A nimble vehicle embodies Army's new tactics

The Boston Globe ^ | 9/7/2003 | Eli Sanders

[Radix]

TACOMA, Wash. -- As members of the Army's new Stryker Brigade approached a mock town surrounded by evergreen trees, their signature combat vehicles hung back, trying to keep out of range of potential enemy fire.

These eight-wheeled, light-armored vehicles, known as Strykers, are the embodiment of the Army's multibillion-dollar effort to transform itself into a more mobile fighting force. Yet during the training exercise at Fort Lewis on Friday, the Strykers were relegated mainly to what commanders called "overwatching" roles, sitting at a safe distance from the town to avoid rocket-propelled grenades and other munitions.

[Radix]

The hard copy of the Globe included some diagrams of the Stryker. I will look over at General Dynamics for them, and post later if they are available.

[X-USAF]

Good luck finding any good pics at GD's site. You got better chances finding a Stryker with decent armor.

[Radix]

 

[Pukin Dog]

Only the Boston Globe would think the Stryker is anything but crap. Men are going to be burned alive in those things.

[G.Mason]

Another view on the Stryker

[X-USAF]

Yes you did. Hopefully our brave boys will be equally lucky and not put one foot in this thing until they fix the armor issue.

Don't forget that GD also makes the M113, a vehicle that men are dying in over in Iraq from RPG fire.

Makes me wonder.

[68skylark]

The bottom photo is really great. I hope this thing won't tip over when they try to fire that gun to one side of the vehicle or another.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Don't forget that GD also makes the M113

DO forget. United Defense builds the M113, not General Dynamics.

[X-USAF]

I screwed that one up. I realized it before I got a chance to correct myself. Thank you for correcting me!

[Cannoneer No. 4]

More grist for the Stryker mill, for those of you who haven't exceeded your GAS level. Radix, would you like to be on the Stryker Brigade Combat Team Bump List?

[centurion316]

Our erstwhile correspondent, Eli Sanders, displays his general ignorance on the subject, and shows a hint of an agenda. But, this is actually a pretty good article. Hyperbole is thankful absent and pros and cons are laid out in a clear and understandable fashion. I'm sure that some will object on those grounds alone.

[centurion316]

Our erstwhile correspondent, Eli Sanders, displays his general ignorance on the subject, and shows a hint of an agenda. But, this is actually a pretty good article. Hyperbole is thankfully absent and pros and cons are laid out in a clear and understandable fashion. I'm sure that some will object on those grounds alone.

[centurion316]

This is not a view. It is an incoherent rant by someone who is singularly lacking in the expertise necessary to provide meaningful and accurate commentary on the issue. Do a google search on Lonnie Shoultz, then start kicking over the rocks - what crawls out is not a pretty sight.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, reconnaissance operations, and heat sensors, he said, the brigades will know what to expect ahead of time, obviating the need for a vehicle that can withstand hits stronger than expected.

Stated another way - "My faith in all this new technology is so great that I no longer concern myself with the remote possibility that the enemy might surprise us."

I find such an attitude disquieting. This is the kind of arrogance the French knights showed at Agincourt.

[Fred Mertz]

Heat sensors on the vehicles will allow troops to use .50-caliber machine guns and 40mm grenade launchers mounted on the roofs to hit distant targets that soldiers on the ground can't see.

I think thermal sights is a more descriptive term.

[centurion316]

Heat sensors ...thermal sights

I doubt our reporter friend knows the difference.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Firing the main gun at 90 or 270 degrees to the hull isn't done very often, by anybody, although such melees have occurred. The MGS appears to be mounted on a Remote Weapons Station on steroids. If the force of recoil is enough to tip over the vehicle, it is probably enough to break the gun mount first. I wonder if anybody ever fired a Sheridan perpendicular to the hull?

[G.Mason]

Okay.

An incoherent rant by someone who is singularly lacking in the expertise necessary to provide meaningful and accurate commentary on the issue

[jriemer]

As members of the Army's new Stryker Brigade approached a mock town surrounded by evergreen trees, their signature combat vehicles hung back, trying to keep out of range of potential enemy fire.

Question just waiting to be asked:

If the Stryker is out of the range of potential enemy fire will its weaponry have the range to return fire or to provide covering fire for the infantry team in the mock town. If not, it has taken itself out of the fight and left the infantry it carried into battle high and dry.

A more survivable vehicle could be right in there with the infantry slugging it out if things get bad instead of skittering away.

[T-Bird45]

An incoherent rant by someone who is singularly lacking in the expertise necessary to provide meaningful and accurate commentary on the issue

The author of that piece was fairly specific in the linked commentary. Would you please enlighten the rest of us as to the inaccuaracies so we can judge for ourselves?