Comments on: Stryker Sighting

By: Jack O'Derry

Jack O'Derry — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:17:43 +0000

“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!

By: Ryan Bailey

Ryan Bailey — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:49:54 +0000

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.

By: Jack O'Derry

Jack O'Derry — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:48:42 +0000

…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.

By: Jack O'Derry

Jack O'Derry — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:01:37 +0000

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…?

By: Shawn J Corter

Shawn J Corter — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:15:02 +0000

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Ground/Stryker.jpg

By: Shawn J Corter

Shawn J Corter — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:13:59 +0000

You Think there is no Stryker with the 25mm Platform…Take a look at this picture and then Explain why this isn’t so.…

By: LanceThruster

LanceThruster — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 02:09:12 +0000

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.

By: Gunny B

Gunny B — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:05:04 +0000

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

By: 124strykersoldier

124strykersoldier — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:48:47 +0000

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.

By: SGT BROWN

SGT BROWN — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 02:02:23 +0000

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.