Stryker snippets

[MikeyD]

I read an interview by the commander of that blown-up Stryker some months ago. He said (to the best of my recollection) the only reason why his legs didn't get crushed as the thing flipped was because the TOW launcher kept the hulltop from grinding against the pavement. Some very VERY lucky guys in that vehicle.

[Splinty]

BTW Noone, I mean noone calls any variant of the M113 series a "Gavin" except this fool at Combatreform.

[hellfish]

Yeah. I think the Gavin is a good name for the XM-8 AGS or maybe an airdroppable FCS variant, but not the 113. The 113 is just the 113 - it has been for 45 years. No need to call a mule a stallion.

[Bruce70]

This is a little off topic for this thread, but I didn't think it was worth starting another one.

Anyway I know the Stryker has "run-flats" (for at least 4 wheels?), so...

1. How well does it manouvre with 1,2,...8 tyres blown out?

2. How easy is it to puncture a tyre?

3. How many spares does it carry and how quickly can they be fitted?

I would have thought that all the tyres would be blown in the first 30 seconds of a battle, but this doesn't appear to be the case, what gives?

[Battlefront.com]

I would have thought that all the tyres would be blown in the first 30 seconds of a battle, but this doesn't appear to be the case, what gives?

Shooting out a tire is not easy when the vehicle is moving, unlike in Hollywood movies. Lots of dangers to take out a wheel, for sure, but those dangers are generally directed (or misdirected) at the vehicle itself. Probably like a fist fight... you know if you can poke the guy's eyes he's done for, but you find yourself ducking and going for body blows instead. Or somefink like that

Steve

[LGMB]

My concern with the Stryker is simply a why issue- Why has the United States military sruggled so vehemently to see this vehicle, whatever its flaws (and from what I've read, they're massive), implemented?

As an M113 replacement, as far as crew survivabilty is concerned, there's no comparison. A Stryker can't stand up to RPG-7 hits or .50 caliber machine gun rounds (and even with scalled armor would still have massive problems doung so) and that alone pretty much throws out its usefuleness in modern combat situations, espacilly MOUT enviroments. Sure the M113 is out of date and needs to be replaced, but why is the Stryker seen as the right way to go?

As a light-armor mobile gun system, the Stryker's wheeled layout makes it inadiquate (tendency to flip, flats screwing the gun's gimble system, etc), while its low ammunition capacity makes it totaly useless as a supressive weapon.

Aside from these problems to the vehicles major roles, it weighs something upwards of 17 tons (more with scaled armor and a squad and so forth), and its like over 2 and a half meters high- making it, contrary to its designation as a "low profile vehicle" an extremely high profile vehicle! For comparison, the M113s, supposedly too high profile and too heavy, only wieghs 14 tons and is only 2 meters high!

Now, again, I'm not saying the M113 is the way to go; clearly its out of date, but what I am suggesting is that the Stryker is certainly the wrong way to go.

The obivious comparison I make is the the First World War and the use of battle-cruisers by the major powers of the war, specificaly the British. The assumption had been, in building battle-cruisers (as proposed by Fuller) that the speed and firepower of these ships would make up for their lightly armored nature. As we all know, this was not to be the case and the destruction of the Invincible, the Queen Mary and Indefatigable were proof positive that speed and firepower cannot makeup for armored protection. The Styker suffers the exact same critical flaw- the assumption that this vehicles heavy firepower and superior mobility (both of which are totaly questionable, I might add) are enough to compensate for its armor defiecency is a critical mistake. Americans will pay with their lives for it, just as the British did at Jutland.

2. How easy is it to puncture a tyre?

The vehicle's own weight tends to cause tires to blow out- so even if actaully 'shooting out the tires' is hard to do, maintinance and logistical support become further complicated by the tire problem.

the logistics and "up time" benefits the Stryker brings to the table

Uhm... does it really? As far as I've read, the thing is difficule to transport (weighs to much and doesn't fit in transports), prone to technical faults (computers shorting out when hit at close range, internal cooling systems failing, etc), and a pain in the ass to drag out of ditches, or to haul back to be repaired after its blown a few tires. Sure; its easier to drag a Stryker back then a tracked M113, but these fualts cannot be over looked. The point, I think a lot of people ignore, is that the Stryker is not a small vehicle as far as goes other light wheeled armor- its huge. And heavy. And very complicated- overly so when it comes to combat situations.

[ October 27, 2005, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Lord General MB ]

[lucero1148]

All in all the Stryker seems to be doing the job its supposed to be doing from what I can see from the real world examples given by the men in the field.

All best

Patrick

[flamingknives]

The Stryker doesn't have to be hauled back when the tyres are shot out. They have run-flat tyres.

Reports from soldiers using the Styker in Iraq indicate that tyre problems aren't that significant.

The Battlecruiser analogy is flawed. The battlecruiser was used in place of battleships, which is analagous to the Stryker replacing Bradleys and Abrams. This is clearly not the case.

The Stryker can also stand 14.5mm AP HMG fire

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Lord General MB:

[QB]

As an M113 replacement, as far as crew survivabilty is concerned, there's no comparison. A Stryker can't stand up to RPG-7 hits or .50 caliber machine gun rounds (and even with scalled armor would still have massive problems doung so) and that alone pretty much throws out its usefuleness in modern combat situations, espacilly MOUT enviroments. Sure the M113 is out of date and needs to be replaced, but why is the Stryker seen as the right way to go?

The Stryker isn't an M113 replacement. Find me one unit, outside of the first Stryker brigade 3rd Bde, 2nd ID (who had the necessary experience and infrastructure to support and create a doctrine/TTPs for a motorized unit, unlike a light infantry brigade) that turned in it's M113s for Strykers. M113s are still used in many units and is still a useful vehicle but yeah, the good old 113 is getting pretty old now.

As a light-armor mobile gun system, the Stryker's wheeled layout makes it inadiquate (tendency to flip, flats screwing the gun's gimble system, etc), while its low ammunition capacity makes it totaly useless as a supressive weapon.

I haven't heard too much about the MGS flipping (supposedly this happens when the MGS fires at a 90 degree angle to the hull) but everyone I've talked to about it at the Armor Center at Fort Knox said that was a problem when they first tried the turret on the vehicle but it was fixed years ago.

That's not to say that there aren't other issues with the MGS, though - like the decibel level is way too high, low ammo count, lack of flexibility for the commander's .50-cal, etc.

Aside from these problems to the vehicles major roles, it weighs something upwards of 17 tons (more with scaled armor and a squad and so forth), and its like over 2 and a half meters high- making it, contrary to its designation as a "low profile vehicle" an extremely high profile vehicle! For comparison, the M113s, supposedly too high profile and too heavy, only wieghs 14 tons and is only 2 meters high!

True. The Stryker is better armored, more mechanically reliable and more tactically useful in the current environment than the M113, though.

Now, again, I'm not saying the M113 is the way to go; clearly its out of date, but what I am suggesting is that the Stryker is certainly the wrong way to go.

What do you suggest is the right way to go? Give everyone Bradleys?

The obivious comparison I make is the the First World War and the use of battle-cruisers by the major powers of the war, specificaly the British. The assumption had been, in building battle-cruisers (as proposed by Fuller) that the speed and firepower of these ships would make up for their lightly armored nature. As we all know, this was not to be the case and the destruction of the Invincible, the Queen Mary and Indefatigable were proof positive that speed and firepower cannot makeup for armored protection. The Styker suffers the exact same critical flaw- the assumption that this vehicles heavy firepower and superior mobility (both of which are totaly questionable, I might add) are enough to compensate for its armor defiecency is a critical mistake. Americans will pay with their lives for it, just as the British did at Jutland.

Armor deficiency? Last I checked, a Stryker was a lot more effective at protecting troops from IEDs, small arms and RPGs than simple body armor and kevlar helmets.

Don't make the mistake to think that the Stryker is a replacement for tanks, IFVs and self-propelled artillery. It isn't. Strykers are upgrades to light infantry, who would otherwise be riding into battle in totally unarmored trucks or walking.

The Stryker Brigades are souped-up light infantry forces, not half-assed mechanized infantry.

The vehicle's own weight tends to cause tires to blow out- so even if actaully 'shooting out the tires' is hard to do, maintinance and logistical support become further complicated by the tire problem.

I haven't heard that. References?

Uhm... does it really? As far as I've read, the thing is difficule to transport (weighs to much and doesn't fit in transports), prone to technical faults (computers shorting out when hit at close range, internal cooling systems failing, etc), and a pain in the ass to drag out of ditches, or to haul back to be repaired after its blown a few tires. Sure; its easier to drag a Stryker back then a tracked M113, but these fualts cannot be over looked. The point, I think a lot of people ignore, is that the Stryker is not a small vehicle as far as goes other light wheeled armor- its huge. And heavy. And very complicated- overly so when it comes to combat situations.

It's difficult to transport on a C-130. But, unlike the M-2 or M-1, it's not impossible to transport. Big difference.

Computer faults? Come on... that's not a problem with the Stryker. The same thing would happen to any vehicle that had brand new stuff installed on it. Hell, BFT was shorting out on M-1s and M-2s when it was first installed.

I'd like you to find me a soldier who has or is serving in a Stryker brigade who says that your "shortcomings" can't be overlooked. By all accounts, the Strykers are a hugely popular vehicle in and out of the combat zone. Hell, even the Rangers managed to willingly take some to Afghanistan with them. The Ranger Seal of Approval is not easy to get.

[LGMB]

I've gotta haul, so just this for now-

I haven't heard that. References?

Some combat troops have reported problems with frequent tire blowouts, and the excess weight from the added armor has caused problems with the self-recovery winch.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/stryker3.htm

The armor, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times a day. Nine tires a day are changed after failing

Commanders’ displays aboard the vehicles are poorly designed and do not work. None of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used due to “design and functionality shortfalls,” the report says.

What did I say about computer faults?

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/military/stryker/story/4734661p-4367685c.html

Also, with the Battlecruiser analogy- it does work. BC's were used as fast screening support for the BBs. Nevertheless, they just couldn't fit the bill.

[MikeyD]

I believe in 'T72' you can go into combat with one or more systems non-functional to simulate... well... things often not working! It might be useful to have something similar in CMSF too, though who you'd get the breakage stats from I don't know, and old CM experience proves that relying on simple combat anecdotes doesn't guarantee game accuracy.

Talk about anecdotes, I hear for awhile Stryker brigade had awful trouble with gun jams on their vehicles. What the problem boiled down to was they lacked a decent gun range at their Mosul base, and simply clearing the grenade launcher after a jam was a major effort. I hear one of the first Stryker Brigade casualties even before they left Kuwait happened when someone working on a grenade launcher accidentally dropped a round ono the hull top - Ouch!

[Battlefront.com]

Looks like the good Lord General MB is relying on outdated and incorrect information. Hopefully he hasn't been reading the tripe over at Combatreform... more disinformation there than a political machine in full spin mode

Fytinghellfish has corrected most of the issues. But to illustrate how disinformation and distortion affect perception:

The vehicle's own weight tends to cause tires to blow out- so even if actaully 'shooting out the tires' is hard to do, maintinance and logistical support become further complicated by the tire problem.

There is no comparison... operationally a wheeled vehicle is superior to a tracked one in terms of maintainance and logistics issues. Period. The minor issue with tire pressure is just that... very minor. The work around is to add about 16 lbs extra for short trips, 6 lbs for long trips. That's it. All fixed. The better work around is for the Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS) to support tire pressures other than the upper 80 lbs limit. I am not sure if that adjustment has been made yet, but it would be a simple thing to retrofit.

BTW, the runflats can go for about 30miles before they give out. A tracked vehicle with a "flat" can't go more than a few feet.

As far as I've read, the thing is difficule to transport (weighs to much and doesn't fit in transports), prone to technical faults (computers shorting out when hit at close range, internal cooling systems failing, etc), and a pain in the ass to drag out of ditches, or to haul back to be repaired after its blown a few tires.

The overheating and speed issues with FBCB2 have nothing, repeat, nothing to do with Stryker. It is the system itself, which is used in Abrams, Bradleys, and command vehicles as well as the Stryker. However, the lack of air conditioning within the Stryker contributes to the existing reliability problems. Air conditioning units are now available for the Stryker, but that doesn't fix the slowness issue. Nothing short of an upgraded FBCB2 will address those issues.

The transport issue is a red herring. Yes, the original concept of C-130 trasportability is not practical. However, the adjusted concept (i.e. allowing for minimal prep time) is workable. The M113 isn't, so the Stryker sill wins that argument hands down when doing a side by side comparison.

Dragging vehicles back with flat tires... wonder where you read that. I have seen the exact opposite. Also have read from Stryker crew members that the self recovery winch works fine, even with the Slat armor.

All in all there are problems with the Stryker, just like there are with any other vehicle. Especially a vehicle that is going through the normal process of teething (ALL vehicles go through this). The critics appear to be those that have already made up their mind that the "glass is half empty", even if the glass is 9/10ths full. So you could say they are a 1/10th empty mindset, and that is extremely counter productive.

We aren't going to overlook the Stryker's real world drawbacks in CM:SF, but we sure as heck aren't going to be simulating outdated issues, problems that never existed, and general BS that we see circulating around the vehicle. We are neither anti nor pro Stryker when it comes right down to it.

Steve

[ October 28, 2005, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Lord General MB:

The armor, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times a day. Nine tires a day are changed after failing

You do know that was for the entire Brigade of 309 vehicles? That's a whopping 0.36% of all 2472 tires in service. Also, the info is as outdated as is most of what you've posted so far.

BTW, I've had a copy of the December Mosul report for some time now. All of my comments are made with at least one full reading of the document, along with many spot checks, under my belt. As is typical, critics (and the media is included in this when applicable) tend to distort what is in the report.

That quote in the newspaper article about the "None of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used" is a mystery to me. I have no idea what this is refering to since each of the 300+ strykers have 1 control screen and 2 FBCB2 screens. That's 300 of one type and 600 of the other. So what is this "100" that is being talked about? I haven't a clue. The only criticism of the screens I saw in the Mosul report were not specific to the screen but instead general complaints about FBCB2 (which is separate from the Stryker).

Steve

[ October 28, 2005, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

MikeyD, we are simulating systems and ingame damage. You can also predamage vehicles in the Editor. So, for example, you can have a vehicle's FBCB2 system go offline during a battle or have a tank turret jammed prior to the battle. Stuff like that.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

That quote in the newspaper article about the "None of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used" is a mystery to me. I have no idea what this is refering to since each of the 300+ strykers have 1 control screen and 2 FBCB2 screens. That's 300 of one type and 600 of the other. So what is this "100" that is being talked about? I haven't a clue. The only criticism of the screens I saw in the Mosul report were not specific to the screen but instead general complaints about FBCB2 (which is separate from the Stryker).

Steve

I believe they are referring to the issues with the NOMAD Head Up Display which are explained in pages 54-55 of the report:

Discussion: The Vehicle Commander (VC)Heads-up Display (NOMAD) is a heads-up display that permits the squad leader to view other displays such as DVE or FBCB2. The brigade was issued 100 sets of the NOMAD, for squad leaders, however because of design problems the heads-up display was not being used in theater. NOMAD sets were issued one per platoon. The helmet bracket break away pressure was too high and could cause neck injury if it gets caught on something and doesn’t pull off. The NOMAD was too large and difficult to use inside the vehicle, especially when getting out for security and then coming in the vehicle to toggle the functions of the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). The NOMAD was not that useful in an urban environment since the display caused a blind spot, to the vehicle commander’s vision, while trying to pull local security. The NOMAD does work well for long movements when local security and moving in and out of the vehicle is not required as often. Overall the NOMAD should be smaller and wireless, and a toggle remote to control the FBCB2, see the driver’s view, and see the gunner’s view without moving in and out of the vehicle.

[ October 28, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

[Battlefront.com]

Ah, I was wondering. Yeah, NOMAD was supposed to be the backbone of the Future Warrior program, but was axed due to the negative experiences with it by Stryker crews. Again, this is not a Stryker problem, but a separate system that will (hopefully) be made acceptable for field use soon. The Future Warrior progarm is now known as Stryker Warrior. It provides advanced capabilities for dismounted soldiers. The Stryker Warrior program is a scaled down, realistic version of Future Warrior. It will be in CM:SF, though without the NOMAD type system.

Be aware, folks, that the Stryker Brigades are being used as field test units for all sorts of things. For example, they field tested the Army's new uniform at home and in Iraq (though in standard 3 Color Desert cloth). Other select units also experimented with the new uniform. This sort of fielding strategy appears to be planned for some time now. So when you hear about something like NOMAD failing, don't think of it as a Stryker specific program. It just happens that the Stryker units are the first to test it before it is adopted Army wide. In the case of NOMAD it was sent back with a stamp of disapproval. It will come back again, at some point.

Steve

[LGMB]

Steve,

I get most of my information from Globalsecurity- which, as I understand it- is a pretty descent source. I don't have acsess to any of the field reports, so I think you can understand my ignorance in that case.

However, I think my main critisicims still stand: the system is bigger, heavier, yet poorly armored when compared to the M113. I get the idea that "it's not an M113 replacement," however that doesn't change the fact that the thing, as the basis for the United States future military agenda is an error in direction.

Again, I'm really just asking "why" in this context? Is something that comes off as an upgunned LAV the size of a schoolbus really apprioprate to Urban close action?

[hellfish]

It's actually better armored than the M113 even without the slat armor. A vanilla Stryker can protect against a 14.5mm AP round - like the original Bradley. An M113 can barely protect against a 7.62mm round.

[LGMB]

The M113 "Gavins" (mentioned and dismissed earlier in this post rather tepidly) are superior when it comes to armor over the Stryker- they can actaully take RPG hits. Not to mention, I think its unfair to compare a vehicle made with alluminion and steel components to a vehicle made with Kevlar and Cremetic compenents. If the 113 were made in the same manner, I'd imagine it would be just as well protected- if not better- then the Stryker.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Lord General MB:

The M113 "Gavins" (mentioned and dismissed earlier in this post rather tepidly) are superior when it comes to armor over the Stryker- they can actaully take RPG hits.

I would be very suprised if this turned out to be the norm as Ive even seen reports of even the M1's side turret being penetrated by RPG's on occasion. If we are just talking about them taking a hit and still functioning there are plenty of stories of the Styker doing the same.

Dan

[ October 28, 2005, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Battlefront.com]

Lord General MB

I get most of my information from Globalsecurity- which, as I understand it- is a pretty descent source. I don't have acsess to any of the field reports, so I think you can understand my ignorance in that case.

I get most of my stuff off of public websites too Global Security is an excellent "survey" site. However, be VERY careful about stuff that is ongoing or new. Some of their articles have been gathering dust for 2-3 years, but if you don't know what to look for you wouldn't know because they don't date their entries. That is my one criticism of what is otherwise an excellent source of information.

However, I think my main critisicims still stand: the system is bigger, heavier, yet poorly armored when compared to the M113.

Incorrect. You are simply wrong about what the M113 is capable of defending itself against. Even the Bradley can't survive an AP RPG hit (with reactive armor that might be different). The M113, stock, certainly can't. There is absolutely no ambiguity about this. Facts is facts

I get the idea that "it's not an M113 replacement," however that doesn't change the fact that the thing, as the basis for the United States future military agenda is an error in direction.

Well, if you don't understand what it is designed for, and are basing your opinion on incorrect/outdated information, then how much worth should one put in your opinion?

Again, I'm really just asking "why" in this context? Is something that comes off as an upgunned LAV the size of a schoolbus really apprioprate to Urban close action?

According to the guys using them and the higher ups relying upon them to do what needs to be done... the answer is yes. According to a blowhard, axe grinding, factually flawed guy like Combatreform... no. But that guy doesn't matter so neither does his faulty and biased conclusions.

If the 113 were made in the same manner, I'd imagine it would be just as well protected- if not better- then the Stryker.

Even if true, which basically means it isn't a 113 any more, there are still the other issues which makes the Stryker a better pick for its designed mission. If you need a Medium force to fill the gap between Light and Heavy, recreating the Bradley (a Heavy vehicle) doesn't seem to be such a smart idea now does it?

Steve

[LGMB]

Preface: I was just doing some reading on 2005 Stryker crew survivalbity and, suprisingly to me, it does sound pretty good. I'd like to stress, however the point in bold below, post facto.

If you need a Medium force to fill the gap between Light and Heavy, recreating the Bradley (a Heavy vehicle) doesn't seem to be such a smart idea now does it?

Fair enough. But this leads me to assume then that the Stryker is bassicaly an anti-Iraqi weapon. What bugs me- and blame me for only uses sources that are "2 to 3" years old, but alot of the huff about the Stryker has been to make it seem as though it would be the "next generation" United States fighting vehicle, the basis of the US army's rapid deployment force, etc. Somekind of "core" unit. However, as seems to be stressed again and agian here, that is no longer the case (never was?). Now the Stryker is an Urban Combat support vehicle or somesuch. In which case, its really just an armored Hummer. How would it hold up in cross-country, winter conditions? Under heavy fire from aircraft or regular army units? From tanks? So far I'm just hearing the same thing- its a mid-point between light armor and Hummers. Do we even need a midpoint there? What's the deal?

Edit: Will the Stryker be able to handle actaul combat situations, unlike those seen in Iraq? Ie, against an enemy with Tanks, and airforce, etc? (I guess we'll just have to wait for CMSF to find out)

Incorrect. You are simply wrong about what the M113 is capable of defending itself against. Even the Bradley can't survive an AP RPG hit (with reactive armor that might be different). The M113, stock, certainly can't. There is absolutely no ambiguity about this. Facts is facts

I was reffering to the M113 "Gavin" which, I understand, are generaly better at protecting crewmembers then Strykers are against RPGs. Hence, in reply to Krazy- I'm not saying the thing is shrugging off RPGs left and right, but just that its crew-survivaiblty is better.

Well, if you don't understand what it is designed for, and are basing your opinion on incorrect/outdated information, then how much worth should one put in your opinion?

Well thank you Mr. Nice-guy! I don't for a moment believe, however, that every issue I've raised so far has been dealt with (the damn thing still isn't transportable by air! Facts are facts!) As you yourself pointed out, the Stryker is still undergoing "teething" problems- fair enough. But are those problems costings lives? Are they acceptable? These are the important questions.

If we are just talking about them taking a hit and still functioning there are plenty of stories of the Styker doing the same.

Like I pointed out above, I'm talking about the crew still being alive. That's what matters.

You do know that was for the entire Brigade of 309 vehicles? That's a whopping 0.36% of all 2472 tires in service. Also, the info is as outdated as is most of what you've posted so far.

Ok, I hadn't known that was 9 tires out of 309 vehicles. I just read that now infact. I assumed that was out of a far smaller number of vehicles. Otherwise, obiviously, its not a very important issue at all, as you've pointed out.

The Stryker wasn't designed to fire on the move, Speakes said, but soldier feedback from Iraq has convinced the Army to add the capability, using a “remote weapons system,” to the Stryker starting with the fifth brigade in the summer of 2006.

Nevertheless- the "Styker wasn't disigned to fire on the move." What? Did I miss something here? And doesn't Summer 2006 seem a little late for something that should be implented... er... before the vehicels were deployed?

[ October 28, 2005, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Lord General MB ]

[Battlefront.com]

I just posted this:

Something for Stryker skeptics to keep in mind

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Lord General MB

Preface: I was just doing some reading on 2005 Stryker crew survivalbity and, suprisingly to me, it does sound pretty good.

There is hope for you yet Remember, I am not trying to convince you, are anybody else, that the Stryker is the best thing since sex was invented... I'm just trying to open your eyes to the fact that much of the Stryker criticism out there is BS.

Fair enough. But this leads me to assume then that the Stryker is bassicaly an anti-Iraqi weapon.

Not at all. If anything it is currently performing operations that weren't supposed to be its central focus, yet it is handling them quite well overall.

What bugs me- and blame me for only uses sources that are "2 to 3" years old, but alot of the huff about the Stryker has been to make it seem as though it would be the "next generation" United States fighting vehicle, the basis of the US army's rapid deployment force, etc. Somekind of "core" unit. However, as seems to be stressed again and agian here, that is no longer the case (never was?). Now the Stryker is an Urban Combat support vehicle or somesuch.

Just like the Abrams is instead of fighting off hordes of enemy tanks. The operations in Iraq are a change of pace for the entire US Army. They don't want this type of fight at all, with any unit, but that is what they have to deal with. So every available resource is being adapted to the new environment. Having said that, the Stryker was designed for this type of fighting. It just wasn't expected to be dragging on for years without any end in sight. But that is not the Stryker's fault.

In which case, its really just an armored Hummer.

Again, that is really misreading just about everything. First of all, what Hummers out there can take 9 dismounts and protect them from a 500lb IED? None. So it is just silly to compare it to a Hummer vs. another type of APC like a Bradley or M113.

How would it hold up in cross-country, winter conditions? Under heavy fire from aircraft or regular army units? From tanks?

Still unknown. They have been used in winter conditions, but only in training. However, the winter in the north of Iraq is pretty comparable to winter in most of the world. It is cold and wet.

So far I'm just hearing the same thing- its a mid-point between light armor and Hummers. Do we even need a midpoint there? What's the deal?

Even if an Iraq type counter insurgency operation is the only type of conflict the US will ever face from now on (which is not a good assumption to make), yes... there is good reason for a medium weight unit. The worth of the SBCT was proven during Fallujah when it moved out of Mosul, took care of a problem quite far away (I forget the distance), completely caught the enemy off guard due to the speed of the attack, then was able to rush back and take care of new trouble in Mosul. Other units wouldn't be capable of such an action on the fly.

Edit: Will the Stryker be able to handle actaul combat situations, unlike those seen in Iraq? Ie, against an enemy with Tanks, and airforce, etc? (I guess we'll just have to wait for CMSF to find out)

Stryker units have TOW2s and Javelins. They have superior situational awareness and contact with air and other attached assets. I have a feeling they'll do just fine in a real world situation.

I was reffering to the M113 "Gavin" which, I understand, are generaly better at protecting crewmembers then Strykers are against RPGs. Hence, in reply to Krazy- I'm not saying the thing is shrugging off RPGs left and right, but just that its crew-survivaiblty is better.

Crew survivability in the Stryker vs. RPG attack is excellent so you'd first need to show that it is a problem to begin with, then you'd need to prove that it is inherently more of a problem compared to other vehicles.

Well thank you Mr. Nice-guy!

Sorry to put it bluntly, but you sounded pretty sure of yourself despite having a lot of the facts wrong.

I don't for a moment believe, however, that every issue I've raised so far has been dealt with (the damn thing still isn't transportable by air! Facts are facts!)

See, that is my point. Two out of the ten variants are C-130 transportable. Not roll off ready for combat, but they are still transportable. All variants can be transported by C5 transports. Facts are facts

As you yourself pointed out, the Stryker is still undergoing "teething" problems- fair enough. But are those problems costings lives? Are they acceptable? These are the important questions.

Yes, important questions indeed. But one can also ask if the "teething" problems of a new highly offensive strategic national policy is acceptable and worth it. Strykers were rushed into combat partly because the high level war planners completely and utterly underestimated the logistics of occupying Iraq. At one point the DoD planned on sending only 1/3rd the number of troops that are in theater, even though the Pentagon wanted 6 times that much (they got about 1/2 what they wanted). If there was no war in Iraq then the teething problems could have been done in expanded training scenarios. However, seeing as the Abrams, Bradleys, Humvees, Apaches, and all sorts of other "legacy" systems are still showing that they need improvement, I doubt the Stryker could be made significantly better during peacetime than in time of war. These other systems even fought one war in Iraq already and they too are failing to meet the kinds of standards you are applying to the Stryker.

Like I pointed out above, I'm talking about the crew still being alive. That's what matters.

Right, which is why the Stryker is being so heavily praised by its soldiers. It offers excellent protection. One critic of the Stryker program visited a Stryker Brigade in Iraq. Guess what vehicle the critic insisted on being driven around in specifically instead of a Humvee? Yup, a Stryker.

Ok, I hadn't known that was 9 tires out of 309 vehicles. I just read that now infact. I assumed that was out of a far smaller number of vehicles. Otherwise, obiviously, its not a very important issue at all, as you've pointed out.

Exactly Plus, it looks like a few changes to the tire specs will fix this problem. The sidewalls are only single ply for some reason!

Nevertheless- the "Styker wasn't disigned to fire on the move." What? Did I miss something here? And doesn't Summer 2006 seem a little late for something that should be implented... er... before the vehicels were deployed?

This is a case where the design specs were logical and well thought out. Most vehicles can't fire on the move because there are tradeoffs for such provisions. However, it appears clear that the Stryker soldiers have found that their missions do require this feature. Not terribly surprising and it is being addressed. I don't think the original specs were stupid, just incorrect. Look at the upgrade programs for the Abrams and tell me that they got it right the first time So I put this in the category of "nobody's perfect" and don't put much stock in it beyond that. If I did then I'd have to tear every vehicle design team there ever was because I can't think of a single one that wasn't found to be "off the mark" in some way once introduced into the field. In other words, keep the criticism in perspective or don't bother criticizing.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

An example of "perspective" on misjudgements in initial vehicle design.

The Abrams was not originally designed with a powered means of moving the turret with the engine completely shut down. This surprised me because this has long been noted as an undesirable feature for a turreted vehicle. Having the engine running means fuel consumption, noise (at least for the crew), heat signature, and preculsion of turret motion if the engine stalls or is otherwise non-running. To me it is obvious that this is something a tanker, sooner or later, is going to object to.

From the little I have seen it appears the problem wasn't noted in Gulf War One, probably because it was a fast paced operation that ended after only 100 hours. Lots of problems were likely not discovered, or learned to the full extent, because of the short nature of the conflict. But Bosnia was a different story. Tanks were sitting around for prolonged periods of time, and without the engine running they weren't in a position to scan/respond. So the EAPU was designed and introduced. However, it apparently has some issues that make it less effective than it should be.

Now, one can have a reactionary, knee jerk response to learning something like this. Oh, you know... something like:

What? Did I miss something here? And doesn't Summer 2003 seem a little late for something that should be implented... er... before the vehicels were deployed?

Or one can simply identify it, realize that the world isn't perfect, aknowledge the problem is being dealt with, and move on. I rather the latter approach.

Steve