terpfan1980

Join Date 08/2004

+13

Study Faults Army Vehicle

I wonder who was involved in designing and approving....

I wonder if someone like the Bush-bashin' COL was involved in designing and approving this hunk-a-junk.

From The Washington Post (plenty of other sources also). Headline is linked.

Study Faults Army Vehicle

Use of Transport in Iraq Puts Troops at Risk, Internal Report Says

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 31, 2005; Page A01

The Army has deployed a new troop transport vehicle in Iraq with many defects, putting troops there at unexpected risk from rocket-propelled grenades and raising questions about the vehicle's development and $11 billion cost, according to a detailed critique in a classified Army study obtained by The Washington Post.
The vehicle is known as the Stryker, and 311 of the lightly armored, wheeled vehicles have been ferrying U.S. soldiers around northern Iraq since October 2003. The Army has been ebullient about the vehicle's success there, with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, telling the House Armed Services Committee last month that "we're absolutely enthusiastic about what the Stryker has done."
But the Army's Dec. 21 report, drawn from confidential interviews with operators of the vehicle in Iraq in the last quarter of 2004, lists a catalogue of complaints about the vehicle, including design flaws, inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better." Although many soldiers in the field say they like the vehicle, the Army document, titled "Initial Impressions Report -- Operations in Mosul, Iraq," makes clear that the vehicle's military performance has fallen short.
The internal criticism of the vehicle appears likely to fuel new controversy over the Pentagon's decision in 2003 to deploy the Stryker brigade in Iraq just a few months after the end of major combat operations, before the vehicle had been rigorously tested for use across a full spectrum of combat.
The report states, for example, that an armoring shield installed on Stryker vehicles to protect against unanticipated attacks by Iraqi insurgents using low-tech weapons works against half the grenades used to assault it. The shield, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times daily. Nine tires a day are changed after failing, the report says; the Army told The Post the current figure is "11 tire and wheel assemblies daily."
"The additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season," says the report, which was prepared for the Center for Army Lessons Learned in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "Mud appeared to cause strain on the engine, the drive shaft and the differentials," none of which was designed to carry the added armor.
Commanders' displays aboard the vehicles are poorly designed and do not work; none of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used because of "design and functionality shortfalls," the report states. The vehicle's computers are too slow and overheat in desert temperatures or freeze up at critical moments, such as "when large units are moving at high speeds simultaneously" and overwhelm its sensors.
The main weapon system, a $157,000 grenade launcher, fails to hit targets when the vehicle is moving, contrary to its design, the report states. Its laser designator, zoom, sensors, stabilizer and rotating speed all need redesign; it does not work at night; and its console display is in black and white although "a typical warning is to watch for a certain color automobile," the report says. Some crews removed part of the launchers because they can swivel dangerously toward the squad leader's position.

... more at linked article

I swear this thing sounds like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle depicted in the great book, later HBO movie (link follows) The Pentagon Wars (1998, made for TV).

It burns my butt to no end that there were far too many officers wearing silver leafs, silver birds, and silver stars making decisions to build complete JUNK like this, and then deploy ground troops that are wearing no more than a few stripes on their arms in them knowing that they're destined to be killed almost instantly.

If you've not seen the movie The Pentagon Wars, it's highly recommended. It does a great job of pointing out the stupidity of the military procurement and design process, and I'm sure that this same process was involved in the Stryker. No matter how much I want to support the fine researchers at places like the Harry Diamond Army Research Lab facility, there's been far too many incompetent business people, military officers, politicians, and sorts of combinations there-of (reservists serving in dual roles, and doing none of it competently) that have created messes like this, and again, leaving enlisted soldiers to pay the price.

Some may look at my posts and replies to a certain COL and call me hostile and ask why I seem to be attacking an individuals credentials -- well here above are the reasons. Just as some point to our politicians and decry their competency, I can and do point to some of those same individuals and see bright, shining examples of their incompetency like these cases, and know who pays the price.

As with the Enrons, MCI Worldcoms, Sprints, and other badly run companies in the private sector, the officers of the company aren't the ones that pay the price. It's the line workers, the hourly workers, and the lower level technical people that lose their jobs and wind up paying for the incompetence of the idiots above them that are responsible for managing the budget. Those idiots that fudged the numbers and ignored the need to cut prices to keep up business and revenue so that workers didn't lose jobs. People with fancy titles that are tossed around just to impress and leave you feeling as if you were mandated to pay more attention to what they said because of the title. People just like that who made decisions along the way to create crap like the Stryker.

'nuff said.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I had seen this one coming years ago. Personally I felt lucky to never be assigned to one of these vehicles. The idea of driving to war in a Plastic tank is not too appealing to me. While the field testing for speed, movement and C&C was excellent when conducted at the National training center in CA. The real protection of the crew has always been suspect.

The system was build to be light enough to be carried in mass by aircraft and fast in the field. But when dead bodies are starting to be removed from them, during a time when a Bradley or M-1 Abram tank could easily have been fielded in this situation, people start to scream why and the crews become nerves.

While the idea was good at the time original planning. Later when lives are on the line (and every one is counted on the nightly news networks) these thin skinned vehicles may not be such good idea. Now people want to armor them up to protect the crew, but that only makes them too heavy for air transport, which is their primary use. The most interesting point is that the M-1 tank and Bradley, while heavier and more armored, are just as fast as these vehicles. The biggest fault of the first planners and approving officials is that they estimated that armor technology would have been better and lighter by the time of fielding. That did not happen, resulting in a turkey.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I spent about 2 hours one afternoon reading about a former soldier's complaints about the Stryker - how it, along with armored Hummvees, had cost American lives in Iraq. He suggested a return to major combat operations for the M113 APC. It is cheaper, well protected, tracked, able to traverse more forbidding terrain, does not have tires that will burn, and able to float on water if need be.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ah quit your whining. When you're at war you to go war with the army you have, not the army you wish to have, or would like to have. Ah. Said in jest you know. It's true much of the US's superior equipment has fallen short of expectations. It's reported recently that the Abrams tank, the multi million dollar one, most armored and capable in the field, is proving very stoppable in Iraq. I guess the armor isn't all the great on the sides and especially the rear. With all of the US's overwhelming tactics and very real capabilities, it doesn't take tactical knowledge to wait for the tank to pass by then spring up for an RPG shot to the back of the tank where it's main power is located. Any Iraqi nationalist could easily do that. Coincidentally, a while back, over a year ago I'm sure, I was ridiculed for saying exactly what today's knowledgeable people are saying. That the supposedly indestructible Abrams tank isn't all it's made out to be. I based my opinion on this: There was a military site with images of an Abrams tank with a hole punched through the armor indicating a firepower well beyond the supposed capabilities the US commanders said the insurgents had. The conclusion was it was a particular type of tankbuster the Soviets have. It's known there are lots of Soviet armaments in Iraq. As usual the incident wasn't widely reported. I was always saying the armor should be there for all the vehicles, but the more you think about it, it's very very expensive and of course contrary to popular belief there IS a price tag ratio for human lives your own troops be damned. The best armor is acting according to international law. Like it or not, there would be far less hell and carnage going on in Iraq if the UN were the ones running the show. All of the major US allies like France, Germany, Canada, Russia, they all said they'd support the actions if they went in under the UN banner. But America refused. Well, about 10 neocons refused. Yet they were still mocked and ridiculed and insulted for abstaning from what they knew were illegal actions contrary to international law.

Successfully updated karma reason!

He suggested a return to major combat operations for the M113 APC.

As an active soldier, thoughts like this send chills down my spine. Don't pull me in one of the slow rolling coffins ever again. I have seen what the old LAW, on the practice range, can do to one first hand. The RPG used in Iraq has about the same punch.

Give me the Bradley please. I've seen the movie and know the modifications the Israelis made, that was referred to in the movie, has made the vehicle from a dog to being worthy of its name sake. All our Bradleys have those mods on them now. During the First and Second Gulf wars, the after action reports have only been positive. During my service I have served with both the M113s and Bradley. I have always felt safer in a Bradley.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Give me the Bradley please. I've seen the movie and know the modifications the Israelis made, that was referred to in the movie, has made the vehicle from a dog to being worthy of its name sake. All our Bradleys have those mods on them now. During the First and Second Gulf wars, the after action reports have only been positive. During my service I have served with both the M113s and Bradley. I have always felt safer in a Bradley.

It's great that things have been improved, but it really saddens me that there are a bunch of idiots higher up that have pushed paper and ignored complaints and concerns along the way until "systems" like these are actually deployed and in the field.

Why is it that, as you point out (and the movie did as well), the Israelis and other allies have taken these "systems" and instantly improved them before using them. If they can improve them, why can't we, and why must we wait before we do?

Time and again you see where some incompetent individual lays out unrealistic design specifications and lets those specifications stand come hell or highwater. Never mind taking time to do it right the first time, or slowing down a bit along the way. Just start up the production lines and then fix the problems with field upgrade kits and after market upgrades.

I say to hell with that crap. Hold the brass and the civilians above them accountable for buying this crap and supplying it to our troops. When all of the after actions come in for all of the deaths in these under armored vehicles, send the "bill" to Congress and to the former defense department individuals and make them personally apologize to the families of the victims who died using inferior crap.

Again, too many idiots have been promoted along the way who didn't merit it simply because you had to literally curse out a superior in order to avoid being promoted. Much like the public school systems had been in the past, pass the kid along just to get him out of your class. Never mind that the kid couldn't read and wasn't functional in math. Just pass him along because he showed up.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's reported recently that the Abrams tank, the multi million dollar one, most armored and capable in the field, is proving very stoppable in Iraq.

Yes it maybe stoppable, but there has not been one crew member killed yet. That’s the true mantel of a tank. No tank is unstoppable. Tracks can be blown off and engine access points are always vulnerable. France, Britain, and Germany all use the same tech. and there no better tank in the world. Could we build a better one? Most likely yes and we have been developing the new one for years. But we will have to see how long it will take to deploy and how much with it cost to field. The Abrams is far from being a turkey. Try riding in the old M-60 tank someday and feel how nerves you can get.

I based my opinion on this: There was a military site with images of an Abrams tank with a hole punched through the armor indicating a firepower well beyond the supposed capabilities the US commanders said the insurgents had. The conclusion was it was a particular type of tankbuster the Soviets have. It's known there are lots of Soviet armaments in Iraq. As usual the incident wasn't widely reported.

It was widely reported in all the Army publications. It was in the Army Times (a public Mag), Soldier Magazine, and the quarterly Safety reports. All of theses pubs had it either on the front page or as one of the lead articles. No soldiers where killed, and no other attacks using the same weapons has been conducted. Some one will always produce a better tanks killer and eventually the Abrams will need to be replaced.

Like it or not, there would be far less hell and carnage going on in Iraq if the UN were the ones running the show.

Tell me a military action that the UN has done successfully with less hell and carnage. That is any success full action without the US playing the leading role?

All of the major US allies like France, Germany, Canada, Russia, they all said they'd support the actions if they went in under the UN banner. But America refused.

Please provide your info on this. First the UN never picked up that banner to enforce their own resolution. America can't refuse an offer from the UN to lead, if it never offered it.

Yet they were still mocked and ridiculed and insulted for abstaning from what they knew were illegal actions contrary to international law.

The war was not illegal:

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

U.N. Resolution 1441."

So I guess enforcing UN orders are illegal now? Unless you think serious consequences is telling them “Please stop that”, for the 20th time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's true much of the US's superior equipment has fallen short of expectations. It's reported recently that the Abrams tank, the multi million dollar one, most armored and capable in the field, is proving very stoppable in Iraq. I guess the armor isn't all the great on the sides and especially the rear. With all of the US's overwhelming tactics and very real capabilities, it doesn't take tactical knowledge to wait for the tank to pass by then spring up for an RPG shot to the back of the tank where it's main power is located. Any Iraqi nationalist could easily do that. Coincidentally, a while back, over a year ago I'm sure, I was ridiculed for saying exactly what today's knowledgeable people are saying. That the supposedly indestructible Abrams tank isn't all it's made out to be. I based my opinion on this: There was a military site with images of an Abrams tank with a hole punched through the armor indicating a firepower well beyond the supposed capabilities the US commanders said the insurgents had. The conclusion was it was a particular type of tankbuster the Soviets have. It's known there are lots of Soviet armaments in Iraq. As usual the incident wasn't widely reported. I was always saying the armor should be there for all the vehicles, but the more you think about it, it's very very expensive and of course contrary to popular belief there IS a price tag ratio for human lives your own troops be damned. The best armor is acting according to international law. Like it or not, there would be far less hell and carnage going on in Iraq if the UN were the ones running the show. All of the major US allies like France, Germany, Canada, Russia, they all said they'd support the actions if they went in under the UN banner. But America refused. Well, about 10 neocons refused. Yet they were still mocked and ridiculed and insulted for abstaning from what they knew were illegal actions contrary to international law.

You need to do a little more studying on US armor before you speak. Have you *any* idea what the Abrams replaced? Try vintage ww2 "Shermans".

Successfully updated karma reason!

M-1 Abrams tanks replaced M60's. M60's replaced M-48's. There were various other Mediums and Heavies between the M-48 and the M4 Sherman. It seems you need to do a little more studying, no, a lot more.

I will reprint this reply from Iraq (not from me) with only one comment. Rumsfeld successfully killed a SP howitzer program by pointing out it was not C-130 transportable. He tried the same thing with strykers but failed because it IS C-130 transportable. Now we have a new "study" criticizing a program Rumsfeld wishes to kill. Surprise, surprise.

Strykers Get the Job Done

Tuesday, April 5, 2005; Page A22

I am with the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, which has operated in Mosul, Iraq, since last October with 75 Strykers.

A March 31 article ["Study Faults Army Vehicle," front page] cites the Stryker's substandard survivability and maintenance as putting soldiers' lives at risk. I strongly disagree.

Since October our battalion's Strykers have been engaged with 122 improvised explosive devices (IEDs), 186 rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), 33 car bombs (10 of which were suicide car bombs) and much mortar and small-arms fire. In November and December, we fought as many as 70 insurgents during attacks. As a result, the battalion had seven soldiers killed in action and 102 wounded (81 of whom returned to duty within 21 days). Most casualties came during dismounted infantry operations.

The insurgents' most lethal weapon is the suicide car bomb. When these car bombs slam into Strykers, they create explosions that are equivalent to a 500-pound bomb. Yet in all 10 suicide car bomb attacks, no soldier on the Strykers was killed or lost a limb or eyesight.

During the past six months, one Stryker, C21, has been hit by a suicide car bomb, nine IEDs, eight RPG direct hits and a lot of small arms fire. Its crew had six wounded, but all of its soldiers are still in Iraq and fighting. After each attack, the Stryker either stayed in the fight or was repaired in less than 48 hours.

Not only is the Stryker survivable, it is reliable. Our 75 Strykers each have at least 20,000 miles on them. We average more than 1,000 miles a month, yet we have maintained, on average, a 96 percent operational readiness rate. That means that only three or four Strykers are down at any given time. This is the best operational readiness rate of any armored vehicle in the Army. We also average less than 24 hours to refit a vehicle after it has been damaged.

In urban combat, no better vehicle exists for delivering a squad of infantrymen to close in and destroy the enemy. The Stryker is fast, quiet, survivable, reliable and lethal. Most important, it delivers the most valuable weapon to the battlefield: a soldier.

MICHAEL E. KURILLA

Lieutenant Colonel

1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment

Stryker Brigade Combat Team

Mosul, Iraq

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think your LTC Kurilla is padding his numbers.

The ARMY Times April 11, 2005 has published the official numbers:

Report cites concerns from 1st combat tour by Mathew Cox

Out of the 345 documented hostile acts against Stryker vehicles and their crews in Iraq to date, there have been 17 deaths.

These attack have resulted in 28 "vehicle losses".
_____________________________________________

His unit is one of three. That would be about 9 vehicles per unit. he says he has 75 vehicles. That is no where near the 4% average (not counting the non-total loss and service times) that he is counting as down time.

This is from a vehicle that had to be upgraded so much in theater that they now can not fit on the C-130 any more (its original purpose).

The M-1 Tank has no deaths of crew and the Bradley have 8 deaths of crew, through out the whole war (not just one tour).

The article also states that when the temperature reaches 130 degrees the computer that operates its system shutdown. In Iraq that is about noon until 4PM each summer day. The vehicle weapon systems are highly inaccurate while moving because it does not have a stabilizing gun. Lets not forget that it has no infrared night systems either, making it a poor troop support platform at night. (Something both the M-1 and Bradley have.)

Again I bring up the one point: Why are we fielding systems that are used for quick reaction forces, into an area that has already been taken and we already have better equipment in theater?

Successfully updated karma reason!

The program Rumsfield killed was called "Crusader" and that heavy artillery piece was slower moving and required a separate targeting vehicle to operate. Can you tell me that we cannot get the same job done without spending money on something that people assume to be "bigger and better". When in reality it is neither but just a waste of money.

The Paladin and the 155MM Howitzer do the job of the Crusader and than some without requiring an additional targeting vehicle just to target something. Though the C-130 argument is moot since all heavy artillery/armor can be moved by the Air Force's C-5, the bird that makes the C-130 look like a dwarf.

Bradley though being a good vehicle is still to tall for an apc on the battlefield but alas as it has been pointed out better equipment than what came before as even my father pointed out.

M113's had a nasty case of flipping over in water, so hooray for an amphibious vehicle that drowns everybody!!

Another Military blund...marvel is the vehicle known as the Hummer. Seriously, I don't need to explain this one or another one, UH-66 Blackhawk. The Blackhawk is nicknamed the Sikorsky Lawn Dart and for a good reason too!

Why do we put our troops in such as hazardous vehicle as the Blackhawk? Why? I mean the Chinook (FYI. Fastest Helicopter in the US Military) is nowhere near as being as bad as the Lawn Dart. The Apache made in the same mold as the Lawn Dart has a better track record as well.

Why does the military do this to our soldiers?

One word: Taxpayers

To appease the taxpayers of the United States, the Government has it in it's mind to aim for the lowest bidder to get a job done. Though as you can see it has cost lives of military soldiers for taxpayers to have this low bid. Granted you cannot change the Government to change this because of one word: Bureaucracy.

Plus, you have those out there who would loathe shelling out a couple bucks or even any money at all for the Military, so raising taxes for the purposes like this fall flat on their face and it only changes when a General/Admiral at the Joint Chiefs actually cares about changing it. Most don't because they do not want to buck the trend. Those who do never make it that far because the ones who don't oust them or find another way to ensure they don't make it there.

The movie "Pentagon Wars" makes this all to clear why making fun of it at the same time.

- GX

Successfully updated karma reason!

Of course the Stryker has flaws, if General Motors, Electro-Motive Divison, and General Dynamics Land Systems Division delivered a flawless product there wouldn't be room for an A1, A2, A3...etc mod.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The Stryker was NOT the camel produced by the horse committee as the Bradley AFV was, as depicted in the movie "Pentagon Wars". It is a successful platform used around the world, in its third generation, and a complete rarity in US procurement- a "Not Invented Here", "Not Made Here" highly successful vehicle actually adopted and procured byt the US Army. Its procurement broke all the NIH rules that has burdened the US Army for so long. The electronics that break in high heat are the ones we added. Austrailian FLIRS work fine on their version of the Stryker, and Australians understand heat.

Take another close look at the "study"- mud "appears" to "put strain" on the drivetrain. This is fact? Just speculation.

Look at the RPG vulnerability of the M113, take a ride in one, then do the same in a Stryker. Go down the highway at 60MPH and then try that in any other vehicle. The M1 Abrams can do it briefly then you have to stop and adjust or replace the tracks. The Stryker can do it for hours and not even need another maintenance cycle.

I'm rather saddened by how this site has bought into Rumsfeld's rumor factory and attempts to kill a good program, the only armored vehicle the pentagon has gotten right since the M1. The "Study" was "Official Use Only" but somehow got leaked instantly. Yeah, sure. Who's going to jail for this leak? No one in Rumfeld's Pentagon.

Here is the original lie, about this STRANGE, un-tracked, FOREIGN, Canadian made vehicle:

Link

One of the many refutations:

Link

The main, primary, and only real problem with the Stryker is that it is not produced in a US Factory in the district of a powerful congressman.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Look at the RPG vulnerability of the M113, take a ride in one, then do the same in a Stryker.

I'm not comparing the Stryker to a M113 rolling coffin, a vehicle that has been almost completely removed from the Army inventory. The M113 chassis is only used in the M577 FDC variant within only some National Guard Artillery units. I am comparing this to what it should be compared to, the Bradley. As I have said above, I have rode in a M113 early in my career, but I have not seen one (other then museum pieces) in years.

Go down the highway at 60MPH and then try that in any other vehicle.

Yes, the Stryker has a 60MPH road speed, compared to the Bradley's 41 MPH. But they are using the Stryker in a urban environment, where that extra highway road speed is negated. The standard Stryker is fitted with a .50cal or Mark-19 that is manned from an open hatch gunner position (can someone say sniper bait). The Bradley has a standard 20mm Cannon and Tow missiles in either a protective closed or open hatch. The only thing a standard troop transport Stryker can do against a Tank or fighting position is hope it don't get a shot at it before they can run away.

The M1 Abrams can do it briefly then you have to stop and adjust or replace the tracks.

Have you ever serviced a track before? I have. While stationed in Germany I noticed we exchanged tracks about at the same speed as the wheeled vehicles exchange tires. As for stopping during combat operations, just to check or adjust the track, not even once. While the Stryker must be stopped to inflate the tires every few hours with a manual air hose. Why? Because the extra 5,000 lbs of armor, that will not allow it to fit into the C-130, forces the tire pressure to go below 75psi every few hours. With the extra weight, a 95 psi is required to be maintained or the inner safety hard tire rubs the outer tire until it is destroyed. But the automatic tire inflation system only goes to 75psi, so some the crew must dismount the vehicle and use the old fashion air hose. If a standard AK-47 round strikes a track, it does not need to be replaced. A Stryker tire takes a bullet it will keep rolling, but when back in the rear, that tire must be replaced.

Here is the original lie

Where is the lie in the report you provided? The number of available C-130s is correct and it does take 17 minutes to configure the non-armored Stryker in order for it to fit in the C-130. That is the only statues provided in this report. The rest is opinion. Last time I checked opinion is not lying.

The "Study" was "Official Use Only" but somehow got leaked instantly. Yeah, sure. Who's going to jail for this leak? No one in Rumfeld's Pentagon

Sorry, but you do know that Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) was a member for the House Armed Forces appropriations committee? He did not need a leak to get the information, he was given the info under mandate from Congress during the testing phase of the vehicle. That is the Congress's job to review and advise.

about this STRANGE, un-tracked

Actually the United States Marine Corps has used the LAV (Light Attack Vehicle) for years. The ideas is not strange to the US military. While the Marines have this vehicle in their inventory, they sidelined the vehicle to support units in exchange for the tracked Assault Amphibian Vehicle Personnel Model 7A1 (AAVP7A1) in the front line units during the assault phase of operations..

FOREIGN, Canadian made vehicle

To be honest, I didn't even know it was made in Canada. I don't care where it was made, as long as it is a NATO Allie. But I will return to the old adage "If an Allie jumped off a cliff, would you jump off too?" If the Stryker has had 18 personnel killed in one tour and the Bradley has only killed 8 in the whole conflict. Why use it in a roll it was not built for, when we have a weapons system there that provided more fire support to the soldiers and more protection for its crew & passengers?

The testing period is over and IMO it has failed. I'm not saying to scrap the vehicle. Just stop fielding anymore units and wait for the Armor Tech. to catch up to the idea.

Also thanks for sending me through your link to this great article on the Stryker field testing[ Link ] Please read the link and tell me if you're still interested in riding into battle in one more of GEN Shinseki's (Clinton Era) bright ideas. At least his hated Black Beret idea didn't kill so many people (it has two), yet.

That's My Two Cents

Successfully updated karma reason!

The Stryker crews have higher casualty rates because the vehicle is highly suitable for the kind of high-speed caravaning that the US Army has decided is
appropriate (?) for patrolling in Iraq. Heavy mech is being used for station keeping and whatnot and just doesn't drive by roadside IED's and carbombs
as often as the Strykers do.

You comment "Please read the link and tell me if you're still interested in riding into battle" reveals your ignorance. MBT's are ridden into battle. Armored cars deploy their
troops before battle, unless someone screws up. This is our doctrine with the Stryker, and every other non-tank armored vehicle, for that matter.

Thank you for another link exposing the lie. General Dynamics had to pay for yet another C-130 test last year to refute the "very little space left over" lie. Basically everything they complained about in your link either 1.) has to do with the prep of air transport of ANY armored vehicle, or 2.) was a lie and has been refuted. Look at the date, 2002. Strykers
go out in C-130's every week, perhaps you expect them to disembark with guns blazing?

Here's another lie: the Stryker "cannot traverse a bog".

http://www.militarycorruption.com/soundoff2.htm

Having driven one through mud up to the hubs, I can confidently state in 8x8 it's the best mud vehicle the Army has. (I would like to see ANY wheeled vehicle go through mud
higher than the hubs.

People expect it to have the survivability of an MBT and float too? And now it's less reliable and worse in mud than an M113?

Just how much misinformation are people going to believe? Apparently, a lot. Believe what you want. If you want to quote a 2002 article that has been refuted, go ahead, you're
not doing your case any good.

Successfully updated karma reason!

They're already starting initial evaluation for a replacement for both the Stryker and the HMMVW.
Depending on the results of the OTE, the Army and Marines could see a new class of LAV. You see more at the following link: http://www.gpv.com/

A Marine examines an eight-wheeled personnel transportation vehicle displayed at the Force Protection Equipment Demonstration here April 28. The company who manufactured the vehicle set the prototypes on public display for the first time at the FPED here.
Photo submitted 05/05/2005 Taken by Cpl. J. Lago

Successfully updated karma reason!

Heavy mech is being used for station keeping and whatnot and just doesn't drive by roadside IED's and carbombs
as often as the Strykers do.

What? The Bradley is the work horse of the Army. There are Divisions of Bradley's in theater compared to only three Battalions of Strykers. The Bradley has been used 30 times more in all operations then the Striker.

Look at the date, 2002. Strykers

If you want to quote a 2002 article that has been refuted, go ahead, you're
not doing your case any good.

What part of 11th April 2005 "The Army Times", study done by an Army evaluation team after the early 2005 deployment was finished did you choose to ignore?

perhaps you expect them to disembark with guns blazing?

Yes!!!!, that is what it was to be purchased for. Not to spend a week having additional armor added on. It was meant to fight the first day in theater. The Bradley can be deployed by air in the C-5, without delay.

And now it's less reliable and worse in mud than an M113?

What is it with you and wanting to compare it to the M113? An old Willies Jeep with sheet medal strapped to the side is more reliable and better in the mud then a M113. As I have noted above, don’t compare it to an obsolete no longer even in the inventory M113, compare it to the Bradley.

You call me ignorant for using a link to corruption studies, when it has been you who has posted them. I had never even seen them before you posted them.

The vehicle is a dog and a death trap. Give it ten more years and newer high tech armor, then it will be a good vehicle. I don't give a rodents behind if it was made in Canada or not. But you seem to think it is the US Armies salvation (no matter what problems it has), because it was made in Canada.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So here we are, 8 years later.

The M113 is still in army inventory, with a tentative replacement date of 2018.

The Stryker's high speed is credited for its quick response capability and IED avoidance. Upgrades (all successful armor platforms get upgraded over their lifetime) to double V hull increased IED survivability.

The platform is an unqualified success, with more roles now in service.

The "leaked" (yeah, right) study has been discredited.

I never thought of it as the US Army's salvation. It is light armor and as such will always have some vulnerabilities. The sheer scale of errors in the original blog post and the "leaked" study just has to be refuted.

Successfully updated karma reason!