Replies

Yep, those sites are the usual suspects. The names behind these sites appear to be Lonnie Shoultz, Don Loughlin, and Mike Sparks. To this list you need to add novelist Victor O'Reilly. Mike Kelly is a reporter who apparently knows how to google. The interesting question is: who are these people and what is their agenda?

At least one of these people is a M113A3 salesman and is very sore that he has lots of these vehicles sitting around unsold. I know that there are some sour grapes out there from some in the Combat Development community at Ft. Knox. Part of it is the long-standing debate between wheeled and tracked armored vehicles. Many at Knox are not happy about the MGS version of the Stryker, they are still upset about the Army's decision to cancel the M-8 some years ago. On top of all of that, the Army made the Infantry School the proponent instead of Knox, so I suspect that some rice bowls were knocked over.

I'm sure that there is some GS-14 out there who does not like the way that this was done - from concept to combat in about four years. He would have preferred to spend 5 years developing the requirement, doing lots of R&D, build a prototype, play with it for four or five years, and rush to production in say, 7 or 8 more years. This process has been quick, which means that parts of it have also been ugly. Some of it was no doubt political - how do you convince Congress to support something you claim to be Transformational: with a new vehicle (Stryker) or a 40-year old APC?

One of the things I find interesting in the screeds that are out there is how they carefully choose different comparisons depending on the point they are trying to make. When talking about weight, the compare the uparmored Stryker with a stripped down M113. When talking Armor protection, it is the applique armor M113 vs. the bare Stryker. The M113's engine seems not to be addressed: any M113A3 solution would require a more powerful engine than the one currently in production. Many of the comparisons are of the LAVII, a completely different vehicle. These folks conveniently forget that the Army examined the LAV concept for years at the 9th Infantry Division, and intended to field a LAVII equipped force. Money, not technology was the stopping block.

Most of the criticisms expressed on these web sites have been addressed in the course of development. Others have been determined to be of minor importance. Of course, we are talking about light armored vehcles here, which are by their very nature a compromise - the question is which set of compromises do you prefer - and whose voice is the most credible.

The candidates are:

the M113A3 - good choice, probably could be made to work, might not be sellable on Capitol Hill

Stryker - good choice, needs work to improve - MGS may be problematic

The advocates are:

M113A3 salesmen and sorehead bureaucrats with an axe to grind

The Army CSA, his staff, and a large group of experienced armor officers

You decide.

I don't know who you think you are to tick off the "usual suspects" but let me give you my background and you tell everyone where I stand to gain from the Stryker being dumped in favor of a safer vehicle.

*******

The author is a multiple Purple Heart veteran of an 18 month combat tour in Vietnam as a paratrooper with the 101st Airborne Division and a Green Beret with the 5th Special Forces Group. When he returned home, he entered police work and rose through the ranks from uniformed patrol officer with the City of Birmingham to finally serve as a Special Agent with the U.S. Treasury Department. He holds a BS in Accounting and Finance, an MA in Military History, and has completed his postgraduate academic work toward his doctorate at the University of Alabama and The George Washington University in Washington, DC. He now resides on the Alabama Gulf Coast in Foley, AL, and can be reached at: lshoultz@gulftel.com.

*******

Now bang away you moron...