Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stryker Losses in Iraq Raise Questions
AP ^ | 5/14/2007 | By ROBERT H. REID and ANNE FLAHERTY

Posted on 05/14/2007 4:46:59 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$

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 in less than a week, according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost recently is classified.

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at spokesmanreview.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; militaryloses; securityplan; stryker; surge

1 posted on 05/14/2007 4:47:00 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

It’s physically impossible to build an invulnerable vehicle that can also do thinks, like, actually move.

Media seems to have a weird problem understanding the whole idea that all armored vehicles (including tanks of all kinds) have always had enormous losses, withe pretty much the sole exception of the M1 in Gulf War I.


2 posted on 05/14/2007 4:54:40 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
"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."

Translation: It looked good on paper. Oh well.
3 posted on 05/14/2007 4:55:17 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost recently is classified.

The authors and the leaker ought to be in irons for this.

(I can dream, can't I?)

4 posted on 05/14/2007 4:57:54 AM PDT by Lil'freeper (You do not have the plug-in required to view this tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Just more template bad news from AP.


5 posted on 05/14/2007 5:20:43 AM PDT by NurdlyPeon (Thompson / Hunter in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper
The authors and the leaker ought to be in irons for this

Why? You think the terrorists don't know how many Strykers they hit?

The only people these restrictions are keeping information from are the American taxpayers

6 posted on 05/14/2007 5:23:47 AM PDT by PapaBear3625
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
The only people these restrictions are keeping information from are the American taxpayers

There is a great deal of OPSEC-related information that is kept from the American taxpayers. Whether *you* agree with the decision to classify that data or not, it is nonetheless classified and must be protected. It's the law. Sadly, those laws are becoming more like the speed limit - to be followed or ignored on a whim.

7 posted on 05/14/2007 5:32:38 AM PDT by Lil'freeper (You do not have the plug-in required to view this tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Build a bigger, better, and more armored vehicle, and Harry Reid’s heroes will build bigger and better bombs.

Action and reaction.


8 posted on 05/14/2007 5:33:54 AM PDT by OCCASparky (Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

I’ve always believed the Stryker became bloated and overweight because of “mission creep” in it’s design, but troops patrolling in and fighting from these vehicles have reported overwhelmingly positive results.

1. Superior up-time. Wheeled vehicles don’t take as much maintenance or incur down-time like their tracked counterparts. And they’re much easier to fix when they do go down.

2. Superior mobility. Strkyer can move quicker and quieter than tracked vehicles. I spent most of my military career with tracked vehicles and the Stryker does have an edge here.

3. Survivability. There are cases where Stryker’s have taken serious hits from IEDs and have been ROLLED BACK OVER to drive away. When you wire two or three 155mm shells together, no vehicle is going to survive without injury. Even the mighty Abrams has fallen to a few roadside blasts of high-order.

While the concept and implementation can be improved, the Stryker seems to be a very popular vehicle that is well-supported by the troops that use them.


9 posted on 05/14/2007 5:41:52 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

The Stryker program originally was to make a vehicle that could be carried by ONE C-130. The current version takes 2 C-130’s to move it. Wheeled does have it’s advantages. M-1’s have had over 100 damaged so badly they had to be returned to the factory for repair. The South Africans have a beast(name escapes me at the moment) that has seen some action in Iraq. it does very well against IED’s and is light enough to be carried by a C-130.In the end a Stryker is better than an up armored Hummer but still not a silver bullet.


10 posted on 05/14/2007 6:04:30 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (NSDQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
lost five Strykers this month in less than a week,

I swear, AP doesn't even use editors anymore.

11 posted on 05/14/2007 6:08:29 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("THERE IS NO CHOICE FOR SILENCE!" - Alan Keyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
"A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month in less than a week."

Like ripples on a pond, the words of Pelosi and Reid are having their effect. Wouldn’t it have been lovely that rather than surrender, Pelosi and Reid had said “America will win this war”.

12 posted on 05/14/2007 6:12:18 AM PDT by yoe ( NO THIRD TERM FOR THE CLINTON'S!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NurdlyPeon

Don’t worry, Pelosi and Reid would have released the info about the Stryker if AP hadn’t.


13 posted on 05/14/2007 6:25:17 AM PDT by ArtyFO (I love to smoke cigars when I adjust artillery fire at the moonbat loonery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
When you wire two or three 155mm shells together, no vehicle is going to survive without injury. Even the mighty Abrams has fallen to a few roadside blasts of high-order.

Very true. SO has the magnificnt Merkava.

I have reservations about the Strykers, but don't think we have enough data yet - like you I've heard good and bad. I suspect they'll prove themselves valuable, just not as the cure-all magic fit-for-all-purposes vehicle some people astoundingly thought they would be. War, like any other human activity, requires a selection of different tools for different purposes. The Stryker is likely to be one of them.

14 posted on 05/14/2007 6:43:01 AM PDT by Androcles (All your typos are belong to us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Androcles

Having been to Iraq with a Stryker Brigade I won’t get into OPSEC details, but it holds up better than the up-armored HMMMVs and even better than Bradleys. So it is survivable. The insurgents regretably deserve some credit here.


15 posted on 05/14/2007 6:45:06 AM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

“Why? You think the terrorists don’t know how many Strykers they hit?

The only people these restrictions are keeping information from are the American taxpayers”

The Taxpayers don’t have a Need to know. Neither do the jihadi’s have a need to have their intelligence verified.

It’s called OPSEC for a reason.


16 posted on 05/14/2007 6:47:24 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (Our Forefathers roared for Liberty, their children now whine for security and safety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Here’s another editor gaff:

“The Army introduced the $11 billion, eight-wheeled Stryker in 1999 as the cornerstone of a ground force of the future”

Damn, those things are expensive.


17 posted on 05/14/2007 6:48:12 AM PDT by Rb ver. 2.0 (z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rb ver. 2.0

Worth their weight in gold. /s


18 posted on 05/14/2007 6:49:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("THERE IS NO CHOICE FOR SILENCE!" - Alan Keyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

“according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information.”

American soldiers releasing information they shouldn’t. That’s comforting.


19 posted on 05/14/2007 6:51:05 AM PDT by Rb ver. 2.0 (z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Question: What are the Marine Corps losses with the LAV-25’s?

I’d say it might be a case of the failure of tactical doctrine instead of vehicle failure to perform the mission it was built for.


20 posted on 05/14/2007 6:54:01 AM PDT by usmcobra (I sing Karaoke the way it was meant to be sung, drunk, badly and in Japanese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

My son was an army scout in Iraq for more than a year. He worried about the vulnerability of his hummer. That is until he saw what a roadside bomb did to an MI. The turret landed more than a hundred feet away. An armored vehicle is like a bullet profess vest or a helmet: Gives you an edge against the guy who has none. But remember that many an unhorsed medieval knight had his throat slit by a peasant with a knife.


21 posted on 05/14/2007 6:57:38 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

What DID the Lone Ranger carry silver bullets? They are lighter than lead ones , right?


22 posted on 05/14/2007 7:00:23 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

This story is so full of it.

My Nephew, a sergeant with a Stryker Unit out of Fort Lewis who has served one tour in Afghanistan and one tour in Mosul Iraq, says they would not want to be in any other vehicle but the Stryker. They trust it and like it – and despite what the MSM says the Stryker has saved countless lives. How many sons and fathers lives were saved because of the Stryker?
No amount of armor will protect any of our vehicles from IED’s. We add more armor, and the enemy just adapts their weapons and tactics. Instead of one Artillery shell in the IED they use two or three. The most heavily armored vehicles we have in Iraq, the M1 and the Iron Claw used by EOD are not even safe. In fact the enemy often use traps (obvious IED’s) to attract in Iron Claw and then they blow up a much bigger EID they had hidden. The Navy EOD personnel killed just a few weeks ago died in such a trap.


23 posted on 05/14/2007 7:08:30 AM PDT by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Oh this oughta make some of the anti-Stryker dimwitted FReepers feel better...but the fact is, no troop transporting vehicle could survive the type of IEDs that are taking out these Strykers.


24 posted on 05/14/2007 7:13:25 AM PDT by VaBthang4 ("He Who Watches Over Israel Will Neither Slumber Nor Sleep")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
Journalist won’t admit that the real deterrent to roadside bombing is fear. If the B-52s leveled everything within 1/4 mile of each roadside bomb, the people of Iraq would take care of their own. We are dealing with a culture that has a recorded history of more that 4000 years, yet didn’t figure out democracy once during that time. What they understand is rule by naked power. If you don't obey we will kill you has been the law of the land in the past in Iraq. They just don't understand freedoms responsibilities.
25 posted on 05/14/2007 7:20:50 AM PDT by Waverunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

If we uparmor them, then they will use more fuel and only be able to patrol a smaller area. They will also be less maneuverable, taking longer to respond to others in need and able to go into fewer places.

Whatever we do, there is no perfect answer.


26 posted on 05/14/2007 7:36:12 AM PDT by FreeInWV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

The Stryker bloated in weight (19 tons) and height, but it can be squatted to fit in a C-130. However, the weight of support and “associated” equipment means another C-130 is required. Personally, we ought to be regoranizing around the C-17, but we’ve got so many C-130s it may never be a reality. The C-130 will probably still be flying when the C-17s replacement arrives.

The South African “Buffalo” and variants isn’t really a fighting vehicle. It’s mainly a troop transport/EOD vehicle with an enhanced suspension for mine damage, but wouldn’t do so well against other weapons. I don’t think it will fit in a C-130 because it’s very tall. The good thing is that the suspension is designed to sacrifice to impact and be readily replaced in a short period of time.

You’re right.
There isn’t a silver bullet, and probably will never be.
They act, we react, and the cycle continues.


27 posted on 05/14/2007 10:19:37 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Androcles

Remember that Stryker is/was officially known as an “interim” vehicle. The FCS family was supposed to follow-on, but that program’s in the grave (for now).

We’ve erroneously overe-extended both the mission and the platform of the HMMWV. We used them as pickup trucks in the mid-1980s and now they’re being used in roles never intended or even wildly imagined. We (The Army) should have had a better post-Cold War option in the works.

I’m a Bradley fan (armor, firepower and TRACKS), as a large vehicle in a confined area needs PIVOT STEER. However, the Stryker has been fairly successful and is our best technology demonstrator for enhanced combat control systems.


28 posted on 05/14/2007 10:24:29 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Waverunner

Post of the day candidate.

We learn nothing from history. We could win this war in short order if we were willing to actually fight it.


29 posted on 05/14/2007 10:26:23 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs (Ignorance should be painful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

Not even close.

The Marines aren’t employing the Stryker in the same applications or numbers as The Army.

During the intial phase, it wasn’t wheeled vehicles leading the way because everybody, even Marines, understood the limited nature of the platform (and armor).


30 posted on 05/14/2007 10:27:03 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
The Stryker:

31 posted on 05/14/2007 10:36:18 AM PDT by rottndog (This Tagline currently closed for maintenance and rehabilitation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

Thank you for your service.


32 posted on 05/14/2007 4:17:46 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (NSDQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
OK...The stryker was designed to Attack as a fast offensive support vehicle where it was impractical to bring in tanks and bradleys.
They were having such tremendous success the last couple years using it for everything it lost it’s intended use. It wasn’t designed to fight guys with RPGs, T-72xx, and not IED/buried artillery or anti tank mines.
33 posted on 05/14/2007 4:23:17 PM PDT by miliantnutcase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miliantnutcase

I meant “was” designed to...


34 posted on 05/14/2007 4:24:05 PM PDT by miliantnutcase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

“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.”

“Translation: It looked good on paper. Oh well.”

Additional translation - it briefed well......


35 posted on 05/14/2007 4:26:23 PM PDT by roaddog727 (BullS##t does not get bridges built)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE; mad_as_he$$; VaBthang4; miliantnutcase
Like a lot of military projects, Stryker evolved from concept to delivery. It's mission or "purpose" was constantly being defined and redefined by the politicians and the military brass while the designers and the engineers tried to keep up with the moving target of the concept. What was untimately delivered was far far removed from what was originally conceived. The world and the tools we need to work in it can change a lot faster than we are able to conceive, design, fund, and deliver such vehicles or weapon systems.
This is my "old ride":

The old 113 did it's job in it's day;
but it would be devastated in the current world situation.
36 posted on 05/14/2007 4:41:34 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$; SJSAMPLE; StAthanasiustheGreat
Marines are going for this vehicle...

Mine-resistant 'MRAP's called 'four-to-five' times safer than Humvees for U.S. forces

**************************


37 posted on 05/14/2007 11:05:28 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The DemonicRATS believe ....that the best decisions are always made after the fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

We have several hundred M113s in inventory, many of them he A3 variant.

The M113 was a true “battle taxi”.
Light (relatively), maneuverable and no-frills.

I spent a good chunk of my career in th M577 variant.
Relatively reliable and simple.

When the Stryker was first fielded, the size and cost drove many to long for their return. However, the simple aluminum “armor” would have been disastrous. Marine AAVs of similar construction have been literally peeled apart from IEDs, taking the entire compliment with them.

Back in 1985, I had long, heated debates with fellow soldiers about the need for the Bradley. I’m glad to see that it’s proven to be very effective and reliable on the battlefield (as I knew it would be). Bradley’s have been called into action to support Marine operations (Fallujah) when the LAV was proved inferior.


38 posted on 05/15/2007 5:15:41 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

FRPT


39 posted on 05/15/2007 5:21:24 AM PDT by Broker (Haddi Nuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson