Stryker is a piece of ****!

According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the Humvee
situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen.
Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be
put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington
have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers
are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well as
the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.

According to a well-placed Defense Department source, the Army is so
worried about the Stryker's vulnerability that most of the 300-vehicle
brigade currently in Iraq has been deployed up in the safer Kurdish
region around Mosul. "Any further south, and the Army was afraid the
Arabs would light them up," he says.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...dele=jdc_inter

"noname" wrote in message
...
According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the Humvee
situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen.
Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be
put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington
have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers
are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well as
the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.

Duh. But the problem you posted was in reference to the HMMWV, not the
Bradley. Given a choice between a HMMWV (even uparmored) and a Stryker, the
Stryker looks very good. And being a wheeled vehicle, it will more than
likely be better in terms of both road mobility and maintenance (easier to
change a tire than a track) when compared to the Bradley which you sort of
slipped in after-the-fact.


According to a well-placed Defense Department source, the Army is so
worried about the Stryker's vulnerability that most of the 300-vehicle
brigade currently in Iraq has been deployed up in the safer Kurdish
region around Mosul. "Any further south, and the Army was afraid the
Arabs would light them up," he says.

Beware the anonymous source. They are sending HMMWV's into areas where they
are getting killed outised the Kurdish areas--what does *that* tell you
about this Bozo's quote?

Brooks



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...dele=jdc_inter

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:33:50 -0400, Kevin Brooks wrote:

"noname" wrote in message
...
According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the Humvee
situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen.
Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be
put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington
have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers
are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well as
the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.

Duh. But the problem you posted was in reference to the HMMWV, not the
Bradley. Given a choice between a HMMWV (even uparmored) and a Stryker, the
Stryker looks very good.

Indeed. I wonder how good Stryker's armour is against KE weapons,
however. Would it beat an anti-materiel rifle, or HMG? How about a
23 mm cannon?


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

"phil hunt" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:33:50 -0400, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

"noname" wrote in message
...
According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the Humvee
situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen.
Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be
put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington
have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers
are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well
as
the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.

Duh. But the problem you posted was in reference to the HMMWV, not the
Bradley. Given a choice between a HMMWV (even uparmored) and a Stryker,
the
Stryker looks very good.

Indeed. I wonder how good Stryker's armour is against KE weapons,
however. Would it beat an anti-materiel rifle, or HMG? How about a
23 mm cannon?

It would likely be lousy against a KE weapon of any size, to include
anything of 12.7mm (with SLAP rounds, for example) and above at short enough
range. But IIRC the Bradley would be similarly vulnerable, though maybe not
as much so as the Stryker. Stryker is great compared to an uparmored HMMWV
or a home-reinforced deuce and a half or five ton; but it understandably is
going to come up short compared to the M2 series vehicles. Which is OK--the
missions of the two are a bit different. I have little doubt that we could
have put the better part or all of a Stryker BCT into northern Iraq during
the early phase of OIF had they been available at that time, whereas we were
pressed to get a heavy BN task force (minus) (and I don't know that we got
*any* M1A1's into that package) into the region as was. Stryker is not going
to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than the
HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
support forces better protection.

Brooks



--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:09:18 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:33:50 -0400, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

"noname" wrote in message
...
According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the Humvee
situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen.
Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be
put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington
have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers
are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well
as
the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.

Duh. But the problem you posted was in reference to the HMMWV, not the
Bradley. Given a choice between a HMMWV (even uparmored) and a Stryker,
the
Stryker looks very good.

Indeed. I wonder how good Stryker's armour is against KE weapons,
however. Would it beat an anti-materiel rifle, or HMG? How about a
23 mm cannon?

It would likely be lousy against a KE weapon of any size, to include
anything of 12.7mm (with SLAP rounds, for example) and above at short enough
range. But IIRC the Bradley would be similarly vulnerable, though maybe not
as much so as the Stryker. Stryker is great compared to an uparmored HMMWV
or a home-reinforced deuce and a half or five ton; but it understandably is
going to come up short compared to the M2 series vehicles. Which is OK--the
missions of the two are a bit different. I have little doubt that we could
have put the better part or all of a Stryker BCT into northern Iraq during
the early phase of OIF had they been available at that time, whereas we were
pressed to get a heavy BN task force (minus) (and I don't know that we got
*any* M1A1's into that package) into the region as was. Stryker is not going
to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than the
HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
support forces better protection.

The LAV series is almost entirely steel, so it does work fairly well
against small-calibre AP ammunition. I know the Canadian LAV III is
proofed for the front quarter against 14.5 mm AP. The Stryker may not
be due to the efforts to stuff them into C-130s. Since almost all 23
mm ammunition is HEI it should deflect that as well.

The real problem with the US Army's LAV is that they messed up on the
applique armour procurement, so they don't have their vehicles
equipped with it. I imagine they would have good protection against
older model RPGs if they were in theatre with their ceramic applique
packages.

Of course the LAV series has long been safe against land mines,
typically losing a wheel or two but suffering no casualties and able
to return to the depot under its own power.

--
Robb McLeod )
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops.
On my desk I have a work station...

Stryker is not going
to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than the
HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
support forces better protection.

Brooks

Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs instead:

http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezen...a_content.html

Rob

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:45:03 -0700, Robb McLeod wrote:

The LAV series is almost entirely steel, so it does work fairly well
against small-calibre AP ammunition. I know the Canadian LAV III is
proofed for the front quarter against 14.5 mm AP. The Stryker may not
be due to the efforts to stuff them into C-130s. Since almost all 23
mm ammunition is HEI it should deflect that as well.

The real problem with the US Army's LAV is that they messed up on the
applique armour procurement, so they don't have their vehicles
equipped with it.

Is the current slated armour intended as a replacemernt for this, or
will both be used when the applique armour is ready? Also, is it
likely that Stryker is planned to use active armour in future?

I imagine they would have good protection against
older model RPGs if they were in theatre with their ceramic applique
packages.

That's my guess too. It seems that modern vehicles are much better
protected against shaped-charge weapons than against KE projectiles.
So it seems that KE is the way to go for AT weapons.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

"Robb McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:09:18 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:33:50 -0400, Kevin Brooks

wrote:

"noname" wrote in message
...
According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the
Humvee
situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command,
Gen.
Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles
be
put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in
Washington
have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire
Strykers
are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as
well
as
the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.

Duh. But the problem you posted was in reference to the HMMWV, not the
Bradley. Given a choice between a HMMWV (even uparmored) and a
Stryker,
the
Stryker looks very good.

Indeed. I wonder how good Stryker's armour is against KE weapons,
however. Would it beat an anti-materiel rifle, or HMG? How about a
23 mm cannon?

It would likely be lousy against a KE weapon of any size, to include
anything of 12.7mm (with SLAP rounds, for example) and above at short
enough
range. But IIRC the Bradley would be similarly vulnerable, though maybe
not
as much so as the Stryker. Stryker is great compared to an uparmored
HMMWV
or a home-reinforced deuce and a half or five ton; but it understandably
is
going to come up short compared to the M2 series vehicles. Which is
OK--the
missions of the two are a bit different. I have little doubt that we
could
have put the better part or all of a Stryker BCT into northern Iraq
during
the early phase of OIF had they been available at that time, whereas we
were
pressed to get a heavy BN task force (minus) (and I don't know that we
got
*any* M1A1's into that package) into the region as was. Stryker is not
going
to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than
the
HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
support forces better protection.

The LAV series is almost entirely steel, so it does work fairly well
against small-calibre AP ammunition. I know the Canadian LAV III is
proofed for the front quarter against 14.5 mm AP. The Stryker may not
be due to the efforts to stuff them into C-130s. Since almost all 23
mm ammunition is HEI it should deflect that as well.

Providing only frontal protection is fine against a conventional enemy in
the wide open, but of less value in a street fight. IIRC the manufactirer
kind of screwed up early in the program and claimed 14.5mm protection, which
was not required in the original specs, and then had to make good on the
promise, hence some weight gain and the use of the applique armor panels.
Even if the 23mm is firing HEI, I would not want to vouchsafe for its
survivability against that threat--23mm is going to be lethal against most
light armored targets, except at longer ranges (25mm on LAVs and Bradleys
accounted for MBT kills during ODS).


The real problem with the US Army's LAV is that they messed up on the
applique armour procurement, so they don't have their vehicles
equipped with it. I imagine they would have good protection against
older model RPGs if they were in theatre with their ceramic applique
packages.

ISTR they *do* have the applique armor; not sure they have enough yet for
the entire force, but then again only the first SBCT is deployed right now.


Of course the LAV series has long been safe against land mines,
typically losing a wheel or two but suffering no casualties and able
to return to the depot under its own power.

That depends upon how the landmine is fused, and what kind of landmine it
hits. A full-width attack mine will kill it with a belly shot--there is no
way that puppy is proofed against a kinetic penetrator from below, such as
is used by the M21 AT mine and its brethren. I'd not want to even see it hit
with a large blast-type AT mine in a full-width attack. It goes without
saying that the vehicle is not proofed against mines--that is why the SBCT's
engineer company is getting mine clearance equipment suited to clearing
vehicle lanes through minefields. heck, even the M1A1(HA) is not
invulnerable to the lowly AT mine.

Brooks


--
Robb McLeod )
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train
stops.
On my desk I have a work station...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
Stryker is not going
to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than
the
HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
support forces better protection.

Brooks

Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs
instead:

http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezen...a_content.html

LOL! Yeah, at 43 freakin' tons the Puma is a *real* competitor against the
LAV...not. And how many Pumas are in service? None... And how many have been
manufactured? None, again? Sounds like it is a sure fit for the modern
German military...a non-existant vehicle for a force that won't be used.

Brooks

Rob

robert arndt wrote:

Stryker is not going


to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than the
HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
support forces better protection.

Brooks



Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs instead:

http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezen...a_content.html

Rob


YIKES!! At 43 Tons it might as well be an MBT.