Study finds new Army vehicle too vulnerable.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | 26Aug03 | By Rowan Scarborough

[.cnI redruM]

The Army's new state-of-the art infantry vehicle slated to make its combat debut in Iraq in October is vulnerable to the kind of rocket-propelled grenades now being used by Saddam Hussein's guerrillas, a consultant's report charges.

The Army, which rebuts the report's findings, plans to send 300 Stryker armored vehicles and 3,600 soldiers to Iraq. This first Stryker brigade will help put down the resistance that has killed more 60 American troopers since May 1. It will also be a preview of a lighter, more mobile Army for the 21st century.

[Orwellian]

The stryker is a lav 3 with out the 25mm cannon. I was in the 5/20 at Fort Lewis. With the extra armor it will not fit in the c-5. It is also not possible to fit 9 men in the back without severe yoga training. Frontline did a puff piece in I believe 2000. We demonstrated MOUT. What you dont see is how I was laying across the legs of everybody in the squad and that they TOSSED me out just before the door opened so you could not see our position. Does anybody have the picture of that marine LAV that got hit by the RPG?

[SnuffaBolshevik]

There is not any intention of REPLACING the M1 with the Stryker.

I sincerely hope you are right, but from everything I hear (air transportability, full stand alone combat teams, "legacy forces", etc.) I smell a movement to back-bench the Main Battle Tanks. I predict this will last until 6 or 8 Strykers are immolated by 6 or 8 RPG's that an M1A1 would eat for lunch. We should gladly trade a couple of week ship transport delay vs. a deploy now mentality if only for crew survivability. Armor=life.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I don't know how many of you have seen this:

Stryker Strikes Gold in Iraq

August 25, 2003: The Army Stryker brigades (which use wheeled armored vehicles) are under a bit of a cloud, as they are untried, and were dreamed up for peacekeeping jobs most soldiers are not particularly eager for. But the Marines have been using wheeled armored vehicles for decades and found them quite useful in Iraq. The Marines used their LAVs (Light Armored Vehicles) battalions to perform of variety of tasks that were only possible because of the high road speed of the wheeled LAVs. The LAV battalions screened the division flanks, dashed ahead to quickly seize distant objectives and were readily available as a blocking force. The Marines are now looking into forming their own “Stryker” brigade, and may buy Army Stryker LAVs (to save on R&D to develop their own.) All of this has proved good for the morale of the troops in the Stryker brigades, especially the one that’s headed for Iraq this Fall.

More grist for the Stryker mill.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Does the IDF use any wheeled armor vehicles?

[Orwellian]

I was there for alot of the inetial testing. May I borrow your BS to reality filter? I could make a mint in the market.

[Proud Legions]

You obviously have either experience in this area or have studied it, because you picked up on the whole essence immediately.

We may or may not have the correct vehicle...and I for one am not yet convinced one way or the other on that one. But the concept of being able to drop in anywhere there is even a rudementry airstrip and start, as you say, blitzkrieging outward, is mindboggling, and would definately cause havoc with any enemy.

When I worked for GEN Tommy Franks, he often told me we need to break away from our old ways of thinking and start to think how we can conduct asymetric warfare....this is just one of many ideas that attempt to do that.

[flyer182]

If you are talking about the battle on the bridge it was an AAV, it was hit by a maverick fired off of an A10

[flyer182]

That article is poop. The USMC has spent it's load of cash on the AAAV and the MV-22. The LAV brigade concept was discounted awhile ago for the USMC.

[Proud Legions]

Agree. The party line is that the M1 tank is staying around until we are able to develop a future combat vehicle that is truly as survivable as the M1, yet uses new technology to make it lighter and less logistically taxing. The Army would like that FCS by 2010, but many of us have our doubts if the technology will be there by then.

Remember, I am an old cav trooper and tanker...and I love the M1.

[SnuffaBolshevik]

Remember, I am an old cav trooper and tanker...and I love the M1.

I'm with you, brother. If you've every seen a T-72 smoked by a U.S. KE round, you'll get down on your knees and thank God for compartmented ammunition storage.

[Proud Legions]

You are correct...I don't know anyone who thinks we will move an entire Brigade form the US to anywhere by air...just takes too many airframes.

But that does not mean we can't move a piece of the brigade by air while the rest comes by ship, or that we can't move all or a large portion of the Brigade a small distance (i.e Northern Kuwait to Norther Iraq) by air within a theater of operations.

As to sustaining the Brigade...that is a tough one, and many folks are working late nights (my two office mates for instance) trying to figure solutions out there.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

I'd have to chop my head off to give you the BS to Reality Filter.

What did you think of the Stryker?

I think squantos had it correct that it was a vehicle designed for moving infantry close to the battle then they dismount. But I think it would undoubtedly turn into driving the troops through the RPG ambush site in a city: like Baghdad or a narrow pass like they have in Afghanistan.

[ExSoldier]

I can't help it. I'm a heavy tanker type. Give me the M1A1 anytime, anyday. The marines have used LAV's with pretty good success, but they still use the tried and true big boy when push comes to shove. I had a buddy in an M1 during Gulf War #1. His tank company had engaged the Republican Guard when he felt the whole vehicle just shudder during a time of "fire and manuever." He felt the tank didn't seem to be harmed so he just ignored it and continued to fight, his company wiping out a reinforced battalion in just under 15 min of combat without a single loss to their side. When finally popped out of his cupola he found the Iraqui sabot round fired from a T80 or T72 (I can't remember which) embedded in the Chobam armor of his front turret area. That's a tough vehicle.

Rolling Thunder forever...the Combat Arm of Decision!

[skinkinthegrass]

I believe they can, if you hit it from the top(top armor is weaker) or from the rear(see top armor), also taking out a track.////That's why you never use armor unsupported by infantry.

That's what happen to the NAZIs, at the battle of KURSK in 1943...the german tanks outran their infantry, they were unsupported by infantry...that and no M/G @ rear of the tank.

[Poohbah]

I can't help it. I'm a heavy tanker type. Give me the M1A1 anytime, anyday.

OK. Here's the problem: you have to cross about 4km of FASCAM minefield ca. 2020. The mines fire top-attack weapons capable of punching through the Abrams' turret or engine deck out to 100 meters, and they communicate with their neighbors in a KaZaa-like network to figure out who's got the best shot at a given vehicle AND alert higher headquarters that you're coming.

[SJSAMPLE]

The Israeli's made good use of the Merkava, which is a tank with room in the back (engine up front) for a smaller number of troops. It has an excellent record in that particular MOUT environment, as does the Bradley IFV.

[Orwellian]

I was in the unit doing some testing. 5/20. I know people still in the unit. It does not fit into airlift in combat configuration. Without the armor addition a 50cal. punches right through.Without the armor I would not trust getting hit by 7.62x54. As the Russians learned in Chechnya and our boys are learning now, the RPG is a very common weapon system on the battlefield. When the armor is on, S-3 officers have to plan routes to insure that vehicles can fit two abreast on the roads. Otherwise the vehicles sinks in soft ground when they drive around each other. I honestly pray you are right about the vehicle being one of the finest fighting vehicles ever. If you are wrong, men closer to me than my own brothers will be dead.
This is not intended to be a flame. I am sure you too are concerned about our boys over there. I am sure you are a sober and competent officer. The stryker is a good idea horribly implemented.

[Orwellian]

We trained to drive right up to the building and deploy in urban evironments. Mind you this is with supporting fire. In more open areas we would dismount and move to the objective on foot. As it is currently deployed, in a narrow pass it would not be difficult to wipe out a stryker platoon with a very small element. If you moved with dismounted flankers out it would greatly increase your chances but that negates the purpose of a rapid infantry transport.

[FreedomPoster]

>>Anyone who thinks that it will be possible to move or sustain this brigade by air is nuts.

*DING* *DING* *DING*
WE HAVE A WINNER!

I don't see the AF freeing up enough sorties from supporting their own operations to airlift a sizeable number of the vehicles into a remote location, much less lifting in enough diesel for them to move very far. In the Iraq campaign, I really question whether, had the Stryker been available, a Northern thrust would have been possible, for this reason.

[Fred Mertz]

Self-marking bump. Memo to self: read this tomorrow morning.