The Army’s new Stryker wheeled medium vehicle has been in a lot of crossfires — literal and figurative — since its introduction a couple of years ago. Critics say it’s too heavy, too big, too cramped inside, thin-skinned and expensive. Supporters tout its quietness, ease of maintenance and flashy new electronics.
Now that Ft. Lewis, Wash.-based Stryker brigades from the 2nd and 25th Infantry Divisions have finished tours in Iraq, there’s some real-life experience to help sort the truth from the vitriol, and the consensus is pretty good. National Defense Magazine quoted an observer in October:
The vehicle, designed to carry a nine-man squad and two-man crew, has shown that its survivability, agility, mobility and technology is effective in an urban combat zone where the enemy strikes at any time in numerous ways, said [Ft. Lewis general staffer Col. Michael] Peppers.
Having accompanied the 25th ID’s Strykers on several combat missions in the town of Qayyarah, I’d like to add “adaptibility” to Peppers’ praise. Soldiers are learning to use the Stryker to do things it was never designed for.
Take for example the TOW-missile variant of the Stryker, which was meant to take out tanks but finds itself in Iraq with no tanks to fight. So soldiers have been using its TOW sights as a surveillance device, parking the Stryker on hilltops at night. The TOW Strykers can spot insurgent trucks from miles away.
As for the Stryker’s other amenities … riding in the back of a rattling, cramped M-2 Bradley always makes me sick to my stomach. But on one quiet night mission in a Stryker, I fell fast asleep.
There is some talk in Marine Corps circles about buying the Stryker to fill the gap between the new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and trucks. (Marine Maj. Craig Wonson advocates the Stryker in an excellent piece in this month’s Proceedings, which is not yet on-line.) The Air Force and the Canadian Army have already gotten into the Stryker game with small purchases in recent years.
– David Axe
|
Stryker SightingLeave a ReplyBy commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement |
|
The problem with the thing is that it is still too expensive. When we are in peacetime we seem obsessed about building state of the art weapons that turn out to be really good at their missions, but that cost too much to ever be deployed in numbers sufficient to accomplish them. We’ll still be using Hummers for combat patrol for years in the future, despite their known failings, because we will never afford the number of Strykers necessary to replace them fully. When we are in real knockdowns, like WW2, we shed this way of doing things like a bad habit. Would that we could do that now; it would save a lot of lives.
The Stryker is just fine as a basic armored car. The critics were concerned about it’s abiltiy to REPLACE M1s in a standup tank battle — which is what it was supposed to do. Good wheeled armor has a significant place in the force structure, but there is no way in hell that it will replace a MBT.
There is a need for something that presents a smaller target than the EFV for the marines for apres beach work. Of necessity surf-capable amphibious AFVs are large, way too large for inland use.
One look at the picture with this story says all that needs to be said about the bureactic screw up called “Stryker”. Why the bird cage?
Any compairson to the M-2 or M-3 Bradley’s is very misleading. From the begaining the Stryker was never even considered as a replacement for there APC’s.
It is also noted that the manufacturing lines for both the Bradley’s and the Abram’s Tank will be up and ready to go on December 31, 2005.
What’s notable of Stryker’s tour in Iraq was where it wasn’t, places like Najaf, Karbala, the Sar District in Baghdad, An Bar Provence and it even misssed Fallugah, twice.
In both Karbala, 1AD and Najaf, 2ACR 60 year old M-113’s were brought in and served well as usual. In both of these engagements no soldier riding in an M-113 was killed. The only KIA casualities that came to these units were to dismounted elements.
Stryker was only used in the areas with the lowest combat levels and like everything about this rolling cofin all reports and evulations have been santitized. Even the glowing reports from the troops was not with out minders just off camera.
Now Stryker, which even the Army no longer calls a Combat Vehicle is being shoved up the six of the Marines as a replacement for a much more able Combat Vehicle the LAV.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”
You know Byron-even though the Stryker Brigade wasn’t deployed to Baghdad-doesn’t mean they haven’t been all around town. Sometimes supplementing the armored ground mobility system-sometimes not.
Hey Byron,
The 1ID troops I was with in Baqubah refused to ride in their old M-113s, the things were so rickety and dangerous. Instead, they parked the –113s at gates and intersections as obstacles. On the other hand, the 25ID guys in Qayyarah loved their Strykers … and when I was with them, they had no “minders” telling them what to say. Besides, in a low-intensity environment, reliability is a major plus — soldiers in Iraq put a LOT of miles on their vehicles — and the Stryker beats the M-113 (and any tracked vehicle, for that matter) when it comes to reliability, hands down.
The Canadian’s aren’t getting into the Stryker game. It’s the Americans who have. We’ve had the vehicle (and earlier versions of it) a lot longer, and we developed and manufactured them and their many variants. (BTW: It’s called the Coyote up here — with its relatives, the Bison and Grizzly.)
By the way, those vehicles are *fast*. In some respects that makes up for a little less armour.
Those things are nothing more than expensive bullet-traps and I concur whole-heartedly with Mr. Skinner’s comments about their reliability and the comments ‘not’ made by soldiers. When we escorted the first of the Strykers across the DMZ into Iraq, it was the biggest debacle I had ever seen on a convoy. Between these things breaking down with many of the ailments mentioned above, to them running out of gas(!), to multiple flats on the same vehicle, these Strykers were the biggest PITA we ever had to deal with.
And it wasnt a one time thing. Having kept in contact with many people in these Strykers brigades, we kept hearing more and more stories like this. Talking to our 3rd shop guys, they’d have more of the same to say also about the frequency of breakdowns and deadlines they saw with them.
As far as combat effectiveness or survivability, junk. I lost a good friend of mine when an Iraqi with a car bomb drove up along side of his Stryker and detonated. All four occupants were killed because the explosion propelled the pieces of the car through the thin skin of the Stryker.
The weapon systems the Strykers can mount are no different than what can be mounted on other, more capable vehicles. The simple fact that its rolling on rubber and not track makes it a liability as well. There are few times you are more vulnerable then when underneath a vehicle on the side of the road in Iraq.
The Strykers may have a use in the military, but it sure isnt what they are being used for now, and the uses you CAN find for it can be performed more effectively by existing platforms. Best thing we could do is sell them to someone we dont like and make them their problem.
Two years after pearl harbor the U.S. had built tens of thousands of tanks, ships, planes. The “lets not be hasty here” feeling about armor for the troops nearly two years after the invasion is making me CRAZY. I can only believe that it comes from the fly boy mentality of “lighter, faster, more lethal” that works with airplanes but has no place on a battlefield. We need WHAT WORKS and damn the dogma.
I’m wondering how the manoverability of the Stryker with it’s rubber tires stands up to the M-113?
I would think that the Marine Corps wouldn’t want a vehicle that won’t swim. Strykers don’t have any swimming capability.
Re Striker,
I have to say that the Striker ‚like any other Lav or Av has its weak and its strong points. We in Canada use the Lav 1,2 and 3 as well as the Lav-25 and many other Lav derivitives and all perform well to very well,in their assigned tasks.
The vehicle is not an APc or an AIfv or a AFv. It is what we call an ISc or infanty section carrier. It is not designed for head to head slug outs , like the Bradley. It is not designed for close in urban combat. It was designed as a medium weight, Lightly Armoured vehicle to be used where speed and quiet and cover are in abundance. It is, I would have to say in its application,that the problem arrises not in the vehicle its self. The Canadian Forces kept many of its M113 and up engined and up armoured them for use where the LAv’s are not sutiable.
A mixed force of about 1/2 Tracked and 1/2 Treaded carriers make up the typical Motorised/Mechinised Infantry Battle Group.
All aspects of the All– Arms Force are kitted out with weapons systems mounted on both types. This gives the ability to deploy into almost any situation and have the correct vehicle type available for any tasking that may be requested or demanded. We augment this with G-Wagon(our German Built Hummer type UV’s)mounts for recon and patrol.
Add in the Various softies for haulin the Beans and bullets and taking our the trash and there is the complete package.
In short I would ask that you give the Striker a chance to prove itsself , but do not expect that it will be all to all. It is waht it is and if used correctly will be a great asset to your Army and other Armed Forces.
Thanks!
Let me start by noting that I have never been in the service but would certainly like to thank all those who are who have shared their experiences regarding the Stryker. My friend’s son returned from Iraq recently and had much to say about his dissatisfaction about the conduct of the war but was non-committal on the Stryker (my question was “Is it a piece of sh*t like I’ve heard?) His response was similar about the SAW btw.
Going by what I’ve already read elsewhere and the comments I’ve seen here, the Stryker is part of the same sort boondoggle that sends troops into combat with inferior body armor. (here is where I learned the most about its deficiencies: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_rpt/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf)It costs too much and does too little. I wonder if a newly produced M-113 (especially one that could tap Stryker budget dollars for upgrades) would still be thought of as rickety. I agree that the roles it performs are largely a result of add-ons that are suited to many other platforms that can better deal with the trade-off between speed, survivability, and firepower. I also read that (if you’re lucky), the RPG bird cage (it looks like folding cot springs to me — eternal sleep anyone?) is good for about one(1) hit which will mean that unfriendlies will certainly get frustrated and elect not to fire multiple rounds.
Just as with character witness testimonials, I tend to put more weight to those who can testify with a first-hand account of serious flaws, than those (even if fairly numerous) that state that they didn’t have all that negative experience. I hope they shelve that dog and find a designer/contractor that remembers that his work is first and foremost, to benefit the soldier and Marine sent in harm’s way the instead of major shareholders who at worst may lose face (and not the flesh and blood kind).
That reminds me, my friend’s son got some sort of Distinguished Action Commendation for his action in a firefight when his (LAV — Bradley?) was hit (RPG?)and he juggled returning fire and tending to a fellow Marine who had lost half his face from the initial explosion. He recounted this matter-of-factly by stating that earlier he had told that same Marine what an *sshole he thought he was and that they pretty much hated each other. The account of the experience is somewhere in this book: A Table in the Presence : The Dramatic Account of How a U.S. Marine Battalion Experienced God’s Presence Amidst the Chaos of the War in Iraq by LT. Carey H. Cash. I am an atheist and have no motive for mentioning it other than it recounts Adam’s (though not by name) combat action.
Thank you all again for providing your experiences and opinions regarding the Stryker.
That Skinner guy can’t spell.
Interesting mods to the old Bucket. Note the gunshields.
http://www.combatreform.com/aesindex.htm
According to Mike Sparks, no one has died inside a modified M-113 in Iraq so far.
Okay, let me weigh in on this. I work at the Program Manager’s Office for the USMC LAV. Let me dispel the rumor that we are even considering the Stryker. For one, it’s not even remotely amphibious, which is a requirement. Two, it’s way to freakin’ heavy to transport. The Army, as it usually does, loaded it down with an extra 10,000 pounds of crap, making CH-53E or KC-130J transport a non-starter. We are developing an “A2” version which will be a rebuild of the original Gen 1 design, with some significant upgrades, such as an electrical turret and more powerful Turbo Diesel engine. Four, even if the USMC wanted the Stryker, we couldn’t afford them. They have too much gee whiz stuff that effectively priced us out of the market. We deal a whole lot with the Stryker PM, and they are not very happy with the rushed into production variants they got stuck with. The Army, which is fixated on developing a MAGTF type of “expeditionary” brigades, is obsessed with trying to duplicate the fast deployment that Marines are best at. They will never get there, for many reasons, but will continue burning tax dollars at a cyclic rate trying to get there. The main issue/Achilles heel is with the Army’s use of this weapons system. The Army envisioned this as a battle wagon to wage urban combat on a scale with many of their heavier rolling stock. Marines know better, as we employ the LAV in a role it was designed for — RECONNAISANCE! Hooking and jabbing with RPG wielding maniacs is something a Light Armored Reconnaissance Company avoids at all costs. That’s what tanks are for. The Army should stay with what they do best — a heavy land force with a mission to slug it out and occupy territory after Marines take the objective. You might guess that I am a little bitter about the Stryker. I am, I hate seeing taxpayer dollars wasted. I may be biased, being a Marine, but the Army would have been better served investing in more HBCT’s than trying to be the USMC.
Apparently Major Lav has an issue with the Army period. Having endured some the worst Iraq has to offer while assigned to Aco 1–24 “Punisher’s” ( look us up Major Lav, you might learn something ) I can personally attest to the Stryker’s durability and, contrary to what the Major would have you believe, all those bells and whistles serve a legitiment purpose. Personally I think the Major is a bitter, opionated dumbass. When’s the last time YOU were in a Stryker in combat, Major? You think a Marine grunt on the ground wouldn’t appreciate a vehicle that can survive not one or two but REPEATED blasts from IED’s and direct hits from SVBIED’s? It just goes to show you that the brass, no matter what branch of service, seem to think with their fifth point of contact. Have a nice day, Major.
Silly Marines. Stupid superiority complex. The stryker’s a good vehicle, and has saved many of our lives. You guys just might benefit from having it in your inventory. And this comes from a deuce four vet, just like Sgt. Brown there. Quit being hardasses and accept the fact that the stryker is a great vehicle for urban combat. Lethal, survivable, and maneuverability is great.
124Strikersoldier.
Get with the program. I case you didn’t realize it — the US Marine Corps has had LAV’s since 1983. The US Army in its infinite wisdom decided in the early 80’s not to go with the LAV but to instead buy the Bradley. I won’t get into an inter-service rivalry argument. I’ve served with some extremely professional US Army soldiers throughout my 18 years of service. This isn’t about us against you but about the vehicle debate. During 15 of my 18 years I’ve served in Light Armoured Reconnaissance Battalions who are equipped with Generation 1 LAV’s — Strykers are a modified Gen 3 version of the same vehicle. I have also seen combat in both Desert Shield/Storm and OIF in the LAV. During 1998, I was also lucky enough to be stationed near Fort Lewis when the Stryker trials were being conducted. What I can say is that the US Army bureaucracy has ruined a perfectly good vehicle by making the platform try to do to many things at once. They got the concept right but should have left a brillant vehicle design alone. The Canadian and NZ Armies both employ the same vehicle to tremendous success without all the design flaws induced by overzealous Generals. The C130 requirement? Who in their right mind came up with that one then decided to penalize the platform through gross modifications. Remove four of the eight tire run flat devices?? Don’t buy the turret mounted 25mm M242 Chain Gun system but instead stick with just a M2 50cal MG or Mk19 40mm GLA? In Iraq today there are a lot of Marines who owe their life to the 25mm and its destructive offensive fire power.
Bottom line — don’t try to slander another service before you know all the facts. The US Marine Corps has pioneered the us of the GM LAV — not the US Army.
Gunny B
Was pleased to see some comments following mine that echoed my impression of the Stryker, though it was equally encouraging to hear accounts of Strykers saving lives.
For those that haven’t looked over the deficiency report, I’d recommend it highly.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_rpt/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf
For a good insight on the boondoggles of military procurement I’d suggest the movie “Pentagon Wars” about the development of the Bradley. It’s quite funny if you ignore the money and lives potentially wasted.
You Think there is no Stryker with the 25mm Platform…Take a look at this picture and then Explain why this isn’t so.…
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Ground/Stryker.jpg
Shawn,
Hate to burst your bubble, slick, but that is a photo of a Canadian LAV III (Piranha III) in what looks like Afghanistan. The Canadian’s did a righteous re-mod of the USMC LAV, and the product had the 25mm Bushmaster Chaingun as part of the package. The U.S. Army started with that version and proceeded to slap an extra 2+ tons of gizmos on it, thus negating the ability to house the weapons system that the vehicle was designed around. Incidentally, the Canadian version IS C-130 transportable. A link to the official Canadian Army website devoted to this great war machine:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_display.asp?product=64
Looking at the photo caption, I would say you were most likely misled by it, as the .jpg was misnamed in that photo. Was probably posted by somebody who didn’t really know what he was looking at or maybe an American soldier who had a wishful moment…?
…and let me correct myself before somebody else notices that the NEW ZEELAND army uses the LAV III with the FN MAG-58 machine gun, vice the Canadians who utilize the C6 GPMG on their variants. This vehicle, which is identical to the Canadian version with minor exceptions, is clearly not marked with the Maple Leaf roundel and is carrying the MAG 58 up top, making it a Kiwi LAV III.
Many have perceived a disproportionate focus on the limited socio-environmental impact of the Stryker System. It must be observed, however, that tracked vehicles create less soil erosion than wheeled vehicles as well as less foundation cracking, wellshaft failure, terrain ruttage and diverse effects all due to superior displacement ratios which the tread drive system provides. This fact when taken in concert with the greater mobility that tracks provide, being much more difficult to mire or high center, logically tend toward the favor of tracked systems such as the M113 Gavin. While the M1126 may be truthfully termed the more courteous system for the pavedroadways of Host Nations, pavements are not a part of any natural environment. As such General Shinseki’s intitial criterion for the interim LAV IV system as the basis of the Modularity Focused Force of Expeditionary Excellence remains at issue.
“Modularity Focused Force of Expeditionary Excellence”? Is that with or without the bad-a** Berets? Give me a break already, guys. It’s time for the Army to give up the 5th Ave. name game and I-wanna-be-like-the-USMC tag lines and get in the fight already…
And tracked behemoths causing less damage than wheeled vehicles? Reference please!