[centurion316]

And your point is? Why don't you compare the Stryker with, say the F-15E. That comparison would be about as meaningful as this one.

Do you know how many Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) equipped Mechanized Infantry Battalions are to be converted to Stryker equipped combined arms battalions? The answer is two: 1st Bn, 23d Infantry, and the 5th Bn, 20th Infantry, both belonging to the 3d Brigade, 2d Infantry Division which is the only heavy brigade to be converted. All of the rest are light infantry brigades. Therefore, you should compare a foot-mobile light infantry squad with a Stryker equipped infantry squad. That comparison would be a little more useful.

[Seydlitz]

Right on target. The overwhelming majority of crticism against the Stryker is based on a total misunderstanding of the vehicle's tactical role.

Before someone writes another of these lame comparisons of apples and oranges, please read Kurt "Panzer" Meyer's Grenadiers, or (to a lesser extent), Hans von Luck's Panzer Commander to see how light armoured vehicles are properly employed. At the very least, any book on a fellow named Erwin Rommel might shed some light on the subject (Rommel usually detached the light armoured units from their parent divisions to be used under his direct command).

Finally, as a kid during the early 1980s, I remember everyone shrieking about a new death-trap, so deadly and poorly designed that the armour would burn on impact, killing everyone inside. The name of that death-trap? The Bradley.

[Matthew James]

My point is that if we are designing a new vehicle whose very designers are telling us that it offers better armor protection (survivability), lethality, mobility and deployability than anything else we currently have in the inventory, then it is important for us to compare it to another armored combat vehicle to see if those claims are true.

It is also important to see what characteristics the vehicle was chartered to have in the first place. These characteristics are requirements -- they are not "options" or optional.

FReegards,

[SJSAMPLE]

But the Stryker will be deployed IN PLACE OF Bradley units. It won't be a decision wether to send light infantry into the theater, but wether to send a Stryker or a Bradley unit to accompany that light unit. Therefore, the comparison to the Bradley is warranted.

[USVet6792Retired]

This is exactly the test performed in 2003 at Ft. Knox. The Stryker performed this mission very successfully. Once again we see the same type of comparison that was done re: the bradley vs the M-1 when the Brad was 1st fielded. Compare it against a tank and then conclude that it's unsuitable because it is not a tank.