Posted on 03/12/2008 11:23:33 PM PDT by gondramB
Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS). In addition to battling insurgents in the cities of Iraq, the soldiers assigned to the armored support vehicle have had to fend off attacks from critics back home, including some in the military itself. The 2008 Pentagon Authorization bill included language to limit funds for MGS until the Army drafts a report detailing fixes to the vehicle. In an annual report that the Army disputed, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation described the MGS as “not operationally effective.” Media reports quoting crews unhappy with some design elements also surfaced this year, further diminishing the Stryker’s combat reputation. ... “My platoon and I know the real deal, so let me tell you what your tax dollars bought,” says Sgt. 1st Class Scott Collum, who has served in Army tanks for 19 years, including combat tours in Bosnia and Iraq during operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. He is assigned to A Company, 1/38 of the 2nd ID, deployed in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad. “Some commanders look at the MGS as a tank,” he says. “I cannot stress enough that it is not a tank; it is a support vehicle with some tank-related features. This vehicle is fast, maneuverable, quiet and accurate. In my opinion, it is the most lethal ground vehicle for an urban environment in Iraq today.”
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
" He adds that the Army did not train the crews to use the canister round to clear palm groves, large wooded areas and mud huts, “but that’s what we use it for, and it has proven to be very effective.” "
From what I have read from soldiers and officers is that the vehicle has performed very well. The armor issues prior to deployment were a non issue.
I would question the stryker’s combat effectiveness? It is an armored car according to a friend. Corruption seems the game.
http://www.militarycorruption.com/soundoff2.htm
The Stryker has better armor than the M113 and is more faster and quite. It also holds more troops. It’s combat effectiveness has been proven in the field. The only downside is it’s weight and airlift compatibility. Finally the M113 and the Stryker are not meant for combat, but are armored personnel carriers to bring troops to the fore. It is the Canadians that are truly misusing these vehicles by replacing light tanks with cannon mounted Strykers.
You are right. However, the stryker is a waste of taxpayers money IMHO? Do you think Lonnie has an axe to grind?
Do you think Shinseki made any money? Tell me? Are you in the vehicle? Have you been to war in it- I have not been it. Do you want to be in it? Is the state of Hawaii making any money off the deal? Tell me why this beats an M113 other then speed? I am too old to be in it. Frankly, I hated Mech Infantry. It seems like a Mech INF BDE’s S-4’s nightmare? Why put tires on on APC? How does it perform in the desert off road? Please correct me. I am not conventional infantry.
>>I would question the stryker’s combat effectiveness? It is an armored car according to a friend. Corruption seems the game.
http://www.militarycorruption.com/soundoff2.htm<<
I’m some of the the problem is that it has so much armor and such a cannon for an armored car that it looks like a tank.
>>From what I have read from soldiers and officers is that the vehicle has performed very well. The armor issues prior to deployment were a non issue.<<
For armored transport - I believe its what I would want to be in...
That said, the vulnerability when they go up to use the machine gun and (for me as an old civilian) the lack of climate control would be concerns.
No I haven’t used it and probably never will. My point is from reading accounts from those who do, greatly appreciate the vehicle. Yes the improved M113 would be cheaper by a lot. But everything cost more today. There is a lot tech wise that the Stryker does that the M113 can’t do. For one the M2 can be operated from below and I am sure every guy that has been pointed the task of being the gunner appreciates not having to stick half his body up the gun port.
I don’t know about money issues or corruption. So I can’t answer those. All I know is this vehicle works and fits in with the current Army technologically.
You don’t have to go up to use the M2 on the Stryker. That is one of the many advances this vehicle provides. The Stryker is the first Army vehicle to include the remote controlled M2.
The picture you have is the Canadian version. We don’t use the cannon, just a M2 and TOW missile. The Canadians are putting cannons on theirs and replacing their light tanks with this vehicle. The US Army has no plans to do that. For the Army it is an APC.
Thank you for both of those pieces of info.
Ditto: The Humvee replaced the jeep. The Stryker was the APC repacement,as I am told.
What mech Infantry BDE S-4 will ever be promoted if he reports the track and wheeled vehicles honesly? I hope this has changed.
Back to subject, and; I do not BS. Can anyone tell me all these countries, who want the Sryker among our allies? I hope it surives in combat and our troops do, too.
Yes, we need conv Infantry. Please be honest about the Stryker. I am no expert as I have never seen a stryker.
The best officers tell the damn truth. I hope and pray this vehicle is all it cracked up to be.
I am not an expert by any means. I just read form those that are not held back from telling the truth. The site www.socnetcentral.com is a good place to get raw input on many things military.
Here is a good article talking about the pros and cons of both vehicles.
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Stryker2,,00.html
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.