Troop losses in Iraq raise questions about Army Stryker

Ray · 05-14-2007, 13:12 PM

Quote:

May 14, 2007, 10:11AM
Troop losses in Iraq raise questions about Army Stryker

Roadside bombs put into question vehicle's ability to protect troops

By ROBERT H. REID and ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press

BAGHDAD — A string of heavy losses from powerful roadside bombs has raised new questions about the vulnerability of the Stryker, the Army's troop-carrying vehicle hailed by supporters as the key to a leaner, more mobile force.

Since the Strykers went into action in violent Diyala province north of Baghdad two months ago, losses of the vehicles have been rising steadily, U.S. officials said. A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month, according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

In one of the biggest hits, six American soldiers and a journalist were killed when a huge bomb exploded beneath their Stryker on May 6. It was the biggest one-day loss for the battalion in more than two years.

"We went for several months with no losses and were very proud of that," a senior Army official said in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly. "Since then, there have been quite a few Stryker losses."

"They are learning how to defeat them," the Army official said of Iraqi insurgents.

The Army introduced the $11 billion Stryker in 1999 as the cornerstone of a ground force of the future — hoping to create faster armored units than tank-equipped units, but with more firepower and protection than light-infantry units.

But the Army and the Marines are already looking for something different that can survive big roadside bombs — meaning the Stryker's status as the Army's "next generation" vehicle may be short-lived.

"It is indeed an open question if the Stryker is right for this type of warfare," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior analyst with the Brookings Institution. "I am inclined to think that the concept works better for peacekeeping. But based on data the Army has made available to date, it's hard to be sure."

Supporters of the Strykers, which have been used in Iraq since late 2003, say the vehicles that carry two crew members and 11 infantrymen offer mobility, firepower and comfort.

Lighter and faster than tracked vehicles like tanks, each Stryker can rush soldiers quickly to a fight, enabling commanders to maintain security over a wide area with relatively fewer troops. Humvees can carry only four soldiers — and are more vulnerable to bombs even when their armor is upgraded.

"I love Strykers," said Spc. Christopher Hagen, based in Baqouba. "With Strykers, you're mobile, you're fast. You can get anywhere anytime."

But some analysts have long questioned the wisdom of moving away from more heavily armored tracked vehicles like tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to wheeled transports, like the Stryker.

They say that is especially true in Iraq, where powerful bombs — not rocket-propelled grenades or small arms fire — are the main threat.

"The Stryker vehicle was conceived at a time when the Army was more concerned about mobility and agility than it was about protection," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst from the Lexington Institute. "Stryker was the answer to that need."

The Stryker's vulnerabilities have become increasingly apparent since a battalion of about 700 soldiers and nearly 100 Stryker vehicles from the Army's 2nd Infantry Division was sent to Diyala province in March to bolster an infantry brigade struggling to restore order there.

Trouble started as soon as the Strykers arrived in Baqouba, the provincial capital of Diyala.

U.S. commanders ordered the vehicles into Baqouba's streets at dawn the day after they arrived. The hope was that the large, menacing vehicles — armed with a heavy machine gun and a 105mm cannon — would intimidate insurgents and reassure local residents.

Instead, insurgents hammered the Strykers with automatic weapons fire, rocket-propeldiers and a Russian journalist, troops scrambled out of another damaged Stryker and took cover in a house while they watched the vehicle burn. Several of them were injured but none seriously.

Losses have since mounted.

A few days after the May 6 blast, two Strykers were hit by bombs, and one soldier was killed and another was seriously wounded.

Lt. Col. Bruce Antonio, who commands a Stryker battalion in Diyala, said he and soldiers still have confidence in the Strykers and noted they had survived many bombs. , which the military calls improvised explosive device or IEDs.

But he said some insurgents had found "the right mix of explosives and IED positioning to inflict severe damage on the vehicle."Supporters of the Strykers say all that proves that it's the lethality of bombs in Iraq — not the Strykers themselves — that are the problem: The bombs are now so powerful that even Abrams main battle tanks are vulnerable to some of them.

"I'm not sure if it's any reflection on the (Stryker) but rather on how things are getting worse" in Iraq, according to a senior Democratic congressional staffer who tracks Army programs, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

Stryker soldiers said that when they were based in Mosul in the north, roadside bombs weren't so big — often, little more than pipe bombs. In Baqouba, the bombs are bigger and buried deeper, making them difficult to detect.

"With what we got hit with the other day, it wouldn't have mattered what we were in," said Spc. John Pearce, speaking of the May 6 bomb. "We were going to take casualties, regardless."

Either way, the Army and Marine Corps already are pushing for new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPS, whose V-shaped hulls are designed to deflect bomb blasts outward, rather than through the vehicle.

The Pentagon has requested nearly 7,800 of the new vehicles at a cost of $8.4 billion and is considering ordering thousands more to give soldiers better protection.

Such moves, however, serve only to reinforce the views of critics, who believe the Army opted for a vehicle that was useful in Balkan peacekeeping or other "low threat" missions but is inadequate in so-called "asymmetric warfare," where a weaker opponent devises simple tools to exploit a strong opponent's weak points.

"As long as the Stryker-equipped light infantry was used ... against lightly armed insurgents, there was no problem," said retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, who writes on defense issues.

"Now, they are being tossed into the urban battle where only tracked armor can survive."

Iraq troop deaths raise questions on Army vehicle | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Would appreciate comments, mainly from those who have used this equipment, preferably in Iraq.

Insurgency, especially urban and in semi rural insurgency by Moslem insurgents world wide has indicated that IEDs are used extensively by them.

Obviously, this fact would have been taken into account when the Strykers were inducted and tactics evolved around them.

The effect of IEDs on various equipment would have been known, especially of the type used by the Islamic insurgents/terrorists.

It was known that IEDs used by the Islamic terrorists were powerful and capable of taking on light armour.

Therefore, what prompted the shift to Strykers?

And what is now the answer?

omon · 05-14-2007, 13:34 PM

stay off roads, and roadside bombs won,t be an issue.

zraver · 05-14-2007, 14:11 PM

its a classic contest between attack and defense and attack always wins. You can never have a veihicle capable of withstadnign all attacks.

Tarek Morgen · 05-14-2007, 14:15 PM

What are the alternatives to the stryker? Bradly? Pumas?

zraver · 05-14-2007, 17:35 PM

The alenatives are the MRAPS which i am guessing is based on the S African design or the heavy IFV concept like the Bradley. One problem is the icreasing use of EFP's. Hull shaping won't stop a formed penetrator.

leib10 · 05-14-2007, 18:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

its a classic contest between attack and defense and attack always wins. You can never have a veihicle capable of withstadnign all attacks.

Yep. Even Abrams tanks are vulnerable, should the IED be large enough.

Blademaster · 05-14-2007, 20:14 PM

Quote:

In Baqouba, the bombs are bigger and buried deeper, making them difficult to detect.

This is the part that I am having problems with. If the bombs are bigger necessitating deeper burial, then why the hell didn't the Coalition troops see the men digging the bombs. Hell, even they would stand out in the middle of the daytime with traffic, vehicle and pedestrian, all over.

Blademaster · 05-14-2007, 20:17 PM

To me, the answer is constant vigilance of the roads used by the troops for regular use.

The IEDs are only useful when you can predict the Coalition troops coming. So to that effect, the Coalition troops need to maintain constant observation and vigilance of the roads used regularly by troops and when responding to emergency requests that necessitated taking a particular road, send some sort of mine or IED detecting remote vehicle ahead of the RRF or convoy.

Stan187 · 05-14-2007, 20:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

This is the part that I am having problems with. If the bombs are bigger necessitating deeper burial, then why the hell didn't the Coalition troops see the men digging the bombs. Hell, even they would stand out in the middle of the daytime with traffic, vehicle and pedestrian, all over.

They don't dig in the middle of the road. The dig thru the side and put the explosive under the the middle of the road.

Stan187 · 05-14-2007, 20:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

To me, the answer is constant vigilance of the roads used by the troops for regular use.

The IEDs are only useful when you can predict the Coalition troops coming.

Limited road networks to get certain places help that predictability. Constant vigilence only gets you so far, you can't guard all stretches of road all the time. There are plenty of insurgents who are willing to sit in a house or bush all day long until the troops ride through and let the thing rip.

Blademaster · 05-14-2007, 21:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan187

They don't dig in the middle of the road. The dig thru the side and put the explosive under the the middle of the road.

Even still, the digging by the side is very noticeable and very hard to hide. How the hell you gonna hide the dirt or the fact that it has been recently disturbed?

Wraith601 · 05-14-2007, 23:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Even still, the digging by the side is very noticeable and very hard to hide. How the hell you gonna hide the dirt or the fact that it has been recently disturbed?

Based on what I've read, Coalition troops find many, if not most IEDs, but it only takes a few to slip through the cracks and inflict heavy losses.

Stan187 · 05-14-2007, 23:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wraith601

Based on what I've read, Coalition troops find many, if not most IEDs, but it only takes a few to slip through the cracks and inflict heavy losses.

Exactly. Troops will see 3 different places where the ground by the side of the road is disturbed. They'll check em and find nothin'. The one they don't check, as per Murphy's Law, ends up being an IED.

leib10 · 05-15-2007, 00:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

This is the part that I am having problems with. If the bombs are bigger necessitating deeper burial, then why the hell didn't the Coalition troops see the men digging the bombs. Hell, even they would stand out in the middle of the daytime with traffic, vehicle and pedestrian, all over.

I've only wondered that as well. It's pretty much impossible that this digging would go unnoticed should it happen during the daytime, so the only logical assumption is that most of these weapons are placed during the night.

zraver · 05-15-2007, 00:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

This is the part that I am having problems with. If the bombs are bigger necessitating deeper burial, then why the hell didn't the Coalition troops see the men digging the bombs. Hell, even they would stand out in the middle of the daytime with traffic, vehicle and pedestrian, all over.

cell phones (think the movie black hawk down)

Insurgent spies make a call when ever a US helicopter lifts off or convoy heads out. Eyes along the way track its movement. Local commanders can call thier people in if it gets close. Not perfect our helo patrols catch a lot of bombers. But it doesn't need to be perfect.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Could Germany have won WWII	Recon_sgt	The World Wars	1889	07-14-2008 01:29 AM
How to fuel up the out-of-gas US military machine	Ray	Political Discussions	14	06-29-2007 21:13 PM
Principles of War for the Battlefield of the Future	Ray	The Field Mess	2	11-05-2006 10:42 AM
Al Qaeda Declines in Northern Iraq, Military Officer Says	Shek	The War in Iraq	6	09-16-2005 19:03 PM
President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom	Leader	International Defense Topics	2	05-25-2004 20:13 PM

05-14-2007, 13:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
omon Field mechanik *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-01-06 Location: bk Posts: 1,925 Country:	stay off roads, and roadside bombs won,t be an issue.

05-14-2007, 14:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
zraver Contrary by nature. *Military Professional* Join Date: 10-22-06 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,532 Country:	its a classic contest between attack and defense and attack always wins. You can never have a veihicle capable of withstadnign all attacks.

05-14-2007, 14:15 PM	#4 (permalink)
Tarek Morgen *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 02-08-07 Location: Kassel Posts: 807 Country:	What are the alternatives to the stryker? Bradly? Pumas?

05-14-2007, 17:35 PM	#5 (permalink)
zraver Contrary by nature. *Military Professional* Join Date: 10-22-06 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,532 Country:	The alenatives are the MRAPS which i am guessing is based on the S African design or the heavy IFV concept like the Bradley. One problem is the icreasing use of EFP's. Hull shaping won't stop a formed penetrator.

05-14-2007, 20:17 PM	#8 (permalink)
Blademaster Military Enthusiast *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,050	To me, the answer is constant vigilance of the roads used by the troops for regular use. The IEDs are only useful when you can predict the Coalition troops coming. So to that effect, the Coalition troops need to maintain constant observation and vigilance of the roads used regularly by troops and when responding to emergency requests that necessitated taking a particular road, send some sort of mine or IED detecting remote vehicle ahead of the RRF or convoy.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)