Thread: Stryker pics from Iraq

Originally posted by M21Sniper
Only if they're able to manuever.

If they are tied to a geographic objective in defense and a Soviet style RCT attacks, they're dead.

I should hope they manouver. With a single engr coy per bde, they ain't going to be digging in.

I know you know that Sir, i was only laying it out there for those here that didn't.

Originally posted by M21Sniper
I know you know that Sir, i was only laying it out there for those here that didn't.

M21, thank you very much for openning the door for me to vent.

To me, the M113 vs LAV-III debate is a red herring. Both vehicles got their pluses and minuses and when used right (USMC LAV-25s at Khafji), it's gravy and when used wrong (ARVN M113s at the fall of Saigon), it's graveyard. Both vehicles cannot escape the fact that they're thin skinned and thin skin is thin skin no matter if it's wheeled or track.

What's being ignored is the lack of protection (thin skinned vehicles and a single engr coy), fire (a single LAV-105 coy), cbt spt (lack of spec wpn, assualt pioneer, AT pltns) and cbt svc (alot of the assets are supposed to arrive on the follow on div - what follow on div?). Choosing the M113 over the LAV-III ain't going to solve these problems.

With the cancellation of the Crusader (the Comanchee is being lead to the chopping block as we speak), the bde is reliant on non-organic assets (TacAir and lift) belonging to the USAF and these are contradictory. If the bde takes the lift they need to get into and support their theatre, then that lift cannot be used to supply the very TacAir the bde needs.

This leaves manouver. Now, how are you going to manouver a bde with a single engr coy? The entire bde is limited to a single entry to any obstacle.

The theory is that the bde should be able to get into a div's backyard before the enemy div would be ready. 3-7Cav did exactly that. Anyone wants to tell me that this bde, be it M113 or Strykers, could do better?

First off, you will get no argument from me that the Stryker bde is undersupported, it obviously is.

I also agree the M-1A1HA/M-3A3 team as used by 3/7 Cav is about a jillion times more combat effective.

My main reasoning for wanting the 113 are as follows.

1) The 113 is ALREADY FULLY INDOCTRINATED in the USA force structure, and has been for years. Every mech troop that's served in the US army for the last 50 years knows how to PMCS a 113, just as every mechanic that's served in that timeframe is qual'ed to fix em. The parts are plentiful, and cheap, and already in the supply system ARMY WIDE.

2) The M-113A3 REALLY DOES fit in a C-130, and can be rolled right out ready for action immediately, quite unlike the Stryker.

3) The M-113A3 is AIR DROPPABLE. Try that with a stryker....

4) There are myriad applique' up-armor kits on the market for the 113. No need developing expensive new armor packages for added protection once they're on the ground in theater.

5) The M-113A3 has tracks

With a simple 1 man powered turret with a high elevation 20mm cannon the M-113 'A4' would still fit easily into a 130, and would provide much better firepower than a Stryker.

For heavy weapons applications, there are numerous aftermarket kits ALREADY AVAILABLE to arm the M-113 with cannons up to 30x173mm.

The USA ITOW M-113 variant and USA FIST-V FO vehicles would share near 100% commanality with the M-113.

That would make it a LOT easier to reinforce the unit without taxing the organic supply/maintenance system of said unit.

Converting the M-113 vs buying a whole new vehicle is a total non-brainer from almost every possible standpoint....explaining of course why the idiots bought the stryker.

The whole thing makes me sick.

But what about minefields? Tracks are poor in minefields and wheels are better so the colonel stated.

Remember it is not easy to upgrade a 2nd generation APC like M113 to the 21st century modern standards. I mean the ergonomic designs, electrical system designs, powerplant, etc.

I guess that must be the reason why they chose the Stryker over the M113 because they realize in order to incorporate the latest computer technology or electronic stuff, they need to redesign the M113 all over again.

I am sure there must be at least one person who is not a complete dolt in US Army that is directly involved in the IBCT concept. After all, the US Army did kicked the Iraqi ass.

"But what about minefields? Tracks are poor in minefields and wheels are better so the colonel stated."

Don't fool yourself...ALL vehicles suck in minefields. The object is to stay the hell out of them.

"Remember it is not easy to upgrade a 2nd generation APC like M113 to the 21st century modern standards. I mean the ergonomic designs, electrical system designs, powerplant, etc."

The powerplant and controls don't need to be upgraded. It would be a simple matter to have added the electronics for the TC with the small 1 man powered turret. LOTS of other nations have already done it.

These kits have been on the open market for years now.

"I guess that must be the reason why they chose the Stryker over the M113 because they realize in order to incorporate the latest computer technology or electronic stuff, they need to redesign the M113 all over again."

Bullshit. It's political, as always.

"I am sure there must be at least one person who is not a complete dolt in US Army that is directly involved in the IBCT concept. After all, the US Army did kicked"

Point him out for me.

Stryker deployment deemed a success

Associated Press


TACOMA, Wash. — The Fort Lewis, Wash.-based Stryker brigade has completed its first major mission in Iraq, delivering troops with the 4th Infantry Division into Samarra.
The brigade pulled out of the city a few days ago, having captured at least seven suspected guerrilla leaders, confiscated weapons and ammunition, and persuaded at least some residents to have faith that the Americans are there to help, The News Tribune of Tacoma reported Sunday. The newspaper has a reporter embedded with the Stryker troops.

“Our ability to saturate an area with dismounted soldiers was awesome,” said Maj. Adam Rocke, the operations officer with the 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment.

Brigade officials said the two-week Operation Arrowhead Blizzard validated many of the concepts from the three years spent developing the Army’s first brigade of Stryker combat vehicles at Fort Lewis, near Tacoma. For instance, they showed they could quickly move large numbers of heavily armed infantrymen. A Stryker company is more than twice the size of a typical mechanized infantry company.

They showed that they can handle a mission in a tight urban environment without taking heavy casualties. To date, no brigade soldiers have died since three were killed in a Dec. 8 accident in which two Strykers tumbled into an irrigation canal.

Stryker troops in Samarra captured at least seven so-called “high-value targets” - insurgents on the 4th Infantry Division’s list of suspected planners, financiers and organizers in the areas north of Baghdad up to Tikrit.

They detained another 50 or so men for possession of weapons and bomb-making equipment, according to a brigade press release, and discovered at least 26 weapons caches.

Stryker troops hauled away more than 500 mortars, six mortar tubes, 200 155-mm artillery shells, nearly 200 rocket warheads, 53 rocket-propelled grenade launchers with 143 RPGs, 228 AK-47 assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Most of the seized weaponry was later destroyed.

During the mission, the closest the brigade came to taking any casualties was when an improvised bomb went off under a Stryker driven by Spc. Christopher Byers.

Byers was ferrying his squad to a raid in Samarra when a bomb buried in the road blew up beneath his driver’s compartment. It demolished the left front wheel and filled the vehicle with dirt and debris, but no one was seriously hurt and the vehicle was still driveable.

“It was like sitting inside a small car with all the windows rolled up, and you fired off a .12-gauge shotgun inside,” said Byers’ buddy, Spc. Kenneth Rickman. “It rang everybody’s bell pretty good.”

Byers, 21, of Lewistown, Mont., suffered a concussion and still has a hard time hearing out of his left ear, the one closest to the blast. Back at Camp Pacesetter, medics gave him a shot of Demerol. He said his headache lasted five days. The battalion is recommending him for a Purple Heart.

Now it’s haircut, shower and laundry time as the Stryker soldiers refit for their next mission, a move from Camp Pacesetter. It will be their first big relocation since crossing from Kuwait and rolling into north-central Iraq a month ago.

The first units have already headed out. For security reasons, the brigade won’t allow reporting on the timing and destinations.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-2526984.php

Originally posted by Blademaster
But what about minefields? Tracks are poor in minefields and wheels are better so the colonel stated.

Even a wheeled vehicle will be deemed inoperational after a minestrike. The crew may survive and it may even limped home but it ain't fighting anymore, at least not while there's a choice.

Originally posted by Blademaster
Remember it is not easy to upgrade a 2nd generation APC like M113 to the 21st century modern standards. I mean the ergonomic designs, electrical system designs, powerplant, etc.

It's an old chasis to be sure but one with alot of life still in it. The problem is that it hasn't kept up with the rest of the IFV market or rather it didn't pay attention until it was too late. It seemed the M113's life was sucked out of it once the M3 Bradley came on the scene, leaving the low end market to the BMD/BMP and the Lynx/Cougar.

Originally posted by Blademaster
I guess that must be the reason why they chose the Stryker over the M113 because they realize in order to incorporate the latest computer technology or electronic stuff, they need to redesign the M113 all over again.

Feels like nobody bothered to do their homework. This feels like an executive decision by the CAS, then Gen Shinseki. He wanted the IBCT off the ground without the hassels of development. His Staff just looked around at what everybody else was using, including the USMC. If they did look at the M113, it would be to confirm that at the time, they didn't have the family of vehicles they needed. At least not by one source.

Originally posted by Blademaster
I am sure there must be at least one person who is not a complete dolt in US Army that is directly involved in the IBCT concept. After all, the US Army did kicked the Iraqi ass.

You have to look at the history. The original model for the IBCT was the Canadian and British Mechanized Brigade Group. The shift is downwards towards platoon and section, moving directed fire away from battalion. The addition of the 25mm Bushmaster gave the section and platoon the firepower of company. Even then, the bde grp had both engr and guns bns and even a tank SABRE Force. These bde grps were not lacking.

The problem was that the USAF was in on it and threw roadblock after roadblock at the IBCT. The Army compromised after comrpomised. FUBAR (Fowled Up Beyond All Recognition) comes to mind and some might even say FUBAH (Fowled Up Beyond All Hope).

I'd have a lot less problems with the stryker if it was just a renamed LAV-25, but of course, they don't fit in a c-130.

This is all a total scam. What we really needed were more C-17's.

Originally posted by M21Sniper
This is all a total scam. What we really needed were more C-17's.

And here we come full circle. The Army trying to solve an AF problem by going lighter and smaller in every way they can to lighten the load and reduce the number of required flights.

No matter which way you look at it, C-17s (a very large number of them) are essential in delivering sufficent force. USAF ain't going to spend the money on sky trucks. They need the money for the more sexy fighters and bombers and for the few trucks that they're willing to buy, they need them to support the fighters and bombers.

So, how is the army supposed to achieve force projection?

The Stryker Bdes is not even a full answer. The Army is now resorting back to pre-positioning and I strongly suspect reducing even further the size of the initial entry force from bde to bn.

And therein lies a problem. No matter how combat capable a calvary bn TF is, it cannot do the job of a bde, even a Stryker Bde. I don't even want to imagine a Stryker bn TF.

Originally posted by M21Sniper
What we really needed were more C-17's.

I must be reading this wrong.
An Army guy urging that funds be spent on the Air Scouts?
Just kidding of course. Congress could do FAR worse than vote money for procurement of as many C-17's as the budget can handle.
After a long, painful and expensive gestation, the C-17 Globemaster III has proven itself to be beyond invaluable.

Yep.

Jumping in a little late, here, but I can't be the ONLY one who thinks electrifying those Stryker grates and motoring into demonstrations would be the coolest thing for riot control...

Originally posted by M21Sniper
I'd have a lot less problems with the stryker if it was just a renamed LAV-25,

The dropping of the 25mm Bushmaster was another concession to the USAF. Reduce the need to carry forth 25mm ammo.