Skip to comments.Stryker Losses in Iraq Raise Questions
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 ...
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.
The authors and the leaker ought to be in irons for this.
(I can dream, can't I?)
Just more template bad news from AP.
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
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.
Build a bigger, better, and more armored vehicle, and Harry Reid’s heroes will build bigger and better bombs.
Action and reaction.
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.
The Stryker program originally was to make a vehicle that could be carried by ONE C-130. The current version takes 2 C-130âs to move it. Wheeled does have itâs advantages. M-1âs 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 IEDâs 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.
I swear, AP doesn't even use editors anymore.
Like ripples on a pond, the words of Pelosi and Reid are having their effect. Wouldnt it have been lovely that rather than surrender, Pelosi and Reid had said America will win this war.
Don’t worry, Pelosi and Reid would have released the info about the Stryker if AP hadn’t.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Worth their weight in gold. /s
“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.
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.
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.
What DID the Lone Ranger carry silver bullets? They are lighter than lead ones , right?
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 IEDs. 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 IEDs) 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.
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.
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.
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.
There isn’t a silver bullet, and probably will never be.
They act, we react, and the cycle continues.
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.
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.
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).
Thank you for your service.
I meant “was” designed to...
“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......
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.