Replies

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.