Strykers...and Why I thank god I am not Stryker Infantry

[SgtMuhammed]

Most major modern bridges can support the M1 and a very large proportion of lesser ones as well. The main problem with tracks as opposed to wheels is that the tracks tear up the road surface.

The only real problem would be trying to cross away from urban areas but engineers are always with the manuever units, especially if their route of advance might cross and obstical, natural or manmade.

[Bigduke6]

James Bailey,

Whether I oppose the war really is neither here nor there. The question is, are Strykers a good thing for the US to deploy in the war?

It all comes down to how you define "good", doesn't it? Force protection is not a be all, end all - because if you really want to keep the troops alive, just don't send them in harm's way.

But if a society takes the decision to send some of its citizens into a war, at the very least the society needs to equip those citizens to do the job, which in most cases is to win the war.

As noted, I am of the opinion Strykers do not fit that definition of useful equipment. Their presence won't help win the war, and their existence absorbs resources that might help win the war.

Sure, Strykers take a hit and the troopies stay alive usually, I'll give them that. And they're relatively quiet, and they can carry a entire squad, and they have pretty good all-around vision for an armored vehicle, and they can really truck provided they have a nice flat road, and you can carry more of them than Bradleys in a Herc.

But I don't see any of that winning either of the present wars, or indeed exending much advantage to the US in a future war. If it's a even a moderate shooting war, you want the firepower and off-road capacity of an M2/M3. If it's an insurgency, you are wasting your time running around with large herds of armored vehicles. I don't see a middle ground where the Styker is even a reasonably good fit.

EDITED: To spell James' last name correctly.

[ August 07, 2007, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[JonS]

Hi James

Originally posted by James Bailey:

Also, it is not just the US Army that is benefiting. Talk to some Canadians. They do things with their LAV-III bn ...

I may be wrong here, but it seems that some people - at least - class the LAVIII as a different fish than the Stryker. For example JasonC has, in this thread and others, spoken approvingly of the USMC LAV25 etc. I guess it's the additional firepower that makes the difference. Or sumfink.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by Jenka:

I think that’s where the disconnect is. Jason C is arguing Strategy while Blackhorse and others (who have actual experience with the operational and tactical use of strikers) are arguing that there is a valid Operational and Tactical role for the units.

I think you nailed it. Thanks for summing it up so nicely.

[James Bailey]

Originally posted by JonS:

Hi James

I may be wrong here, but it seems that some people - at least - class the LAVIII as a different fish than the Stryker. For example JasonC has, in this thread and others, spoken approvingly of the USMC LAV25 etc. I guess it's the additional firepower that makes the difference. Or sumfink.

Hey Jon, good to see you around again.

Yeah, you might have hit the nail on the head with that question. Why didn't we just use the LAVIII design?

LAV designs have clear advantages over the HMMWV, which, even with all the bells and whistle, is not really a combat platform. LAV designs also have a clear advantage over tracked heavier platforms by reducing the logistical footprint w/o losing lethality or survivability against a light enemy.

So LAVIII vs Stryker: Can one of you experts fill us in on why USA choose to reinvent the wheel?

[Blackhorse]

the LAV III is the STRYKER

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

James Baily,

Try to spell his name right, and then worship the man whose idea you are keeping alive.

http://www.cmmc2.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=614

All the best

Andreas

[MikeyD]

Funny thing about Russian criticism of Stryker. i recall some VERY fancy look BTR70s rolling around Afghanistan in the 80s, doing just about what Stryker's doing now. And Pentagon press reference to 'Vietnam chickenwire defense' not withstanding, the slat armor appears to have been largely based on cage armor used on BTRs in Chechnya. Russian criticism sounds like "Do as I say, not as I do."

We're emphasizing "Stryker Stryker Stryker" but there's a whole class of vehicles, including Marine LAVs, Canadian LAV-IIIs, Iraqi stretched M1117s, and a new Polish(?) infantry carrier AC in Iraqi hands that looks pretty spiffy. The only substantial difference I can see between Stryker and these other vehicles is its heavy (both figuratively and literally) emphasis on protection. Okay, there's the fancy electronics too but that should be transferrable from platform to platform.

[Blackhorse]

[ August 06, 2007, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

[MikeyD]

Stryker is LAV III with exponentially more armor protection. LAV III got the 2 man turret & 25mm gun, Stryker got the MEXAS tiles and cage.

[Blackhorse]

Yeppa.

[Blackhorse]

MikeyD, The other significant difference between STRYKER and all those you mention is that STRYKER has significantly more infantry carrying capacity.

The slat armor was first usde by the USN on its Monitor Patrol Boat Riverine force on the Mekong Delata in Viet Nam in the 60s (it was called bar armor back then).

http://www.ancientalley.com/ancient/alley/webnam/nampics/m2%20bow%201a.jpg

[ August 06, 2007, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

[JonS]

[ August 07, 2007, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Blackhorse]

JonS, I'm not sure I would characterize it that way. The Chassis is LAV III. there is a LAV III command post vehicles and LAVIII recovery vehicles, and they are still LAVIIIs despite not having a 25mm turret.

The STRYKER traded the turret for more infantry carrying capacity.

If, in your mind, that means it's not the LAVIII, so be it.

[MikeyD]

I haven't heard any reliable reports about the turreted LAV-III in Canadian use in combat. I wonder how that flavor of LAV has been doing. I believe I DID hear that Canada's shipping trusty-old M113s over to Afghanistan to suppliment the LAV-III. Something about being unhappy with the vehicle's off-road perfomance in the section of country they have to operate in. That's not a verified report tho.

[JonS]

[ August 07, 2007, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Blackhorse]

[ August 06, 2007, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

[JonS]

[ August 07, 2007, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Blackhorse]

[ August 06, 2007, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

[Blackhorse]

[ August 06, 2007, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

[JonS]

[ August 07, 2007, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Blackhorse]

More likely these

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/08/mil-070803-general-dynamics01.htm

[Blackhorse]

[ August 06, 2007, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

[Blackhorse]

What about these?

General Dynamics Awarded CAD$49 Million Contract to Supply LAV III Infantry Section Carriers to Canadian Forces

LONDON, Ontario – The Canadian Department of National Defence has awarded a CAD$49.2 million (approximately USD$46.3 million) contract to General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada to provide 33 LAV III Infantry Section Carriers. General Dynamics Land Systems, the Canadian company’s parent corporation, is a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD).

Under this contract, General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada will modify 33 existing LAV III chassis to an infantry section carrier configuration and integrate a Remote Weapon Station on to the converted chassis. The LAV III chassis were originally manufactured under a previous contract for LAV III TOW Under Armour (TUA) vehicles. Rheinmetall Canada of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, will supply the Remote Weapon Station, which will feature a universal gun cradle capable of mounting 5.56, 7.62 and 12.7 mm armaments and a cooled thermal sight system.

Dr. Sridhar Sridharan, senior vice-president of General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada, said, “As Canada’s leading armoured vehicle manufacturer, our workforce is committed and proud to support the Canadian Forces. The modification of these LAV III vehicles will provide the army with additional capability as they conduct their challenging overseas missions.”

The delivery of the LAV III Infantry Section Carriers will occur from June 2008 to March 2009.

General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada, located in London, Ontario, Canada is a business unit of General Dynamics Land Systems of Sterling Heights, Michigan. For 30 years, more than 1500 highly skilled technical employees have designed, manufactured, delivered and supported to global customers a unique family of light armoured vehicles (LAV). More information on the company is available at www.gdlscanada.com.

General Dynamics, headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, employs approximately 82,900 people worldwide and anticipates 2007 revenues of more than $27 billion. The company is a market leader in business aviation; land and expeditionary combat systems, armaments and munitions; shipbuilding and marine systems; and information systems and technologies. More information about the company is available online at www.generaldynamics.com

August 3, 2007

Contact: Ken Yama****a

Tel: (519) 964-5813

email: yamashik@gdls.com

[Blackhorse]

[ August 06, 2007, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]