Stryker collection (merged thread)

[Granite_State]

...and everyone of those can be fixed. Not just a bit, but a lot. The Aussies, Canuks and Norgies have all done it to varying degrees and the Israelis and still tinkering with some stuff. By any analysis, M-113 can be upgraded into an extremely capable APC, with the same comms, optics and weapons as Stryker, or better.

Now I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by getting into the track v wheels argument. "We is all adults here". M113 capability could be significantly extended, for a fractional cost.

That's the argument made here:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf

The writer is some author I've never heard of, writing for a Congressman a few years ago. But I'd be curious what more informed members thought of his main points.

[Cavguy]

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.

[Granite_State]

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.

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."

The d-n-i stuff is mostly politically motivated diatribe.

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?

[Cavguy]

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."



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.

[William F. Owen]

That's the argument made here:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf

I know this item very well. There are so many things wrong with that document I don't know where to begin. It is not a work of serious military thought.