RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,158737,00.html

How good are these things, really? not the nbc ones necessarily but Strykers in general?

It depends on who you ask and for what mission.

Their stated purpose was to be a high-mobility, high-speed troop transport that was light, air-deployable, better armored, more fuel-efficient, and more useful than the M-113 "Track".

It is not air-deployable vey easily, one barely fits in a single C-130, and in order to keep it light enough to do so it has light armor. Light enough that in theater a bolt-on 'cage' has to be applied to give additional protection. This means you can't just drive off the ramp and fight like it wa sintended. It is heavier than the M-113 as well.

However-- it is faster, and can almost literally "sneak up" on an enemy where the M-113's squeaky, clattering treads cannot. Stryker guys I knew in Iraq loved them because they were "stealthy" compared to track vehicles. In the States, units can just drive them right onto the roads and freeways without needing to go through expensive and time-consuming trailer-back transport.

I'm told they're also designed for all sorts of roles, with air defense, light cannon, and engineer versions being planned.

So it kinda depends-- they didn't fill the niche they were originally intended to fill, but it seems folks are finding a place for them anyway.

Sounds like a lot of other stuff in the inventory.. Thanks Coyote>.>

quote:

Originally posted by CanisLatrans:
It depends on who you ask and for what mission.

Their stated purpose was to be a high-mobility, high-speed troop transport that was light, air-deployable, better armored, more fuel-efficient, and more useful than the M-113 "Track".

It is not air-deployable vey easily, one barely fits in a single C-130, and in order to keep it light enough to do so it has light armor. Light enough that in theater a bolt-on 'cage' has to be applied to give additional protection. This means you can't just drive off the ramp and fight like it wa sintended. It is heavier than the M-113 as well.

However-- it is faster, and can almost literally "sneak up" on an enemy where the M-113's squeaky, clattering treads cannot. Stryker guys I knew in Iraq loved them because they were "stealthy" compared to track vehicles. In the States, units can just drive them right onto the roads and freeways without needing to go through expensive and time-consuming trailer-back transport.

I'm told they're also designed for all sorts of roles, with air defense, light cannon, and engineer versions being planned.

So it kinda depends-- they didn't fill the niche they were originally intended to fill, but it seems folks are finding a place for them anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by 16528112:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,158737,00.html

How good are these things, really? not the nbc ones necessarily but Strykers in general?

We here at our “Day Job” were all very skeptical of the Stryker family of vehicles when they first showed up from Ft. Lewis to do NETT training several years ago. And I have personally shot the vehicles RWS with the .50 cal version. The thumb driven RWS traverse and elevation control was awkward and slow to operate, but I have been told they have developed a better system. Recently I spoke to a SSG whose Brigade had just returned from Iraq. I asked him what his impressions of his vehicle were. He said I swear by it!!!... It saved my life three times in Iraq. “Enough said”

The new (Mobile Gun System) MGS version with the 105mm M68 Cannon is also popular with the 19Ks that crew them. Being an Old M60A1/A3 Master Gunner, I asked a platoon Sergeant on the range one day how he felt about the MGS. He said, it sure isn’t a tank. But is the next best thing!!!. Each Stryker Infantry company has an MGS platoon of three MGS’s. That is a tremendous amount of fire power dedicated to the Infantry Company!!... As one Stryker veteran told me, in Iraq Stryker units are referred to as “Ghost Soldier”. They can cruise up on a house and do a midnight raid while the “Usual Suspects” are sleeping inside. The first thing they hear and see is the door being blow or knocked down and a “stack” of Ghost Soldiers filling the room with M4s at the ready!!!. Now that is something you cannot do in a "Brad" or 113, which can be heard way before they show up..... Bottom line, if the troops like it, then that’s all that matters. The Soldiers refer to them as “Trucks”

Roger that. Thanx for the info. Any other opinions, I'm all ears (and if you ever saw me you'd prob'ly agree!!!

quote:

Originally posted by IC2SS19Z50C5:

quote:

Originally posted by 16528112:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,158737,00.html

How good are these things, really? not the nbc ones necessarily but Strykers in general?

We here at our “Day Job” were all very skeptical of the Stryker family of vehicles when they first showed up from Ft. Lewis to do NETT training several years ago. And I have personally shot the vehicles RWS with the .50 cal version. The thumb driven RWS traverse and elevation control was awkward and slow to operate, but I have been told they have developed a better system. Recently I spoke to a SSG whose Brigade had just returned from Iraq. I asked him what his impressions of his vehicle were. He said I swear by it!!!... It saved my life three times in Iraq. “Enough said”

The new (Mobile Gun System) MGS version with the 105mm M68 Cannon is also popular with the 19Ks that crew them. Being an Old M60A1/A3 Master Gunner, I asked a platoon Sergeant on the range one day how he felt about the MGS. He said, it sure isn’t a tank. But is the next best thing!!!. Each Stryker Infantry company has an MGS platoon of three MGS’s. That is a tremendous amount of fire power dedicated to the Infantry Company!!... As one Stryker veteran told me, in Iraq Stryker units are referred to as “Ghost Soldier”. They can cruise up on a house and do a midnight raid while the “Usual Suspects” are sleeping inside. The first thing they hear and see is the door being blow or knocked down and a “stack” of Ghost Soldiers filling the room with M4s at the ready!!!. Now that is something you cannot do in a "Brad" or 113, which can be heard way before they show up..... Bottom line, if the troops like it, then that’s all that matters. The Soldiers refer to them as “Trucks”

The STRYKER is an Army vehicle that actually does more than its intended role in a combat zone. That in and of itself is really SAYING something amidst the debacles the troops face with the current DoD contractor/procurement system we have in place. When the Army expands its brigades by 2009, they had BETTER increase the number of fully equipped STRYKER Brigades just to counteract replacing all of those hardened HMV's.
Survivability and stealth for night missions will continue to be invaluable in combat zones for years to come.

Wish you could talk to DS, he is a vehicle commander for the battalion commander. . according to him, it is R-E-A-L-L-Y something. . . VERY FAST and QUIET.

He has previously been on combat duty as a paratrooper in Iraq and Afghanistan using light weapons and uparmored humvees. . . which he says lose a LOT of speed and maneuverability once they are uparmored. . . he says they would have preferred no armor on them if given a choice.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SgtSchaeffersMom,

Last two entries at once thank you thank you thank you!! I was a tow gunner in GW1. I had a gun-hummer w/ no armor and no weapon other than the TOW system. For anti-infantry I borrowed the driver's M-16 or used my .45 with the broke off front sight. Luckily that didn't matter as that was largely a smart bomb war.

quote:

which he says lose a LOT of speed and maneuverability once they are uparmored

I concur & messed up suspensions are common due to the fact that the Humvee was NOT designed to be an AFV. The Frag Five doors can be imposible to open if the incline is too great!

quote:

Originally posted by 16528112:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,158737,00.html

How good are these things, really? not the nbc ones necessarily but Strykers in general?

well like canis said they arte kinda oddballs as far as where they were intended but the guys i know out on fort lewis love the things and indeed we do see them on the road just driving down the road from time to time. bhut a few of my buddies actually in marine infantry said they once got stuck whith a "navigational error"(in other words they got lost and came under fire) and got their asses saved(more or less) by these strykers. so as far as i know (which isnt much) these things may not work exactly the way they were supposed to but troops are learning to love 'em anyway.

LMAO!!! i love the last line! i dont know how many people here have actually stood next to one of these things but let me say this, "Thems some BIG 'trucks'"

quote:

Originally posted by IC2SS19Z50C5:

quote:

Originally posted by 16528112:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,158737,00.html

How good are these things, really? not the nbc ones necessarily but Strykers in general?

We here at our “Day Job” were all very skeptical of the Stryker family of vehicles when they first showed up from Ft. Lewis to do NETT training several years ago. And I have personally shot the vehicles RWS with the .50 cal version. The thumb driven RWS traverse and elevation control was awkward and slow to operate, but I have been told they have developed a better system. Recently I spoke to a SSG whose Brigade had just returned from Iraq. I asked him what his impressions of his vehicle were. He said I swear by it!!!... It saved my life three times in Iraq. “Enough said”

The new (Mobile Gun System) MGS version with the 105mm M68 Cannon is also popular with the 19Ks that crew them. Being an Old M60A1/A3 Master Gunner, I asked a platoon Sergeant on the range one day how he felt about the MGS. He said, it sure isn’t a tank. But is the next best thing!!!. Each Stryker Infantry company has an MGS platoon of three MGS’s. That is a tremendous amount of fire power dedicated to the Infantry Company!!... As one Stryker veteran told me, in Iraq Stryker units are referred to as “Ghost Soldier”. They can cruise up on a house and do a midnight raid while the “Usual Suspects” are sleeping inside. The first thing they hear and see is the door being blow or knocked down and a “stack” of Ghost Soldiers filling the room with M4s at the ready!!!. Now that is something you cannot do in a "Brad" or 113, which can be heard way before they show up..... Bottom line, if the troops like it, then that’s all that matters. The Soldiers refer to them as “Trucks”

Excellent!! Any thoughts from anyone who can compare 'em head 2 head w/ the MRAPS? just in case some important SOB is smart enough to have a staffer 'spyin'' on this thread..

See, if I remember correctly --and please, if someone out there knows more, please correct me-- the Stryker got a lot of impertus after Somalia, and then while folks were watching the stuff in Rwanda.

In places like that, you need to get in quick, and tanks are too big. They are loud, slow, and maintenance hogs. Besides, the enemy had "technicals" anyway-- Toyotas with MG's mounted on them, not really a challenge for tanks, and their "armor" was stuff like pressboard and corrugated steel.

So you have the "Stryker", supposed to be light, fast, maneuverable. It was also designed to work with Soldiers armed with the super-funky futuristic battle rifle that was being worked on at the time, the OICW. For those who don't remember, this was a binary weapon: a 5.56 rifle underneath, and a big 20mm gun on top with a five or ten round magazine arranged bullpup-style.

The weapon was sweet-- the 20mm could be set to explode, for example, at a set distance. Say a terr is hiding behind a plywood shack. The shack is 30 meters away; he's 31 meteres away. So you dial in the specs to the 20mm round and tell it not to explode until it has gone 31 meters. So it punches through the plywood, emerges on the other side, then goes pop.

Now, imagine this on a Stryker: you'd have one .50-cal machinegun on the Stryker, and 6-to-10 guys, each with 20mm cannons, along with it. A sweet package deal.

The problem was, the OICW program was too expensive and too ambitious. Equipping every soldier with one of these would break the bank, so they thought about making it a squad weapon, maybe one or two per squad like M-203's. But even that was expensive, and at 20+ pounds per weapon (not including ammo!) you need an army of Hercules's to hump these through the bush for a hard day's fightin'.

So the OICW was shelved until a day when the technology (and economy) can catch up with dreams. The Stryker was approved anyhow because even without the OICW it was still usefull by itself.

Now, I hear (again, let me know if I got it wrong) that the Stryker is a interim vehicle. A place-holder until the FCS (Future Combat Systems) comes on line. That idea is to use a sort of universal chassis for all things: same vehicle that serves as a troop carrier can also be built as a tank (just use a different turret) or an artillery piece (again, use a different turret) or air-defense, command, etc. All with compsite armor, rubber stretchy tracks, small & light, etc.

We'll see-- personally, I think it's also too ambitious but time will tell if they can pull i toff...

Yeah Coyote, I was dubious of the 20mm system. Seems it would be like having a 00 buck 12 ga shotgun shell air detonate over your head. In a world of insurgents freaked out on crack or conventional forces wearing ballistic helmets and flak vests i worry about lethality..They're talking about a crew served weapon that can be interchanged b/w .50cal and 20mm that seems to have promise.

I think we need these vehicles But I also beleave we need a larger fighting force. A small army even with all that we have is still a small army. I only had one tour in vietnam, Not 4 or 5 as our guys do these days. I am not sure about the FCS but then i'm old school.

Amen. Even before 9/11 we seemed to be pulling missions in cess-pools on every continent. Low intensity my ***.

quote:

Originally posted by 15217520:
I think we need these vehicles But I also beleave we need a larger fighting force. A small army even with all that we have is still a small army. I only had one tour in vietnam, Not 4 or 5 as our guys do these days. I am not sure about the FCS but then i'm old school.

my son was deployed 2 weeks ago with his stryer. I dont know how many where sent over but his was not the only one. I was just wondering how safe he is in that thing?

quote:

Originally posted by 14522026:
my son was deployed 2 weeks ago with his stryer. I dont know how many where sent over but his was not the only one. I was just wondering how safe he is in that thing?

First, have you been to the stryker forum yet? (strykernews.com) They post all the news articles about all the stryker brigades there, and the forums offer lots of interaction and support for families of deployed units. Check it out.

When DS was deployed to Iraq last year, until they were later relocated to Baquba in Diyala province for the Surge, his stryker brigade was stationed as the QRF (Quick Reaction Force) for the Baghdad area due to the stryker's capability. They were VERY VERY busy.

Not to worry, they are very safe, . . . probably the safest thing to be in next to a tank. Of course, there are never any guarantees anytime you are in a combat zone, but the stryker is a VERY safe piece of equipment.

My husband is a mechanic on Strykers in Iraq and he says they are one of the best machines they have out there they very helpful with missions because they can sneek up on a enemy with how quiet they are compared to the other vehicles they have out there.

I have a question: Does the people who design these vehicles for the military ever set down and ask the people who are going to have to take these vehicles into combat what they kinds of weapons they would like on them and what they would like then to do in a battle where their lives depended on the vehicles they are using?

Does the designer just design what he thinks will work?