Why Stryker Succeeded

Strategy Page ^ | October 12, 2005

[Cannoneer No. 4]

When the Stryker wheeled armored vehicle was introduced three years ago, it promptly became a criticism magnet. That’s not unusual. There hasn’t been a new armored American vehicle in the last three decades that was able to enter service free of savage criticism. The Stryker had an advantage, as it was able to go off to war as soon as the first Stryker units were formed. Even most critics agree that combat is the final arbiter of which weapons really work, and which don’t. The Stryker promptly became enormously popular with its users. What made the Stryker a battlefield success was; speed, stealth, protection, maintainability and gadgets.

Most critics, especially civilians, underestimated, or were simply clueless about, the importance of speed. Being a wheeled vehicle, the Stryker could run down cars and trucks, something even a fast tracked armored vehicle, like the M-2 Bradley, could not do. In Iraq, where many of the bad guys rolled around in SUVs, the Stryker could keep up. Not only that, but the fast moving Stryker could get to places more quickly, and, in effect, make more “appointments” with the enemy in a day. It’s what they call a “force multiplier.”

Stealthiness was another thing civilian critics had no clue about. In Iraq, the quiet Stryker could, literally, sneak up on the enemy, especially since so many of the raids are conducted at night. American troops quickly adapted their tactics to take advantage of it, and these stealthy Strykers quickly put fear in the hearts of the enemy.

Much of the criticism aimed at the Stryker had to do with it’s vulnerability to enemy fire. In actual practice, this turned out not to be the case. The troops have high praise for the Strykers ability to take hits, and keep on going, or at least protect its passengers.

For older troops who had served in M-2 Bradley mechanized infantry units, it was quickly obvious that the Stryker was a much easier (and less time-consuming) vehicle to maintain and keep going. That meant you had more vehicle ready to roll at any one time. That makes a difference in combat.

And then there were the gadgets. The Stryker was loaded up with communications gear, remote control system , networking stuff and new weapons. Most of it worked, but the young troops, raised on gadgets, found the Stryker an entertaining vehicle to work in. And many of the gadgets made the troops more effective or, failing that, less likely to be bored.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

One of my major criticisms was the unstabilized Remote Weapons Station and the puny main armament for a vehicle of that size. I haven't been able to research this, but I am led to believe that either the RWS problems have been solved or they have learned to live with them.

We have Canadian LAV III's around here with real turrets and serious armament, which we could have had but for the specious C-130 transportability specification, which they backed off from anyway.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Stryker Brigade Combat Team Tactical Studies Group (Chairborne)

af_vet_rr; ALOHA RONNIE; American in Israel; American Soldier; archy; armymarinemom; bad company; BCR #226; Bethbg79; blackbag; BlueOneGolf; Born Conservative; Cacophonous; Calpernia; cavtrooper21; centurion316; colorado tanker; Conservative84; consort; Crowcreek; CWOJackson; Darksheare; Dark Wing; dcwusmc; dead; demlosers; Don L; .cnI redruM; dragon6; dts32041; exnavy; ffusco; 1stFreedom; Fred Mertz; Freedom4US; FreedomPoster; Flyer; Ford Fairlane; Future Snake Eater; gatorbait; Graybeard58; Grumpy Bear; hchutch; historian1944; Humidston; in the Arena; lshoultz; Jimmy Valentine; joesnuffy; Jonah Hex; John Jorsett; jriemer; kattracks; Kenny Bunk; Khurkris; KiaKaha; Lazamataz; LibKill; Lil'freeper; Little Ray; Lion Den Dan; MadJack; mark502inf; Matthew James; mcshot; Michael121; MizSterious; Mochamadness; MoJo2001; murdocj; neverdem; New Zealander; norton; Nurse Ratched; NWU Army ROTC; Old Sarge; Orwellian; Paul Ross; petertare; Poohbah; PsyOp; Proud Legions; Qatar-6; Radix; Ragtime Cowgirl; RedlegCPT; rightwing2; Rockpile; R. Scott; SauronOfMordor; sauropod; sd-joe; servantoftheservant; SJSAMPLE; Skybird; SLB; Sparta; Spyder; Squantos; Stand Watch Listen; Tailback; Tallguy; talosiv; 30-06 Springfield; ThePythonicCow; The Sailor; Thunder 6; TigerLikesRooster; Travis McGee; tricky_k_1972; Tunehead54; txzman; Valin; vannrox; VeniVidiVici; Walkingfeather; wardaddy; watchin; WesternPacific; wretchard; xzins; Yasotay; yhwhsman; islander-11;

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[syriacus]

Thanks for posting this.

[Uriah_lost]

Yeah, I thought this was a thread about the "Airplane" movie.

[Coastie]

Shirley you jest.

[R. Scott]

Combat is the best test of a weapons system. Stryker works in Iraq and will work in Iran and Syria – but before the Great Minds dump the tank and other tracked vehicles in favor of more light armored wheeled vehicles, I hope they realize that the Middle East is not the only potential war zone.

[tiger-one]

The 172d INF BDE has come a long way since my time with them. 1964-1966 Ft Rich AK US51509754

[Stonewall Jackson]

The Stryker is a great recon platform, but the best weapon system for killing a tank is another tank. (Although A-10's are pretty effective in this role.)

[Moose4]

Sounds like it's a good vehicle for the type of "low-intensity" urban combat that we're seeing in Iraq. Whether it would be any good on a more "conventional" battlefield, well, that's another issue.

}:-)4

[Stand W]

I'm not jesting. And don't call my Shirley.

[norton]

"real turrets and serious armament...vs...the specious C-130 transportability specification, which they backed off from anyway."

Are there not heavier weapons etc. on the boards that could evolve (back) into the system?

It seems pretty obvious that the current units and equipment would have to be rethought/reoriented for any kind of conventional confrontation.

[dfwgator]

I thought Stryker lost his crew over Macho Grande.

[Calpernia]

Stealthiness was another thing civilian critics had no clue about. In Iraq, the quiet Stryker could, literally, sneak up on the enemy, especially since so many of the raids are conducted at night. American troops quickly adapted their tactics to take advantage of it, and these stealthy Strykers quickly put fear in the hearts of the enemy.

[EricT.]

Sounds like it's a good vehicle for the type of "low-intensity" urban combat that we're seeing in Iraq. Whether it would be any good on a more "conventional" battlefield, well, that's another issue.

I'm just an old squid, but I can see that the Stryker is in it's environment in Iraqi cities- I would question anyone deploying them in a battlefield where Bradley's or Abrams' would be called for. There is a place for every well-designed weapon. You don't use an MP-5 as a long range sniper weapon, neither do you use an M40 for clearing rooms in a building full of bad guys.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Blueflag]

Yeah -- I saw this too.

I was amused by the 'reality' of the statement that the Strykers are fast enough to catch bad guys in a getaway SUV. WHAT a ride THAT must be! HOOAH! Take the governor off an M1-A1 and it will haul a$$, but stopping and cornering are issues. ;-) I guess the Stryker handles at least as well as a Suburban ;-)

[Calpernia]

Those nasty SUVs stryke fear into all!

Power vehicles!

[Jeff Head]

Ping for your attention, review, and comment.

What about the MGS variant as a tank destroyer, are they still coming?