Stryker Strikes Out

19 August 2003 | FReeper "Matthew James"

[Yasotay]

When I was in the 9th Inf (Hi -Tech....Motorized) we had zero belief that any armor should be used, it defeated the whole purpose of the motorized idea. It sounds to me that the whole program has become a beached whale....

[centurion316]

Last time I checked, the cupboard was pretty bare of heavy units ready to deploy. When Stryker Brigade conversion is complete, the net result will be an Army that is heavier, more mobile (once deployed), and that possesses more firepower than before.

Comparisons are best done within the same class of vehicle and within the same doctrinal concept of employment. For example: M1A1 tank with Challeger; Saxon with Stryker; M2 Bradley with Warrior IFV. You get the picture.

[SJSAMPLE]

That would be good if two similar vehicles were up for the same job. But the Stryker is being billed as a more deployable alternative to the Bradley, not as an alternative to light infantry.

When they make a decision to deploy a Stryker unit, it will only be after they've eliminated the more capable Bradley from consideration. Then, when they try to cram it into a C130, they'll realize that air deployment of heavy assets is futile in a crunch, and they'll (hopefully) go back to sealift and Bradleys.

[af_vet_rr]

I don't know much, but I do know that a .50 cal will punch through 14.5 mm of armor as if it wasn't there, even at distance. If it won't even stop a relatively puny (for the battlefield) round like the .50 cal, then why even bother with armor at all?

The weapons systems suck. No automatic stabilization of the guns or optics. Slow target asquisition and engagement.

Might as well make something that is low-profile, highly mobile and fast as hell, since speed would probably provide better protection than the Stryker's armor.

[Darksheare]

I wouldn't doubt it.
The Stryker, IIRC, was mentioned as being unstable and 'tipsy' as it sits.
External gear only makes this worse.
Haul into a high speed turn, which you can safely do under fire in a HMMWV, Bradley, M1, M109..., it rolls onto it's side.
(Did a 'run from the opfor' drive at Fort Drum. We bugged out and basically did the Baja 5000 to reposition. This with towed howitzers.)

I did hear rumbles that dissent inside the program was silenced, and that effeminate vindictiveness within the program was the norm...

[Matthew James]

"I did hear rumbles that dissent inside the program was silenced, and that effeminate vindictiveness within the program was the norm...

I heard the same. But I think the recent purge of Shinseki general officers is a good sign; and I heard that was only round one.

[Darksheare]

I'm praying that it's only the first round, and that more will come.

[exnavy]

Interesting comparison, thank you for the work done and the post of. Looks as though General Dynamics has some refining to do.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

This soldier is mounting the Remote Weapons Station for the Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher on his Stryker. Turreted vehicles would be too high to drive up the ramp into the C-130. The RWS is not stabilized and the vehicle must come to a stop to fire the weapon accurately. The high-tech RWS is less capable of shooting on the move than a free gun on a pintle mount.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Kongsberg Protector Weapon Station

[historian1944]

That caption isn't quite right, it should read that the soldier is mounting a MK19 onto an RWS. The RWS is permanent. For air transport it is folded down.

[centurion316]

Stryker is being billed as a more deployable alternative to the Bradley, not as an alternative to light infantry.

Sir, you are misinformed. The Stryker is only billed as an alternative to the Bradley by the wingnuts over at militarycorruption.com. The Army has said no such thing.

Air deployment is another great myth that has taken flight devoid of reality. Strategic deployments are conducted today and into the foreseeable future by a combination of sea and air means. Airlift is inadequate to accomodate the vast majority of the Army's requirement. Lift in the opening days of any crisis goes almost exclusively to the Air Force. The Army gets precious little. The Army will deploy by sea, using high speed vessels and normal sea lift. We will have pre-positioned equipment sets in parts of the world where we most expect to use it. We will use available strategic airlift for critical people and equipment. The C-130 is not a strategic deployment aircraft. It is used for in-theater lift. The reason that it is a requirement is to permit air land of small numbers of Stryker assets to reinforce an airhead. We will never deploy a Stryker brigade by C-130 - only politicians and reporters would conjur up such a scenario. What we will do is similar to what was done in Northern Iraq. The 173d Airborne Brigade executed a parachute assault to seize an airfield. There was an Iraqi armored threat in the vicinity, so we reinforced that airhead with M-2 Bradley and M-1 tanks from the 1st Infantry Division in Germany. They were deployed by C-17. If there had been a Stryker Brigade in theater, then Stryker assets could have been inserted by C-130, even with the limitations so well described so many times on this forum. No, we wouldn't insert the entire brigade - a company or at most a battalion.

Bradleys will remain in the force and continue to provide very valuable service, executing a 12 division strategy with a 10 division force.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Saxon

I would settle for a comparison of the Piranha III/ LAV III/ NZLAV to the Stryker.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Stryker and the Reality of War, pdf file of interest to the Stryker sucks folks.

[colorado tanker]

the Stryker sucks folks

LOL! I guess that pretty well describes me.

[exnavy]

Thanks for the bump!

[Cannoneer No. 4]

You are welcome, exnavy. Seen anything interesting lately?

[R. Scott]

But what happens if the vehicle temporarily loses power, or the computer “locks up?” The answer is that those technological systems are no longer available, and the vehicle instantly becomes extremely vulnerable.

OK, let’s dump every weapons system that might have a failure.
That leaves us with sticks and stones – if the sticks don’t break.

It amazes me that the Stryker critics still want a troop transport to have the armor and armament of a Main Battle Tank, be large enough to transport a squad of fully equipped infantry, yet be small and light enough to fit inside a C-130. Next they’ll bitch about the fuel mileage.

[colorado tanker]

Very interesting read. I didn't realize the Army plan is to use C-17's to get the Stryker brigade in theater. We don't bave enough C-17's to do that.

It's been my impression too that the Stryker concept came out of the Task Force Hawk fiasco. Frankly, I was glad at the time that they didn't accomplish the deployment until after the Kosovo war was over. The idea of deploying attack helicopters in the rugged Yugo mountains with no ground support and limited air support was a really dumb idea. They would have been sitting ducks for antiaircraft missiles. Another dumb idea from Gen. Wesley Clark.

[centurion316]

Drawing conclusions about armored warfare based on something written by Victor O'Reilly is like deciding on govenrnment policy based on something said by Arianne Huffington or Dennis Kucinich.