Free Republic

I'm a contractor in the Stryker Forward Repair Activity (it's the big beige shelter behind DFAC #1.) There are two Strykers sitting next to it. Ask for Tim, I'm in the little white office trailer on the side closest to the DFAC.

I'm in Balad, too. I hate when they leave that thing just idling or winding up and then back to idle for half the night. Sometimes I want to get out and yell " Just let the damned thing take off all ready!"

But damage and casualties have been light so far, Tallman said. He added at the time he was not aware of any RPG strikes on any Strykers.

He's not fully informed. There have been 2 attacks on Strykers with RPGs. Slight injuries on the first one (scratches to face on one of the guys nametag defilade in one of the hatches,) the second attack was on the side of one of the vehicles, I think it was a convoy that Wolfowitz was in.

But Miller said his organization had been told maintenance had been soaring for the Strykers. "We're being told vehicles are going through a tire per day, for example," he said.

So is he saying that they're going through 300 tires a day? (around 1 per vehicle?) The number is significantly less, somewhere under 5 tires a day for the whole fleet.

The Army isn't afraid to lose one, they already did lose an RV, to and IED that caught the tires and the whole vehicle on fire, with no loss of life. Occupants of a HMMWV would have been killed by the blast. They've put over 500000 miles fleetwide on Strykers thus far.

They are? And what data do you have that supports that statement?

Sounds to me like it'd be a good way to bring democracy to Kuwait.

Your RWS can shoot while on the move, the same as you sticking out of a hatch while on the move; neither you nor the RWS are 2 axis stabilized, so it is more difficult to put rounds on target. You would not consider a HMMW-V with a gunner controlled M2 machinegun in the turret to be non-operational, would you?

There have been numerous press releases listing number of vehicles (it's 311-I won't tell what the mix is) though the London Telegraph and CNN listed 323, which is too high. There have been 4 Strykers damaged by IEDs or RPGs. One had wheel/tire and suspension damaged, and was fully functional within a day or two-no injuries. One was the Reconaissance Vehicle that everyone knows about, which now sits in the scrap yard here at Anaconda (if anyone wants to come see it-if you want a few pictures, freepmail me.) One RPG strike damaged a coolant hose on the front of a vehicle (slat armor worked,) vehicle was fully mission capable by the end of the day (one minor shrapnel injury), and one got hit in the side by an RPG (the day Wolfowitz was in the convoy) with no damage. If there have been more, the Brigade is not reporting them.

We also have had three flip into water, which was a combination of slat armor width, training, and poor route choice.

On both Strykers that were hit with RPGs, without the slat armor, both vehicles would have been catastrophic losses. If a Bradley was hit in the side like the Stryker with slat on it that continued mission, it would have been catastrophic loss. The slat armor is doing what it is designed to do. It is not the perfect solution, but neither is the reactive armor package. Reactive armor has more weight, and there are RPG rounds that will defeat that, too.

We are using vast quantities of captured weapons and ammo. I've sat in meetings here discussing which units will get AK-47s.

A LAV-III with a turret cannot carry a full 9 man squad, or else we would have bought it. The swim requirement was dropped because it was incompatible with the changes we required due to the sometimes mutually exclusive and competing performance parameters in the ORD.

Since the beginning of the program I have argued against the current ammo can configuration, to no avail. Putting a 7.62 machinegun on the vehicle would further degrade the capabilities you are already saying are inadequate to do the task. M240s shoot at a much faster rate than the M2 does, so the ammo change problem doesn't go away.

We had a battalion of Strykers here on Balad for a few months, clearing out the perimeter. They found a lot of arms caches, and attacked quite a few people intent on placing explosives on the MSRs and ASRs. It's not the perfect vehicle for the job in all respects, but it is getting the job done, as this article shows, with a minimum loss of life of crew.

A LAV-III with a turret cannot carry a full 9 man squad, or else we would have bought it. The swim requirement was dropped because it was incompatible with the changes we required due to the sometimes mutually exclusive and competing performance parameters in the ORD.

Since the beginning of the program I have argued against the current ammo can configuration, to no avail. Putting a 7.62 machinegun on the vehicle would further degrade the capabilities you are already saying are inadequate to do the task. M240s shoot at a much faster rate than the M2 does, so the ammo change problem doesn't go away.

We had a battalion of Strykers here on Balad for a few months, clearing out the perimeter. They found a lot of arms caches, and attacked quite a few people intent on placing explosives on the MSRs and ASRs. It's not the perfect vehicle for the job in all respects, but it is getting the job done, as this article shows, with a minimum loss of life of crew.

Mud indeed! We've gotten about an inch of rain here around Baghdad in the last 72 hours. It's a clay based boot sucking mess! Today was a beautiful day, though, sunny, fairly warm.

I know that this really late to be replying to this thread, but I haven't had time to be on FR until very recently. The Stryker in that photo is currently at my location and will be moving to Arifjan very soon. The only comment I have is that the blast didn't directly injure the soldier-when the soldier exited the vehicle he injured himself. No one was injured by the blast. In that respect, these vehicles are successful.

The biggest thing to remember about the Stryker is exactly what you have said. It is better to be riding in one of these, than to be riding in a HMMWV. There have been two Strykers struck by IEDs, and no fatalities. At least one of the blasts would have destroyed a HMMWV. In that respect, the vehicle has been a success.

Well, you've hit on the main point of the vehicle. The Stryker is NOT a fighting vehicle. The vehicle exists to move the squad, not the squad for the vehicle like the Bradley.

That venetian blind RPG armor that you are so contemptuous of is the best that can be made for the weight of it. Is it perfect? Of course not, but we lost a few Abrams to RPGs during the war, too. Would you prefer to use the reactive armor that weighs even more, which would reduce mobility? The limitations of reactive armor are the same as the slat armor, and it's heavier. True, the best would be a combination of both, but the vehicle can't have unlimited weight.

The difference is tactical. Name a vehicle that can be dismounted 200 miles from the AO at a secure airfield and can get to there in 4 hours, with the soldiers inside still ready to fight and not fatigued from having their dental fillings rattled loose. I've ridden in Bradleys, M113s and Strykers. The Stryker ride is far superior. Will it do everything a Bradley can? No. Can a Bradley carry a 9 man squad? Not the last time I was in one.

That said, the vehicle cannot be used like a Bradley. The Bradley is actually used like a grounded HIND helicopter: it's a light tank that carries a few troops. The emphasis is on the vehicle, not the squad. With the Stryker, the emphasis and therefore the tactics, training and doctrine need to be different, and based once more on the squad.

The Marines use the LAV-25, which is a roughly similar (true it has the M242 Bushmaster on it, which allows a greater standoff range), and has significantly less armor on it, because they felt that the maneuver advantage was more important. The Marines will only use the add on armor for stuff like Embassy evacs or other stationary things, where mobility and speed aren't so important. If they lost any in Iraq, it was only a couple.

What you are describing is why the C-130 requirement was stupid to begin with. The reason it was put in there (same with why one of the Brigades is going to be an Army National Guard one in Pennsylvania) is that it was easier to sell the idea if the Air Force could get money to upgrade C-130s everyone was happier. The ANG was happy because that way they get more money, also. There is no way that an entire brigade is going to be moved by C-130, and not just because of the time required to put the vehicle back together. You're talking about at least 300 sorties for the vehicles alone, plus .5 to 1 plane per vehicle for the stuff that has to be removed, plus crew. Add the other brigade vehicles, and you're talking somewhere near a thousand sorties necessary. There aren't going to be that many planes available anyway. If we did things like the Marines do, and deployed companies, or even battalions alone, it would be more realistic.

That caption isn't quite right, it should read that the soldier is mounting a MK19 onto an RWS. The RWS is permanent. For air transport it is folded down.

True statement, and that is why the Future Combat System is expected (at least until some other Chief of Staff changes it) to have wheels. 2131 Strykers is not enough to outfit the entire Army, and the budget is going to have to increase a great deal to provide them armywide (at~ $2million per vehicle) very quickly. Expect to see Bradleys and Abrams for a long, long time.

I agree. Cancelling the AGS was a stupid move, especially when it would have been available for use in the Stryker brigades immediately, as opposed to a few years after the first two were fielded.

2nd ACR got worse treatment-they turned in Abrams and Bradleys for TOW HMMWVs. That's probably not going to happen, because at around $2 million per Stryker, they're probably not going to be able to budget replacement of all of the Abrams and Bradleys in a timely manner, which will mean that they'll be in the system for a few more decades.

Happy retirement! While I don't believe that the Stryker is the perfect vehicle for the job (I really don't like it a whole lot) there are valid reasons to attack the vehicle, and many of the valid reasons don't get covered. It usually boils down to comparisons with Bradley, and then expectations of the Stryker that exceed those of the Bradley, especially when it comes to armor protection. The Bradley cannot stop an RPG round without heavy add on armor, yet no one was talking about it being a death trap, and that despite, as the Matthew James indicates in the article, heavy machine gun rounds will go through the thing.

There is a large caveat to all armor protection that nearly always gets overlooked, and that is the range at which that protection is valid. It is ALWAYS listed as protection against X, "at classified range." One is not sure (unless privy to that range) how much protection that actually affords. Surely everyone will agree that protection to 12.7mm ball ammo at 1000m is far inferior to protection against 12.7mm ball ammo at 100m. But that doesn't account for AP ammunition, which will increase the range necessary for that protection to apply.

And these vehicles are not currently replacing M113s and tanks in Iraq when they arrive, either. We're talking about a force of around 3000 soldiers, intermixed with the rest of the 160,000. There are currently plans for 6 Stryker brigades. That is not nearly a large enough force to convert the entire army to Stryker brigades.

Future Combat System (which will probably be wheeled also-not my choice) is the expected replacement for the legacy force, sometime (the yardstick keeps moving, it may be slipping backward) around 2010, which will mean that the Abrams will be somewhere around 30 years old at the time (with block improvements, of course.) The whizbang technology that FCS is counting on is probably not going to be around, so expect to see Abrams and Bradleys prowling around battlefields for at least the next 20 years or so. This is not the end of the tracked vehicle on the battefield, and the Stryker (if used properly) can provide a useful capability for the Army.