« Chica-GO | Main | Shooting Fish in a Barrel »
October 17, 2004
Criticise This
Note: this is a post recovered from my old blog, before it died of an insufficient backup. Any comments/trackbacks on it have not been brought over, but can be seen with the original. The date is that of the original posting.
\"\;The Stryker gets a lot of grief, due to its light armor and weaponry, its size and any number of other factors. Traditional armor guys seem to think that up-armored M113s would do a better job at the role Strykers are designed to fill. The biggest criticism, bar none, has been with the armor protection and survivability of the platform. This kind of incident should put paid to those particular criticisms. While Strykers can be destroyed, like any vehicle, they are a lot more survivable than initially believed.
It seems to me that Stryker does what it is supposed to do: offer reasonably survivable transport and fire support to light units, allowing the military to deploy more firepower faster than it could otherwise. Perhaps it could be improved, but we'd be better off looking at how it could be improved than just throwing up our hands and saying no, no, no.
UPDATE (10/14): StrategyPage has more.
You wrote:
It seems to me that Stryker does what it is supposed to do: offer reasonably survivable transport and fire support to light units, allowing the military to deploy more firepower faster than it could otherwise. Perhaps it could be improved, but we'd be better off looking at how it could be improved than just throwing up our hands and saying no, no, no.
The Stryker has been deployed to Iraq in a way to play up to its strengths; it's mainly used to patrol urban areas and isn't being put in the sorts of situations where a traditional tracked vehicle might be put.
This is all well and good, but if the US winds up going to war with Iran in the future, and the Strykers have to move from the cities into the mountains in the border areas of Iran, they might be at a strong disadvantage compared to more traditional tracked vehicles.
Also, the "rapidly deployable" comment you made: is it really any more deployable than a Bradley, if it can't fly on the C-130 (and I've seen comments from people working for the Air force to this effect), and can only fly two to a C-17, the same number as the Bradley?
(Although a caveat: Whether the "medium" force in question is equipped with modernized variants of the M113, the Stryker, the Marines' LAV, or some sort of shrunken Bradley, it may be transported by air, but it probably isn't going to be kept in ammo, fuel, and spare parts by air.)
Posted by: Phil Fraering on October 15, 2004 08:47 PMAck, I meant to say "in a way that plays up to its strengths." Which may be the right thing to do...
You might also find this interesting; I ran across it while trying in vain to find the dimensions of the Stryker MGS variant:
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001034.html
Posted by: Phil Fraering on October 15, 2004 08:54 PMI think we should have taken a good, hard look at the BTR-80. I mean a US version, with real armor, no turret, but keep the big nobby tires... I mean, the F-15 was designed by fighter pilots, the M1 was designed by tankers, the stryker was not designed by infantrymen.
I once had a .50 cal ring mount that had a guided missle launcher tandem with the gun. It was cool...
I still like big nobby tires.
OK, I just looked at the picture. I will just say this... I still dont like it. So there. ;p
Posted by: beech on October 19, 2004 09:33 PMI don't think the Stryker is perfect, by any means. I do think it's a good deal better than it's frequently given credit for. You should write up a post on the topic. You do have an account, after all.