Strykers readying for first deployment

ARNEWS Army News Service ^ | Oct. 15, 2003 | Specialist Bill Putnam

[historian1944]

Well, you've hit on the main point of the vehicle. The Stryker is NOT a fighting vehicle. The vehicle exists to move the squad, not the squad for the vehicle like the Bradley.

That venetian blind RPG armor that you are so contemptuous of is the best that can be made for the weight of it. Is it perfect? Of course not, but we lost a few Abrams to RPGs during the war, too. Would you prefer to use the reactive armor that weighs even more, which would reduce mobility? The limitations of reactive armor are the same as the slat armor, and it's heavier. True, the best would be a combination of both, but the vehicle can't have unlimited weight.

The difference is tactical. Name a vehicle that can be dismounted 200 miles from the AO at a secure airfield and can get to there in 4 hours, with the soldiers inside still ready to fight and not fatigued from having their dental fillings rattled loose. I've ridden in Bradleys, M113s and Strykers. The Stryker ride is far superior. Will it do everything a Bradley can? No. Can a Bradley carry a 9 man squad? Not the last time I was in one.

That said, the vehicle cannot be used like a Bradley. The Bradley is actually used like a grounded HIND helicopter: it's a light tank that carries a few troops. The emphasis is on the vehicle, not the squad. With the Stryker, the emphasis and therefore the tactics, training and doctrine need to be different, and based once more on the squad.

The Marines use the LAV-25, which is a roughly similar (true it has the M242 Bushmaster on it, which allows a greater standoff range), and has significantly less armor on it, because they felt that the maneuver advantage was more important. The Marines will only use the add on armor for stuff like Embassy evacs or other stationary things, where mobility and speed aren't so important. If they lost any in Iraq, it was only a couple.

[Kenny Bunk]

Sorry fellows. It is true that I am abysmally ignorant of the Army doctrine which will govern the Stryker's use. I am also glad to hear of its successful use by the Canadians in Afghanistan. I wonder if they are using the same mods, however.

My real question is: How is this unit better than the upgraded M113? If we are going to use a wheeled troop taxi, why not use the excellent German unit? We could buy more of them. And they would fit 2 inside a C-130, of which I am most assuredly not ignorant.

I can well see the rationale for a vehicle somewhere between a Humvee and the Bradley for moving a squad around behind the lines. It just seems to me that this Stryker is almost as vulnerable to ambush as a Humvee, is not much of an improvement over the Marine LAV, and is phenomenally expensive for something that, if wrongly employed, can obviously be chopped to ribbons by widely distributed and cheap COMBLOC infantry weapons.

Since the vehicle is going to be in the hands of the fighting men very soon, I guess I'll get their opinions firsthand. I remember the long, painful development of the Bradley, which was finally developed to the point where it has served very well. I would be overjoyed if the Stryker could serve as well, too. I think the Army is making too many claims for it.

But it is possible to be ignorant and highly, even if not rightly, suspicious.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The Canadian LAV III in use in Afghanistan is the vehicle upon which the Stryker is based. It has a turret and a 25mm gun, thinner armor, lighter weight, better mobility.

Many people will tell you it is not better than an upgraded M113. It is indisputably faster on hard surface roads than any M113.

What German vehicle? Fox? I believe a small number of Fox NBC Reconnaissance Vehicles are part of the 3rd BDE, 2ID SBCT. The Stryker NBC Recon variant is not yet ready.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

14 July, 2003

Kabul, Afghanistan

Soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment (2 RCR), dismount a LAV III (Light Armoured Vehicle) at their camp in Kabul, Afghanistan.

The troops are some of the first arrivals for Operation ATHENA, Canada's contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul.

Canada will contribute about 1,900 troops to the mission in the Afghan capital later this summer, making the Canadian contingent the second largest in ISAF. Currently this mission involves about 5,000 troops from 29 nations.

Photo by Sgt Frank Hudec, Canadian Forces Combat Camera

[archy]

My real question is: How is this unit better than the upgraded M113? If we are going to use a wheeled troop taxi, why not use the excellent German unit? We could buy more of them. And they would fit 2 inside a C-130, of which I am most assuredly not ignorant.

The German Fuchs 6-wheeled armored car is a very solid unit, utilized in some US units as the M93 NBC recon detection and analysis vehicle that can take samples of suspect contamination and test them, then report the results without exterior exposure to the crews. That's a heck of an asset to have going for us.

The bad news, they're not C130 transportable; too wide for one thing, and overly heavy in the better armoured and armed versions. The German border patrol [Bundesgrenzschutz used some with 20mm automatic cannon before the iron curtain came down, and have now refitted some serving with IFOR/KFOR/SFOR in the former Yugoslavia with a dual-feed 25mm or 30mm automatic gun, though a .308 MG3 light machinegun is more common. There's an 8-wheeled even heavier version of the family known as the luchs more usually utilized for the heavily armed role, and there was a light 4-wheeled version planned but never built.

Since they're a 6-wheeler, they only have the front two wheels steering [like a 2.5-ton truck], and they're a bit too short for a two-man crew plus a full 9-man squad inside. They're excellent as a wheeled recon vehicle or in their NBC recon role, a wheeled AT rocket launcher platform, or as airfield defense vehicles or something a little better than a Humvee for MPs working road intersection roadblocks. But I don't believe they're amphibious, And their off-road performance is limited, especially in snow, sand or mud.

[Kenny Bunk]

With the Bradley ....the emphasis is on the vehicle, not the squad. With the Stryker, the emphasis and therefore the tactics, training and doctrine need to be different, and based once more on the squad.

That about explains it. Thank you.

[Valin]

The Army's newest vehicles are loaded on ships and ready for travel to Iraq in November.


Excuse me, did I miss something. I was under the impression that the whole purpose of the Stryker was to have a light armored vehicle that could be transported by air.

Love the idea, but I don't think this is the answer to a maidens prayer.

[Squantos]

Slat Armor ?...........Well Crap .......just wrap up my FJ80 in chain link fence and I'll sell it to Uncle Sugar for a whole lot less !

Fiasco......FUBAR, BOHICA !!!...Stay Safe Ya'll !......:o)