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.

[Valin]

Question, as I am not Army, but can RPG's knock out the M-1A tank?

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. You will recall the final battle in saving Priv. Ryan.

That's why you never use armor unsupported by infantry.

[Valin]

I seriously doubt the Strykers have had the deficiencies from the trials fixed let alone the issue of adding weight.

I recall reading here a couple of years ago that the trials were...adjusted to make sure the Stryker passed. SLB might know more about this.

SLB, Now don't let me down.:-)

[Darksheare]

General Shinseki had been warned about these 'problems' long before the Stryker was even built.
The problem was compounded by his decision to remove teh tracks and stick tires on it because he thought "tires are more manueverable".
He's never been stuck in Fort Drum sand up to his axles while SP howitzers and tanks slide on by with a grinand a wave....

While an intrigueing idea, the Stryker has been hawked to the buyers as a tank replacement.
God willing, this will all be fixed.
Hopefully with General 'Pop-a-Quaalude' Shinseki getting cashiered out for willfully endangering the lives of soldiers.

[.cnI redruM]

"tires are more manueverable". - Until you run through a burning obstacle. Then they have a nasty tendency to warp, melt and upon occasion explode.

Shinseki has based his legacy upon an inefficient, failed piece of equipment. The IBCT is a necessary, well-designed force. It's the Stryker that needs replacing.

[Soaring Feather]

This does not sound like a very good idea to me. I think you hit the nail on the head. These tanks are going to be in sand where tracks are needed.

sheeeeeesh what the he$$ is the matter with his head?

[adam_az]

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

Unless it was moving...

[First_Salute]

A Hummer is an SUV-Lite, while a Stryker is an SUV-Heavy that fails to satisfy existing airlift capacity --- it is not a good substitute for failing to quadruple C-17 production.

[SAMWolf]

IMHO the Stryker is the same kind of boondoggle as the Sgt. York.

[Squantos]

Everything in my past that kept me alive thru 26 years of service involved the KISS principal. Everything in the Mark 1 Mod Ohhhhh Grunts future should also if they want to live. As to this stryker I know only what I read from some tidbits I get from friends still in the loop that have first hand knowledge of the program vs what is written by presstitutes, polidiots and wannabes.

As went the Sgt York so shall the Stryker if it fails. BTW I like that BS to reality filter thang.......kewl !!!

Stay Safe Ern....Hope all is weel in your world !

[Onelifetogive]

As an old ground pounder myself, I hope to God no decisions on equipment are being made for any reason other than what is best for the troops.

LOL...That'a a good one!

[snippy_about_it]

Thanks for the ping Darksheare.

Shinseki should have been gotten rid of earlier and I hope someone is taking a serious look at this before putting our troops in further danger.

[LTCJ]

C-17 might be a player for deployments to tactical staging areas.

Nope. No way. C-5s and C-17s are considered startegic assets. That is exactly the reason for the C-130 spec in the first place.

[LTCJ]

startegic=strategic

[Valin]

The problem is we need something that is easily transportable(if that's the word I'm looking for). And that means light armor, unfortuntly the Stryker just doesn't cut it, at least from what little I've seen.
Sugestion, Sell them to the Air Force for use by their security forces, with the armor upgrade they'd work just fine as a replacement for the old V-100 comando cars.

[MindBender26]

Criticism may be true, but meaningless. Many MBTs are vulnerable to RPGs. Any lighter armored vehicle will be as well. Any system can be defeated.

The real question is, will Stryker armor stop .50 cal, 12.7mm?

[ibbryn]

I'm bumping Little Ray's post as I think it addresses the purpose of the Stryker. I believe it was intended to get the the troops close to the action so they could dismount and fight. Thus the need for wheels (quiet and high speed) and light armor.

It's not a tank and shouln't/can't be used like one.

[Squantos]

Having lots of experience punching holes in light armor I am of the opinion that to try and protect troops from a simple PG-7 series warhead is gonna be a real trick. Reactive armor works so use it. Well then the tangos use a dual warhead design that reacts to reactive armor. The one up gamsmanship never ends.

No light armor is 100% sure thang survivable against a PG-7 series armed grenadier or tank killer team that knows it's business well.

Seems that some think tank would understand that I want Eight (8) LAV style vehicles that will come off the ramp of a C-17, loaded for bear and ready to shoot with a full load of troops, fuel, munitions, comm and associated crap to function as designed in a LIC mission environment.

If that takes a total redesign, thinking outside or inside the box , and holding the design team to a set prescribed design that was tested , proven on computer and hands on field tests and approved by veterans with real world experience then get er done !

But what I fear we have here is industry and polidiots pushing a product for profit versus parents and para's that will pay the pathetic price. Just my opinion of course.........

Stay Safe !!

[Darksheare]

If I remember rightly, the original design for the Stryker was supposed to have beefier armor and tracks.
Shinseki pointed to one or two instances of tanks getting stuck in wadis in Iraq during Desert Storm and said, "Tires are better."

And as you pointed out, and I mentioned, tires get stuck on the darndest things.
And as anyone who has drilled at Drum knows, nothing gets stuck like tires in sand.
The only positive side to me being out of the military is that I do not have to deal with Shinseki anymore!
Thanks for the article, it's more proof of Clintonistas in high ranking positions.

[Darksheare]

Yes, it is a boondoggle, but slightly more expensive and in operation unlike the York.
And it only stands to get bigger.

The other insanity was the 'expansion' of the Stryker's role to be a one to one replacement for tanks. It is not a tank, and cannot do the task as the ones responsible for this are claiming.
It is a lightly armored troop carrier on the order of the old M113.
And it isn't even as capable as that old design was.

Shinseki (in MY opinion) should've been taken out back and put out of his misery.
But that isn't legal, and it's too good for him.
He deserves to be cashiered out with dishonor.
But for that to happen, unfortunately some troops need to die and blame for the vehicle's failure needs to be put where it lays.
At Shinseki's feet.
Sad and disgusting way to put it, but it is the truth.
Unfortunately, some lower ranking soldier will and up being the sacrificial goat in his place.

[SauronOfMordor]

If it won't take an RPG-7 hit, it seems like you might as well just take some hummers, put some Kevlar panels on them to resist small-arms fire, and be done with it. The solution is simple, light, transportable, and fast.