Stryker collection (merged thread)

[Uboat509]

I was in the 2ACR shortly after they reformed as light cav (HMMWVs instead of Tanks and Bradlys). It was not a popular concept. Most of the guys in the unit hated it either because they were left over infantry from one of the units that formed the regiment and they distrusted vehicles, or because they were veterans from the regiments experiences in the Gulf War and patrolling the Fulda gap. The rumor was that after Gen. Sulivan retired the regiment would be disbanded or given back their armor. Back then they were trying to write the doctrine and it really seemed that no one had any idea what to do with light cav. They were far to light for the armor guys' tastes and far to big with too few dismounts for the infantry guys. The main focus for us back then was "expand the lodgment". That was where the 82nd would jump in and do an airfield seizure and then we would land on that airfield and roll right off into the fight and expand the area around the airfield. We practiced it a lot. At the time there were also rumors of new weapons systems that we might get. One of those was the Armored Gun System which was a sort of light tank and if I am not mistaken one of the progenitors of the MGS. I bring all this ancient history up because one of the saving graces for the light cav concept was the fact that they could be loaded onto a C130, landed anywhere that a C130 could land and then rolled off the aircraft and straight into the fight. I thought that that was the purpose of the Stryker, upgrade the armor protection and mobility of the HMMWV but maintain its rapid deployability. I was told that the reason that they went with .50 Cals and MK19s instead of retaining the 25MMs was to ensure that they could fit into the C130 and then roll into the fight like the HMMWVs. Then I learned that they in fact cannot just roll off the bird into the fight. Apparently there are a number of things that must done in order to fit it into the bird and the once it rolls off the bird before it can get into the fight. So if I am understanding this correctly then what we have in the Stryker is a vehicle that is neither as heavily armed and armored as the Bradly but not as rapidly deployable as the HMMWV. So my question is what is the point?

SFC W

[Stu-6]

. . . So if I am understanding this correctly then what we have in the Stryker is a vehicle that is neither as heavily armed and armored as the Bradly but not as rapidly deployable as the HMMWV. So my question is what is the point?

I agree with your what is the point comment, Strykers are ok for some things but they seem to have a lot of limitations especially when you consider all of the money we put into the program. We could have gotten a lot of the same capabilities at not even half the cost if we had just modernized some of our old M113.

[Shek]

I agree with your what is the point comment, Strykers are ok for some things but they seem to have a lot of limitations especially when you consider all of the money we put into the program. We could have gotten a lot of the same capabilities at not even half the cost if we had just modernized some of our old M113.

Stu,

The Stryker has a huge logistical advantage over the M113, which is one of the bigger reasons for the LAV platform getting picked. While it may seem like only a marginal change to add the logistics for M113 equipped BCT, that change adds up quite a bit such that the footprint detracts greatly from the deployability as well as makes sustainability of the unit via air suspect at best given the air fleet constraints.

Another huge advantage that has played out in Iraq is the relative stealth of the Stryker vs. a M113 platform as well as the degraded mobility capabilities of the Stryker. If you lose track on a M113 from an IED, you lose mobility. If some tires get blown by an IED, you still can limp out of the kill zone immediately and then take the appropriate remdial action (if it's even necessary) from a safe zone.

[Rifleman]

Stu,

The Stryker has a huge logistical advantage over the M113, which is one of the bigger reasons for the LAV platform getting picked. While it may seem like only a marginal change to add the logistics for M113 equipped BCT, that change adds up quite a bit such that the footprint detracts greatly from the deployability as well as makes sustainability of the unit via air suspect at best given the air fleet constraints.

Another huge advantage that has played out in Iraq is the relative stealth of the Stryker vs. a M113 platform as well as the degraded mobility capabilities of the Stryker. If you lose track on a M113 from an IED, you lose mobility. If some tires get blown by an IED, you still can limp out of the kill zone immediately and then take the appropriate remdial action (if it's even necessary) from a safe zone.

I don't think the M113 is some kind of super vehicle, or that it should have been the choice for the IBCT's, but I can't understand why Airborne units don't have some. It's got to be a better weapons platform for the Delta Companies than an uparmored hummer. What else out there can be airdropped that we've got right now?

[Stu-6]

Stu,

The Stryker has a huge logistical advantage over the M113, which is one of the bigger reasons for the LAV platform getting picked.

I am not sure I understand how it has a huge logistical advantage, could you explane more?

My bigest problem with the Stryket is not its preformance just the price that it comes at. I do think it is better than a 113 just not enough better for the price tag.

[Shek]

I am not sure I understand how it has a huge logistical advantage, could you explane more?

My bigest problem with the Stryket is not its preformance just the price that it comes at. I do think it is better than a 113 just not enough better for the price tag.

Stu,

1. M113s would guzzle twice as much gas, and so you'd have to nearly double the number of fuelers. While only a small increase in the number of overall vehicles, on the margin it has a huge impact, as it is already a difficult task to resupply the SBCT under a scenario where there is only an aerial LOC.

2. The Stryker's engine is the same as the engine in the FMTV. Because of this, you have a smaller PLL and ASL (repair parts that are on-hand and hauled around by the unit) requirement than if you had a FMTV/M113 combo. Also, there is more commonality of parts across the Stryker variants than there would have been across the M113/M8 combo. You have the same effect here as with the engine story. In the end, the M113 equipped unit would require more vehicles to carry these additional parts

3. The Stryker has fewer maintenance requirements above and beyond the analysis in #2. So, if you had a M113 equipped IBCT, you'd have to add even more vehicles.

While the above three points aren't exhaustive, because the SBCT is designed to be very lean on logistics without much of a cushion, once you start adding on the margin, it has a huge impact on everything. Not only do you add vehicles, but you add the requirement for more gas to run these vehicles, soldiers to crew the vehicles, food to feed these vehicle crews, ammunition to arm these vehicle crews, etc.

Hopefully, the above gives you an idea on why the Stryker has the logistical advantage. As far as price goes, an extremely valid argument. Having spent my time in Iraq in a Stryker, I am certainly biased in favor of having spent the extra $$. The one thought that I would leave is that the cost advantage of M113 is not as great as some would claim, as you would have to do large upgrades to existing mothballed M113s to get them to the equivalent standard as a Stryker in terms of protection, lethality, commo platforms, etc. That being said, though, the M113 still would have been a cheaper option.

[slapout9]

Tonights lead story on the local news in Slapout is that the Daleville,Al. (near Ft. Rucker)just had 1970's model M113 donated to the police department. Whoooo Doggies!! I have some buddies on the Daleville police department. It is police blue with lightning bolts on the side and the word "NEGOTIATOR" painted on the front. They made them take off the 50 cal., oh well. Anybody have an extra Stryker laying around?

[Shek]

Tonights lead story on the local news in Slapout is that the Daleville,Al. (near Ft. Rucker)just had 1970's model M113 donated to the police department. Whoooo Doggies!! I have some buddies on the Daleville police department. It is police blue with lightning bolts on the side and the word "NEGOTIATOR" painted on the front. They made them take off the 50 cal., oh well. Anybody have an extra Stryker laying around?

I've seen a handful of websites where the local police department has some old M113s as part of their SWAT unit. It's interesting to see them all painted up as a police vehicle!

[Shek]

I was in the 2ACR shortly after they reformed as light cav (HMMWVs instead of Tanks and Bradlys). It was not a popular concept. Most of the guys in the unit hated it either because they were left over infantry from one of the units that formed the regiment and they distrusted vehicles, or because they were veterans from the regiments experiences in the Gulf War and patrolling the Fulda gap. The rumor was that after Gen. Sulivan retired the regiment would be disbanded or given back their armor. Back then they were trying to write the doctrine and it really seemed that no one had any idea what to do with light cav. They were far to light for the armor guys' tastes and far to big with too few dismounts for the infantry guys. The main focus for us back then was "expand the lodgment". That was where the 82nd would jump in and do an airfield seizure and then we would land on that airfield and roll right off into the fight and expand the area around the airfield. We practiced it a lot. At the time there were also rumors of new weapons systems that we might get. One of those was the Armored Gun System which was a sort of light tank and if I am not mistaken one of the progenitors of the MGS. I bring all this ancient history up because one of the saving graces for the light cav concept was the fact that they could be loaded onto a C130, landed anywhere that a C130 could land and then rolled off the aircraft and straight into the fight. I thought that that was the purpose of the Stryker, upgrade the armor protection and mobility of the HMMWV but maintain its rapid deployability. I was told that the reason that they went with .50 Cals and MK19s instead of retaining the 25MMs was to ensure that they could fit into the C130 and then roll into the fight like the HMMWVs. Then I learned that they in fact cannot just roll off the bird into the fight. Apparently there are a number of things that must done in order to fit it into the bird and the once it rolls off the bird before it can get into the fight. So if I am understanding this correctly then what we have in the Stryker is a vehicle that is neither as heavily armed and armored as the Bradly but not as rapidly deployable as the HMMWV. So my question is what is the point?

SFC W

SFC W,
A Stryker unit doesn't have a forced entry mission. It will airland on a secure airfield and then consolidate and organize for the follow-on mission. Bottomline, it was never intended to be a "fight from the ramp" organization. That being said, most of the vehicles in the Stryker organization are ready to fight with their full capability (minus any add-on RPG protection - which was never part of the requirement for airland missions) within two minutes of offloading a C130.

Cheers.

Shek