You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Stryker Crews in Iraq Rally to Defend Their Rides
2008-03-12
Hat tip Instapundit.
It's hard out there for a crew working the 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.

The MGS has the same body as nine other Stryker variants, so it shares design flaws common to them all, including vulnerable wheels, inadequate armor and cramped operating conditions. Other complaints specific to the MGS variant revolve around computer system freezes, and instability caused by its large, tanklike main gun. “The Army decided to try and put an M68A1 105mm gun on a Stryker chassis, and the results have been disastrous,” anti-terrorism expert Victor O’Reilly wrote in an oft-quoted 2003 report he prepared for Rep. Jim Saxton.

But try telling some of the Stryker MGS crews that their battle-tested vehicles are not effective, and you get a more nuanced appraisal. In a new round of on-the-ground reviews from U.S. troops (a master gunner also offered his defense of and suggestions for improved Abrams tanks), next-gen armored vehicles appear to be improving safety in Iraq.
Posted by:Steve White

#7  Strykers do what everything else in the inventory cannot do and that is be quite, travel quickly and efficiently without tearing up the community, and most importantly they protect Soldiers. I have worked along side them and they get it done. I saw one take an IED one day in Baghdad and the boys calmly exited via the ramp and all of them merrily went after the trigger man. Yes the MGS has problems and must be worked out, but the guys are making that happen. One other point that is very importnt...the bad guys are terrifed of them..very hard to kill and they pack a punch they cannot hear coming.
Posted by: TopMac   2008-03-12 21:22  

#6  tipover: so what are you saying?


:-)
Posted by: Frank G   2008-03-12 20:25  

#5  anonymous5089, the M113 and the M577 (command track version) were old 30 years ago when I was driving the 577. They were maintenance hogs and the engines, drive trains and tracks were subject to breakdown. They are are noisy and slow and don't have any room to add all of those new goodies that keep our troops alive and in contact with each other. And the fact that they are a slab sided, thinly armored (fifty cal will penetrate) and probably a really good IR target. Those slab sides would be a really great surface to hit with rpg's and that flat floor should transmit every bit of force of a landmine/ied to the crew and troops. Other than that it's a great piece of vintage tech suitable for show at a museum.

Not that I have an opinion on the subject.

Did I mention that the tracks are a PIA to maintain? If you could get the parts.
Posted by: tipover   2008-03-12 14:41  

#4  Most people who complain about military equipment have never been in a fight - period. The only way to get accurate information about what works and what doesn't is to listen to the people that use this equipment daily. The armchair admirals and generals in the Pentagon need to remember that.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-03-12 13:56  

#3  Better is the enemy of good enough.

Good enough is the enemy of more R&D bux...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2008-03-12 13:49  

#2  Not that I don't think the Strykers, LAV, are not good vehicles in their own right with inherent advantages and drawbacks due to their design, but I'm curious, why shelve large stocks of capable vehicles, as proven over time, give more as foreign aid, and then go back from scratches, with lots and lots of money in R&D?
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-03-12 12:05  

#1  I know I can't have any really valid opinion, being a civie with no other ideas that what he can read here and there on the subject, plus, I'm biased, because I've read Mike Sparks early on, and he really, really, really, really dislikes Strykers and other lightly armored wheeled vehicles with little "popguns", and he makes his points with fervor (he seems a bit crazed, not that there is anything wrong with that, of course :-)...), but apart from the the stealthier wheels and higher road speed (but sparks debates that last point), what exactly can do the LAV or the Stryker and its variants than an upgraded and pimped out (and much cheaper) M113 couldn't (with big guns and heavy firepower, 90mm cannons, 106mm RR,... as Sparks would want, of course)?
Or the USMC EFV?
That is, don't fix what isn't broken, keep what's working, and upgrade accordingly to the advances of technology in comms, sensors, fire control,... rather than spending billions in literally re-inventing the wheel?
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-03-12 11:48  

00:00