I have posted here before on this, other than the MGS variant, every soldier I have talked to who has been on Strykers raves about their performance in Iraq.
I've directly worked with several Stryker companies and come away impressed as well. Sure, it has its limitations, but so does any platform.
The d-n-i stuff is mostly politically motivated diatribe.
That was my understanding too. Col. Ralph Peters told me that in 2004, that the troops loved the Stryker, and the M113 was "a deathtrap."Originally Posted by Cavguy
It did strike me as a pretty questionable document. But you seem to agree with him on the political nature of the whole project from the outset. Is he way off base on the RPG issue?
My understanding from the Company I worked with (part of 172d Stryker from Alaska), was that they had been attacked by RPG's in Mosul without major damage or casualties to the crew. I am sure there are some weak spots, but even the M1 tank has those.
What was convincing to me was the praise these infantrymen gave the Stryker in an IED-heavy area, with multiple threats. E-4's rarely fail to give you a blunt assessment (see the original thread article), and all the ones I talked to liked the vehicle and felt safe in it. If it was the deathtrap described, you wouldn't hear that from joe. Granted, they had bolt on armor and slat armor added from the original version as well.
One of the suppositions on why it does well is the "boat" hull - HMMWV's and M113's have right angles that absorb, rather than deflect blasts.
Posting Permissions
"A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, 
Bookmarks