missile system would likely do.
And probably with a secondary armament system capable of ruining another light vehicle or lesser target not quite worth an expensive missile. Certainly armed with more than just the .50 Browning suitable for fitting to the HUMVEES and battalion cook section's and supply clerk's trucks.
A tough order to fill!
The easy way is where the mines are.
I am not sure what your recommended suggestions would be.
First off, not to put all eggs in one basket, whetgher an M113 upgrade OR further hopes of salvaging something useful [the mortar carrier, maybe] from the Stryker pigs ear.
The truck comments are interesting, but keep in mind one of the things we were/are trying to do is to test some equipment and concepts for ideas for the Objective Force. We did look at upgraded M113s, but again they had their own problems. The argument that wheeled vehicles would never work didn't hold water when one looks at the Marine Corps or other nations. Doesn't mean we should go to wheels, just doesn't prove the opposite either. Oh well, you get the point.
Just so. Again, you are obviously well-versed on military equipment, so you may be totally correct. If so, I hope we find out soon. I know what I'd be interested in playing with if I was tasked with doing something useful with a Stryker, though....or, so far as that goes, with M113s. But I expect it's more likely that I may be getting a glance at how to use a BTR70/80 or BMD first....
-archy-/- -archy-/-
Mayby this one http://diversant.h1.ru/guns/granatomet/rpg7.htm
Just so, particularly RPG7D and RPG7V versions, with whichj some US troops live fired for familiarization purposes, particularly around the time of the *Bright Star* joint exercises with Egyptian troops, until a fatal accident involving a probably defective round.
Likewise the RPG18 and -22, very similar to the US 66mm M72 LAW antitank rocket family are reasonably well known and understood, as is newer RPG16D, info about which can be fouund *here*. Newer RPG-29 and PG-29V ammunition offer interesting performance improvement, if not yet widely enough distributed to have been faced by US forces yet. But coming soon, no doubt.
-archy-/-
Excellent recon vehicle, but of course several have fallen to mines and repeat RPG fire from the dukhai in Chechnya. Accordingly, like the Israelis, the Russians and Ukranians have been at work on personnel carrier versions of obsolete T54 and T55 tank chassis, removing the turrets and reworking the interiors for infantry accomodation. They're not anphibious or easily air-droppable, of course, but VERY cost-effective and offer considerably more protection than either older BTR60/70/80 vehicles or BMD 1 or BMD2 vehicles, of which there are already plenty of enough to go around. See for instance the T55-based DPM Convoy Escort Vehicle for example of the former Soviet way of thinking what was required for such tasks; I posted pics of the Israeli Achzarit personnel carrier version of such a T55 rebuild earlier in this thread.
Actually, Russian BMD comes pretty close to offering the results needed, though something a little better than the 30mm autocannon is needed. 9M123 khrizantema missile launcher, successfully fitted to BMP-3, should do it. 
I hope we are still in the M1 series at that time...but I hope it's interation M1A5! I maintain that as long as we control the skies, the combined arms integrated concept will win the day as long as there is heavy armor on the conventional battlefield. In appropriate terrain there is no finer armored killer now or later. In restrictive terrain or in the event of unconventional forces present...that's a tank of another color. But IMHO, in whatever form, heavy armored forces will continue to rule for the next....say sixty years. Flame away....ON THE W-A-A-A-A-A-A-YYYYYY!
With the KADER pattern rubber laminated add-on armor that adds 680 KG to the all-up weight of an M113A3, the vehicle is said to be able of withstanding armor-piercing 23mm ZSU-2 or ZSU-4 quad AA gun fire from as close as 100 meters. But it would be hoped that while taking such hits, the M113 would be returning that fire with something a little more authoritative than a .50 caliber M2.
Maybe something like this:
I'm VERY much looking forward to the antigravitational magnetic levitation version that should be coming out somewhere around 2012. No more changing track pads and tightening end connectors!
[Yeah, I'll miss the old clanky noise, but the snarling hum of the reactors should make up for the loss....]
-archy-/-
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.