Posted on 08/14/2004 6:18:50 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
A U.S. Army Stryker brigade stationed in the north of Iraq, around Mosul, for eight months now, has proved itself quite capable. The Stryker armored vehicles are controversial, as they are light armored vehicles that move via wheels, rather than tracks. The Stryker brigade equipment exchanged a lot of armor protection and heavy weapons for more electronics and communications equipment. The brigade has an initial version of the “battlefield Internet” that the army is slowly putting together. The action in and around Mosul is not as heavy as it is down around Baghdad. But there are heavily armed Baath party diehards and al Qaeda terrorists up in Mosul. The Stryker brigade has seen a lot of action, some of it quite heavy. It was thought that the Strykers would be very vulnerable to RPGs, but only two vehicles have been lost that way so far. In some actions, platoons (four vehicles) of Strykers had dozens of RPGs fired at them with no serious damage. The protection on the Strykers has been up to the job, but the troops, and hostile Iraqis, have also noted that the Strykers are faster, and quieter, than [tracked] armored vehicles. This turns out to be a battlefield advantage, something American troops had forgotten about. The last large scale use of wheeled armored vehicles by American troops was in World War II. Some of the details of how those vehicles could be used had apparently been forgotten. A wheeled armored vehicle can more quickly move out of an ambush, or any other kind of trouble. Wheeled armored vehicles also make a lot less noise. The “track laying system” is inherently noisy, wheel’s are not. Strykers can sneak up on the bad guys, an M-2 Bradley or M-1 tank cannot.
The troops in the Stryker Brigade are trained to same high standards of all American infantry, which means soldiers capable of operating at high speed. The Stryker brigade has a new communications system that allows for speedier operations. Whether it’s getting out of an ambush, or getting into position for a raid or attack, the extra speed leaves the enemy at a disadvantage.
ping
My Sister in Law's Brother is Commander of the Tomahawks. Thanks for the article.
There's an article today from the GAO that states that at current 38,000# combat weight they CAN'T be deployed by our C-130's as they where originally intended. It now takes TWO C-130's to deploy, one with a bare-bones Stryker, the second with all the armor and gear. And the Stryker 'gun platform' version - furgetaboutit! Absolutely TOO HEAVY.
Thank YOU Gen Shinseki -- you klintoon suck-up maggot!
Small world.
Question:My question is about the Strykers. I remember before the war there were a lot of news stories about its armor, whether or not wheels (instead of tracks) was a good idea, etc. Maybe you could give a short"Consumer Reports" like review of the Strykers. How's comfort, road noise, reliability, etc. What's good about it? What would you change on it? Good luck to all you guys. -Jeff North Huntsville, Alabama
Answer: I remember shortly before our deployment here to Iraq, the Washington Post printed a huge article on what a piece of overpriced sh*t the Stryker was and how the armor couldn't protect against anything. Which wasn't really an assuring thing to read prior to coming to Iraq. Soldier Of Fortune also tore apart the Stryker in their current issue. These people have no idea what the hell they're talking about. Here's the deal, before deployment, if you would have asked me what I thought about the Stryker, I would have told you: No Comment. In fact a lot of soldiers would have told you that. But now that we've been out here and its been combat tested, and we've seen what it's capable of doing, and how it can withstand anything that's thrown at it, I will never say negative thing about the Stryker again, ever. In fact, no lie I don't know of a single person in my Brigade who has anything negative to say about the Stryker anymore. Even people I know who hated it and bad mouthed it every chance they had, talk very highly of it now. Yea, Stykers are kind of an RPG magnet, but it can take a hit, and EVERY vehicle here in Iraq is an RPG magnet. For what we're doing out here, they're perfect, they're extremely mobile, quiet, high speed, the armor works, and it's reliable. People I know who came from a light unit love it, and people who came here from 11Mike world, love it. Tracked vehicles suck in urban environments, too slow, too loud, and they always break down. The big advantage with the Stryker is that it's not a tracked vehicle, which allows it to be extremely mobile and fast. Which is what you need here.
The above is from a blog written by a 240 gunner in B/1-23 INF, 2/3.
I agree that we were told two years ago about the Stryker's air transportability has turned out to be untrue. What are we to do about it now?
I agree that WHAT we were told two years ago about the Stryker's air transportability has turned out to be untrue.
Washington Post; GAO Calls Stryker Too Heavy for Transport
Weight of Armored Vehicle Cuts Flying Range of C-130 Aircraft, Congress Is Told
"The Stryker program -- expected to have a total cost of about $8.7 billion for acquiring about 1,800 vehicles...." to me is a boondoggle. Unless one thinks $4,833,333 EACH is a 'good buy'?
Thanks for the link. Bloggers RULE!
Drama queen alert.
What would you do with the Stryker Brigades already equipped?
With what would you replace the Stryker? How long would that take?
They are a good buy if they funnel enough money back to your congressional district. That's all that matters in Washington.
Unfortunately I'd have to say yes, no more to be built. And BECUASE that was one of the major design criteria. And C5A's can't land in a hot LZ with a dirt runway, C-130's can and that's THE delivery system the 'NEW" vehicle must comply with.What would you do with the Stryker Brigades already equipped?
Well sine we have them - we're stuck with them. Natch we have to keep enough spare parts to keep them operational for at least 10-15 years.
With what would you replace the Stryker? How long would that take?
That's the $64 dollar question. I'd say we start from scratch and BUILD a vehicle NOT designed 'by committee' like the Stryker was and it sticks to the spec's or payments to the contractor are cut off - period. And as to the time, easily 10 years, like most weapons 'systems'. That's why we need the spare parts for the existing ones.
But to keep the Stryker, and to build MORE, just because 'they're there' is not prudent IMO. And it's not like other 'failed' military projects have been canceled after a sort time. The B-36 Peacemaker comes to mind. It didn't last too long - all things considered.
So true. And IIRC Trent Lott was a big backer as MISS makes a lot of the parts. (again, I'm going by memory)
Question, do they fit in a C-17?
no flame.
Yes they do. A C-17 can carry an M1A1.
I wonder if a C-17 can carry two Strykers? My friend the C-17 pilot is downrange right now, or I'd email him and ask.
Chairborne ranger, chairborne ranger where have you been?
"To the gut-truck and back again!"
Chairborne ranger, chairborne ranger how did you go?
"I walked on down there, nice and slow!"
Chairborne ranger, chairborne ranger what did you do?
"I bought me some coffee and a donut too!"
Chairborne ranger, chairborne ranger how'd you get it back?
"I carried it back in a paper sack!"
*grin*
It's the landing strips required for the planes. The c-17 requires a min of runways as short as 3,000 feet x 90 feet. And you can't (IIRC) airdrop the Stryker. So that aspect of the C-17 doesn't help either.
It just boggles the mind that the weight problem has been known from almost day one and they STILL continued with the program. That IMO is the definition of boondoggle.
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.