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.

[.cnI redruM]

I doubt it carries ammo either. Particularly not the AA or the mortar version. That's several more hours of work on the ground, near the FEBA, before the Stryker can engage the enemy.

[.cnI redruM]

Oops, my bad!

[1stFreedom]

Your typical RPG cannot touch an M1 where it counts.

It could disable a track, but cannot penetrate the armor.

Reactive armour can be defeated by exploding a primary explosive before a secondary (main) explosive goes off. I'm not sure if the terrorists have any newer RPG's designed to defeat reactive armor. The kornet anti-tank missile has such a feature.

Reactive armor is also very dangerous and the explosion really messess with the crews. Of course it's better then being fried alive, but it's not all that great.

I like the idea of "slat" armor. I think that this is the same as applique armor. This really should do the trick.

[.cnI redruM]

Much worse, the Army should temporarily suspend inter-service rivalry and just buy a bunch of LAVs with MWOs to match Army-specific gear.

[drjimmy]

As part of an accelerated development, the Army did not require Strykers to immediately feature anti-RPG armor. The brigade going to Iraq is now being fitted with slat armor. It works like a big catcher's mask, stopping a grenade before it reaches the Stryker's main body, thus keeping the explosion at a distance. Eventually, the Strykers will be fitted with more permanent armor now being tested.
So the vehicles now being sent for our troops to use are going to have "add-ons" they weren't tested with, meaning any measures involving weight, maneuverability, speed, durability, etc., are meaningless. Then "eventually," the Army will get around to slapping on some different armor. And what if that doesn't work well? Hey, what's a few more billion down the drain (or a few more lives lost on the streets of Baghdad).

[.cnI redruM]

You got it, Doc. This has more to do with SHinseki for Senator than protecting our troops or winning the WOT.

[Frankss]

Anybody know the cost of one of these buggies?

[Frankss]

Anybody know the cost of one of these buggies?

[.cnI redruM]

That would depend on the financing. I'm quoting Carl Sagan on this one "....Billions and billions and billions!"

[Little Ray]

The problem, as always, is doctrine.

Strykers are not tanks - they are not supposed to stand up to RPGs (RPGs were orignally designed to kill tanks). They are (lightly) armor plated taxis. They move troops from point A to point B, quickly, carry squad-level heavy weapons and give protection from small arms and shell splinters.
Once they get to point B, the troopies get out, move forward and fight. The Stryker is supposed to stay back and, perhaps, give support with its cannon, or, if they have one, ATGM launcher. The problem is that we seem to expect the Stryker to fight in close combat on its own, and the troops to fight from it, mounted. That is a good way to lose a vehicle and its squad. If that is what Army really wants, what they need is an APC version of the M1...

The Army said it needed a light armored vehicle that could be carried in a C-130 transport and this is apparently the best it could do. It will have to develop a doctrine for using this thing. (Sorta like they have to learn to stop doing the "hover and shoot" thing with Apaches and adopt the USMC's tactics...).

[jordan8]

Russian-Manufactured Armored Vehicle Vulnerability in Urban Combat: The Chechnya Experience

[.cnI redruM]

That's a true statement. An old joke about 11M's used to go. "Here's the Mechanized Infantry Motto. Death Before Dismount!!"

I've also heard them referred to as "DATs without the armor!"

[servantoftheservant]

Sounds like a 7-72 would eat this sucker's lunch.

LOL...a T-34 would! Seriously, every 3rd world crap army has 14.7mm machine guns and RPGs that can penetrate a Strykers armor.

The history of armored warfare has shown that when troops have confidence in their protection, they utilize their equipment better and fight better. The Stryker is a step backward.

[Redleg Duke]

Finally, someone addresses the issue with knowledge and not an agenda.

The Stryker is not an "Infantry Fighting Vehicle", it is an "Armored Infantry Carrier". There is one hell of a lot of difference there!

As for Shinseki, I think he was and is a duffus. He pissed away a lot of important capital with his black beret shit. Army Transition is important and must occur, but being a Clinton Puke, he put style over substance and undermined himself and Army Transformation.

Before passing judgement on the Stryker, remember what it's purpose really is! Yeah, it is too heavy, but then, we are trying to pack a leg squad into a single vehicle. Maybe we need to take a hint from the Marines and pare down our mech squads to fit the vehicle, rather than increase the size of the vehicle to fit our traditional squads.

Laws of Physics, ya know!

[FreedomPoster]

Ping.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

It meets all the expectations of the young soldiers that are required to use it in battle."

I put this through the BS to Reality Filter and came up with the following.

"It passed all the bullcrap benchmarks that don't matter as much as winning and surviving the war and the ones that it didn't we found a way to cheat it through and that satisfied the three splitail PFCs we used for eye candy during this whole workup of the Stryker Battalion and the couple of dozen candy assed fresh faced PFCs and non-deploying Non-Coms that don't know what it takes to really survive in combat and that's just going to have to be good enough for the rolling RPG targeets that will be going into battle with the Stryker, Oohahh!"

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

HAha! That's funny except for the truth won't be funny when it happens.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

No gas, no guns, no armor (temporary or otherwise), no crew, no air in the tires. That's probably how they got it to pass the benchmarks.

[.cnI redruM]

And once it's airdropped, the troops have to attach all those acessories like tires near the FEBA.

[Justa]

I feel for the guys from Ft. Lewis. Not only are they going into a combat zone with a new AFV which is fresh from trials but the Army has decided to add additional weight to it. Two maintenance nightmares in one vehicle.

I seriously doubt the Strykers have had the deficiencies from the trials fixed let alone the issue of adding weight. Imo their engines and transmissions will fail at an unacceptable rate. And they're vulnerable to RPGs?!!! Their losses could be significant. I'll wager a guess there won't be 20% operational in Iraq next April.

Of course there is one wildcard. That is the ingenuity, adaptability, creativity and resourcefulness of the US soldier.