It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Soldiers from long tour in Iraq says Strykers are effective fighting vehicle.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org...


The nation’s first two Stryker brigades each have completed a year-long tour in Iraq. Their combined combat experiences have taught the Army—and critics—much about the effectiveness of the Stryker vehicle as well as the brigade, itself.

“The Stryker, as a vehicle, has proven its worth. It has saved lives,” said Maj. Nicholas Mullen, rear detachment commander of the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, which is known as the second Stryker brigade combat team.

Since the Army first announced the establishment of a new medium force of fighters in 1999 and selected the Stryker vehicle as its platform in 2000, the Stryker brigade has been under constant scrutiny. That attention has focused almost exclusively upon the 19-ton, eight-wheeled armored vehicle for which the brigade is named.

“We were getting all the attacks about why the Stryker is too heavy, too big, too tall, too wheeled,” said Col. Michael Peppers, director of the G37 Division at Fort Lewis, Wash., where the two brigades are based.

Early on, the Government Accountability Office questioned the Stryker’s transportability aboard a C-130.

“It does fit on a C-130. I’ve flown in one with it,” said Lt. Col. William James, deputy commander of 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, also known as the first Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

The vehicle, designed to carry a nine-man squad and two-man crew, has shown that its survivability, agility, mobility and technology is effective in an urban combat zone where the enemy strikes at any time in numerous ways, said Peppers.

“It is the vehicle of choice from what we’ve seen [in Iraq]—incredibly robust, can take a lot of punishment. I’ve seen it hit with multiple rocket-propelled grenades and keep going. I’ve seen it hit with vehicle-borne bombs that you wonder how anybody could have survived—and everybody walks away,” said Mullen.

During a recent visit to Fort Lewis, near Tacoma, soldiers and officers who fought in Iraq defended the vehicle with passionate praise.

“I’m going back for a second year in Iraq, and I’m damn glad I’m going in a Stryker,” said James of 3/2. The first Stryker brigade is training for deployment next summer (see related story).


so for those who have criticized the Stryker's performance or belief it will not be an effective vehicle in urban areas or for guerilla warfare. BOOYAH!!
dis proves dat the vehicles are good for its specifications and is able to adapt where tanks are not meant to drive into where it pretty much destroys things in its path like the roads for example.


[edit on 3-11-2005 by deltaboy]



NR

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Deltaboy you mean when the iraq soldiers see an RPG they say BOOYAH and when the insurgency fires they'll be like HOOYAH.

j/k but when it comes to big cities and crowded crowds all over the place you cant really escape this powerfull weapon.





posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This topic is not really about the RPG-7. The Stryker has actually been able to take the hits and keep going.


NR

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
This topic is not really about the RPG-7. The Stryker has actually been able to take the hits and keep going.



That depends on where its hit but as long as it does than there is no need for a damaged military vehicle is it?.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Nice new avatar NR! JAK did a good job for ya
just watch out for those Warns though.

Anyway, I think the main factor with the Stryker was that people had to get adjusted to it and that the Stryker had to be adjusted to the conditions of the war that were not forseeable when it was being developed.

NR, most vehicles are quite vunerable to RPG's of any type, if they hit an engine block or even the threads, the vehicle usually becomes useless quite quick...

But the Future Combat Systems (FCS) will solve this with their missile defense system, even ERA could vastly improve survivability, so RPG's might not be effective for long.


NR

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Thanks bro JAK is indeed a pro and i was surpised by how good it looks and i'll always be gettin warns
. Anyways as you stated its true infact most vehicles are vunerable to RPGs but i think they should deply explosive reactive armours to strykers or even M1A2's for better protection and even mount on those loud rock music to blow it up.


You have voted GrOuNd_ZeRo for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by NR]

[edit on 3-11-2005 by NR]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
The Duece Four has been using and RAVING about the Stryker for over a year now. They credit countless lives saved on the Stryker.

Initial problems were overstated or corrected.

The Duecefour would get hit at least once per week, and they lost only a very small number of troops when a Stryker was involved.

Read Michael Yons blog to get some grade A first hand accounts of how amazing the Stryker was in combat.

Yet another example of superior American tach thats been proven in real actual combat. Just like the Abrams, best combat record in the history of warfare.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Thank you NR!

I hope that a conflict will not come between the US and Iran or Syria since it will be a bloody battle, I hope that a peaceful solution will be found.

I love weapons but I hate war, quite hypocrittical, but suffering is no fun...


NR

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Thank you NR!

I hope that a conflict will not come between the US and Iran or Syria since it will be a bloody battle, I hope that a peaceful solution will be found.

I love weapons but I hate war, quite hypocrittical, but suffering is no fun...



you deserved it bro
war is indeed not a good thing and i myself have a good interest in weapons, I think we the iranian people will soon find the time for a new government but so far its going pretty well and we just want our nuclear tech....

[edit on 3-11-2005 by NR]

[edit on 3-11-2005 by NR]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Thank you NR!

I hope that a conflict will not come between the US and Iran or Syria since it will be a bloody battle, I hope that a peaceful solution will be found.

I love weapons but I hate war, quite hypocrittical, but suffering is no fun...



yeah I am the same way I like weapons that never have to fire in anger, that being said I the stryker could do more things with the ability to be a platform that could be used as a base for several different roles, twin 120mm mortors, 105 mm atg/arty, 40mm bofors...etc.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
so for those who have criticized the Stryker's performance or belief it will not be an effective vehicle in urban areas or for guerilla warfare. BOOYAH!!
dis proves dat the vehicles are good for its specifications and is able to adapt where tanks are not meant to drive into where it pretty much destroys things in its path like the roads for example.


Noone said that vehicle wouldnt be effective in combat. The argument centered about the (justified) criticism that the Stryker is neither as good as it could and was planned to be, nor is it cost-effective.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
The Duece Four has been using and RAVING about the Stryker for over a year now. They credit countless lives saved on the Stryker.

Initial problems were overstated or corrected.

The Duecefour would get hit at least once per week, and they lost only a very small number of troops when a Stryker was involved.

Read Michael Yons blog to get some grade A first hand accounts of how amazing the Stryker was in combat.

Yet another example of superior American tach thats been proven in real actual combat. Just like the Abrams, best combat record in the history of warfare.


Grand Claims Skippy as usual,

Frankly, there isn't any thing special about the vehicle at all, the soviets have built modern wheeled APCs, the BTR 60s as an example, not to mention the German's and French. From all accounts the Soviet wheeled APC's did well in the conflicts, all bar from the largest of the road side bombs.

Frankly at the time the faults with the design at the time of deployment seemed more than overstated, it seemed at the time that it would sink the program. Its great to see that the problems have been over come, but to me, they are still too lightly armed for their role, they depend on speed to avoid the nasty stuff and in an urban enviroment, speed some times can't be used.

Which vehicle are you speaking about it comes to "Best Combat Record" etc Frankly there are better vehicles in the world that deserve the Best Combat Record.

- Phil



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Well, the M1 Ambrams does in fact have the best combat record in the history of tanks. But you are right I cannot make that claim for the Stryker.

But bottom line is that it perfomed many times better than people gave it credit for. Fact.

Read this (you wont):
search.blogger.com...

[edit on 4-11-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Here is some more on this from last year, the most current official data I could find:

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 4-11-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Well, the M1 Ambrams does in fact have the best combat record in the history of tanks. But you are right I cannot make that claim for the Stryker.

But bottom line is that it perfomed many times better than people gave it credit for. Fact.

Read this (you wont):
search.blogger.com...

[edit on 4-11-2005 by skippytjc]


Howdie,

Yeah, you have mentioned this before, althought I have my doubts, but your welcome to your opinion.

As for Stryker, I have to say that what its for, its over priced, one of the points brought up in the early complaints about the system, I would have to say that I did manage to read some of the paragraphs of the blog that you posted, but frankly, so what, over here we have Armoured Landrovers that have been hit by heavy weapon fire and kept moving, the guys inside still ok, the Warrior APC is another great example:

edition.cnn.com...

I can't fault the design on it coming apart before it hits the troops but I wouldn't like to rely on one in a conventual combat zone. The Bradley sucks in the Urban enviroment, actually, I know a few people would merely say that the Bradley sucks in any enviroment, the Stryker just about manages.

- Phil

[edit on 4-11-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
[...]Yet another example of superior American tach thats been proven in real actual combat. Just like the Abrams, best combat record in the history of warfare.


I hope you realize that the "Stryker" IAV simply put is a pimped out Pranha III, produced and designed by Mowag of Switzerland. So much for superior american Tech
And thats exactly the reason why that thing is too expensive...


Originally posted by skippytjc
Well, the M1 Ambrams does in fact have the best combat record in the history of tanks. But you are right I cannot make that claim for the Stryker.

But bottom line is that it perfomed many times better than people gave it credit for. Fact.


Yes, on paper the M1 has the best combat record. However this is no proof of any general superiourity, considering under which circumstances and against what enemies this record has been achieved (although that doesnt say it couldnt possibly have the best "real" combat record). But lets not get into that. Well, you retracted your statement about the combat record of the Stryker. In any case, a "combat record" isnt useful here, too, because what it basically is used for at the moment is "extended" crowd control.

And again, noone with a sane mind said it was obsolete, but the discussion aroused around whether it is justified to introduce a new line of vehicles (that doesnt live up to the standards that were originally planned) when there were obviously better and cheaper M113 modernizations that also wouldnt have put so much strain on a completely new logistics line.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
The vehicle is so large Im not surprized it can take fire. However, it looks almost large enough to warrent tracked IFVs for its mission.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR

j/k but when it comes to big cities and crowded crowds all over the place you cant really escape this powerfull weapon.






The Rpg-7 is a great weapon when you consider its cost and effectiveness throughout its history. But there is a low tech way to get around its effectiveness on something like the Stryker.

Its called Slat Armour and its a old concept which goes back to World War II and Vietnam.Its a metal frame barrier 50 cm ahead of the APC. The cage detonate anti-tank shaped charge warheads such as RPG away from the vehicle and prevent its hot chemical reaction from boring through and causing burns, shock and shrapnel wound.

What makes a RPG so good is that its a shape charge and for a shape charge to be effective it has to be right up against the target. This cage makes it blow up before it contacts the armour and it loses its shape charge power.


Low tech but works great when stopping RPGS



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Just one question.
How dose the Stryker help US troops interact with the local population?
related thread

The US military could learn alot from its allies. The fact that in less 50 years such vital lessons have been forgotton or ignored is a disgrace.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
The whole stryker project just seems like an awefull lot of money to spend when very much the same thing could have been bought from very many countries who actually spent decades designing them for urban combat..... This is just another case of spending massive ammounts of money on local producers when the same money could have bought tried and tested designs for a fraction of the price.... Soldiers deserve so much better.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join