[centurion316]

Drawing conclusions about armored warfare based on something written by Victor O'Reilly is like deciding on govenrnment policy based on something said by Arianne Huffington or Dennis Kucinich.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Well, I am trying to keep an open mind about the vehicle and 3/2's deployment next month. I sincerely want those guys to do well and prove the kibbitzers wrong, but from the open-sources that I google and the info shared by the various posters on all the FR Stryker threads I detect a serious imbalance in the positives versus negatives. I have looked at:

The LAV-III Armored Car

LAV III Stryking Out

LAV Danger

Army Leadership and the Stryker Armored Car Program have failed 'Army Transformation'

Let’s Ask The Questions And Then Go Where The Answers Are

Khaki Throat

Heavy Metal and many others. There is a cottage industry putting out anti-Stryker screeds, and some of it is histrionic and polemical but too much of it sounds too true to discount all of it. I don't know much about Victor O'Reilley or his credibility or lack thereof, but his report dovetails nicely with the above.

There is quite a bit less pro-Stryker stuff out there, and most of it reads like something some PAO hack or GDLS publicist wrote.

I think many on these FR Stryker threads are pre-disposed to believe the negative information and suspect the positive. The negative info rings truer to their perception of how the Army really does things.