Pioneering Army Unit to Debut in Iraq

AP | 8/02/03 | ROBERT BURNS

[Reeses]

unmanned ground and aerial vehicles.

[spetznaz]

SkyNet strikes again!

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Going to be a disaster. From what I have heard, when armed with a 105, the turret cannot traverse, otherwise it tips over. I have also heard that 12.7 can make mincemeat of the armor.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Am I the only one who looks at a Stryker and identifies BTR-60?

I am all for mobility, and I wish those fine troops the best, but can somebody tell me what a Stryker can do that some variant of the LAV could not?

Back in the 1970's the Soviet Airborne had motorized rifle regiments mounted in air droppable BMD Infantry Fighting Vehicles, with fire support provided by ASU-85 self-propelled assault guns. That was 30 years ago and our Airborne is going to war in GAC's.

I think it is a good thing that we have to go to the other side of the world to get to the bad guys, but how we get there affects how fast we go and what we can take with us. I'm a Stryker skeptic. I wonder if it is just too big and heavy and hard to maintain. Wouldn't we be better off to give the light infantry and airmobile and airborne armored HUMMV's and ATV's and Chenoweth's and an air-droppable Sheridan replacement, and give the Marines more M1A2's and the amphibs to haul them?

Seems to me what we need instead of Strykers is an amphibious armored cavalry regiment.

[theFIRMbss]

>Shinseki often recalls that the Army's only answer to Iraq's threat to those Saudi oil fields was to send the 82nd Airborne Division

If this new unit
was designed to counter big
incursions, then what

will they be doing
in present-day Iraq, where
troops are mopping up?

If they're not sent in
to kick big butt big time, will
they be told to look

friendly, and do jobs
like neighborhood policing? Am
I missing something?

[theFIRMbss]

For people like me
who've never seen it, here is
the thing, and info...

[Tunehead54]

19 tons? There's a lot of bridges this baby is going to have to go around - not over.

---

[Tunehead54]

Mine's bigger! - Thanks for the link - still specs for this monster are apparently classified. How fast, how far, etc.

---

;-)

[Gamecock]

SGT Stryker?

"My name is Stryker, Sgt. John M. Stryker. You're goin' a be my squad, a rifle squad. Three of us have seen action, Cpl. Dunn, Charlie Bass and myself. You're goin' a learn from us. In boot camp ya learned out of a book. Out here you've got a remember the book and learn a thousand things that have never been printed--probably never will be. You got a learn right and ya got a learn fast. And any man that doesn't want a cooperate, I'll make him wish he hadn't been born. Before I'm through with ya, you're goin' a move like one man and think like one man. If you don't you'll be dead. You guys have had a nice easy day. I hope ya enjoyed it because it's the last one you're goin' a get for a long time. You joined the Marines because you wanted to fight. Well, you're goin' a get your chance and I'm here to see that you know how. If I can't teach ya one way, I'll teach ya another. But I'll get the job done. The skipper of this outfit is Capt. Joyce. Platoon leader is Lt. Baker. Platoon Sergeant, Sgt. Ryke. Any questions?--That's all!"

[MonroeDNA]

This is going to be bad.

[Gamecock]

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

[mark502inf]

tell me what a Stryker can do that some variant of the LAV could not?

It is a variant of the LAV--has some upgrades, but is not that different.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I was using LAV to refer to the Marine Corps LAV-25 such as many of us saw who stayed up late last March to see Fox News embed Rick Leventhal. From what I have gathered the Marines are pretty satisfied with this vehicle's performance in Iraq

This site has some info on it:

http://www.paratrooper.net/aotw/commo/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3903&whichpage

I am not at home or I would have HTML'd that link for you

Stryker is not a Marine LAV-25. Here are the Advantages of the LAV-25 over the Stryker ITC (Infantry Troop Carrier):

1) LAV-25 is amphibious, Stryker is not.

2) LAV-25 is more nimble and cross country maneuverable due to 10,000+ lbs less weight. LAV-25 is around 14 tons and the Stryker is around 19 tons.

3) LAV-25 can be sling loaded by CH-53, Stryker cannot.

4) LAV-25 has 25mm bushmaster and turret. Stryker has remote mounted .50 cal OR Mk19.

5) LAV-25 is truely C-130 transportable, Most of the 10 Stryker varients are not.

6) LAV-25 costs 1/3 the price of a Stryker.

[MadJack]

The Army could have bought LAVS...they seem to work just fine for the Marines, but I guess that would have kept some retired generals/corporate VPs from making the big bucks in R&D cost overruns, etc.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

What do you think, Dai Uy?

[Paul Ross]

Roger all that. The replacement cost of the LAV-25 is $900,000. And it can go 65 mph. The Stryker, relatively, is a pig. Picture of LAV-25 in action below:

[Cannoneer No. 4]

What do you think, Dai Uy?

[dragon6]

To all, lets also not forget that all of these BDEs vehicles have real time C2 and digital comms, to give all levels of command real time situational information. They also are not going into a unprpepared theater, while Iraq is not a mature theater of operations it is far from an unprepared one, there are LOCs in place to allow this BDE which has exceptionally light/austere logistics capability a fairly robust back up support capability. Also they'll leverage all the add-on armor capability for their vehicles which limits deployment timelines again not a consideration for this operation. FYI they kicked both the NTC and JRTC OPFOR's ass even with the new COE enhancements the OPFOR has been upgraded with based on Enduring and IRAQ Freedom lessons learned. I've seen both the offical and the OPFOR's internal AARs. I think they'll do alright.

[VeniVidiVici]

So what gives these things the edge at the NTCs? You hit, you blink, you die (unless you cheat). Fire and maneuver is the same once you know the terrain.

Unless they were given an artificial edge I'm curious as to why they came out on top.