Opinions on the Stryker

Given the recent string of Stryker losses, I was wondering what everyone's opinion was on its effectiveness.

BAGHDAD — A string of heavy losses from powerful roadside bombs has raised new questions about the vulnerability of the Stryker, the Army's troop-carrying vehicle hailed by supporters as the key to a leaner, more mobile force.

..

A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month in less than a week, according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost recently is classified.

In one of the biggest hits, six American soldiers and a journalist were killed when a huge bomb exploded beneath their Stryker on May 6. It was the biggest one-day loss for the battalion in more than two years.

"We went for several months with no losses and were very proud of that," a senior Army official said in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly. "Since then, there have been quite a few Stryker losses."

"They are learning how to defeat them," the Army official said of Iraqi insurgents.

The military introduced the eight-wheeled Stryker in 1999 as the cornerstone of a ground force of the future - hoping to create faster, more agile armored units than tank-equipped units, but with more firepower and protection than light-infantry units. The Army has ordered nearly 2,900 vehicles from Falls Church, Va.-based General Dynamics Corp. for its $13 billion Stryker program.

..

Supporters of the Strykers, which have been used in Iraq since late 2003, say the vehicles that carry two crew members and 11 infantrymen offer mobility, firepower and comfort.

Lighter and faster than tracked vehicles like tanks, each Stryker can rush soldiers quickly to a fight, enabling commanders to maintain security over a wide area with relatively fewer troops. Humvees can carry only four soldiers - and are more vulnerable to bombs even when their armor is upgraded.

..

But some analysts have long questioned the wisdom of moving away from more heavily armored tracked vehicles like tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to wheeled transports, like the Stryker.

They say that is especially true in Iraq, where powerful bombs - not rocket-propelled grenades or small arms fire - are the main threat.

"The Stryker vehicle was conceived at a time when the Army was more concerned about mobility and agility than it was about protection," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst from the Lexington Institute. "Stryker was the answer to that need."

..

Supporters of the Strykers say all that proves that it's the lethality of bombs in Iraq - not the Strykers themselves - that are the problem: The bombs are now so powerful that even Abrams main battle tanks are vulnerable to some of them.

Click to expand...

Lots of interesting quotes there. I would agree that the Stryker is better than a Humvee given its loading capacity, and probably provide more protection from small arms fire. Still, the last quote stating that the IEDs are so powerful that even armor would be rendered ineffective is sobering.

Personally, I think it's asinine to use light armor in an urban environment. The Stryker's main exit hatch is a bit small for comat operations as well, in my opinion. With a large backpack or a SAW trying to get out under fire would be a disaster, especially since only one man can get out at a time.

If I remember correctly, the Stryker was developed as a quick people-mover rather than a tank-like fighting vehicle, which would explain why it's crap in heavy combat, as far as I know. If I'm wrong here, I would appreciate it if someone with first-hand experience corrected me. But if this is correct, does the US Military have any other hardware options here? Or is it a problem of the mission profile itself? (Constant street patrols vulnerable to roadside bombs)

Given that the Russians lost medium and heavy tanks in another urban environment - Grozny, it's easy to believe the US military is having such trouble in Iraq. If T-72s were being lit up with regularity, I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect Strykers with comparatively negligible defensive capabilities to fare better.

It's the simple problem of that with enough explosives, you can blow up anything. The Stryker's are extremely durable. I seen the pictures of one Stryker that took a 500lb bomb and the crew survived with nothing but ringing in their ears. Most of the deaths involving the Stryker involves people not in the vehicle, but in the hatches operating as sentries. I think the true test of a vehicle is whether the troops who operate it like it. And apparently, the troops like the Stryker.

And here's the picture, the vehicle is apparently repaired and back in service:

As everything, the Stryker is a compromise to some extent. And I would argue that it's used a little off it's mission profile.
I think it was planed as a fast moving troop carrier or fire support vehicle. With it's high mobility it shold be able to maneuver between enemy forces and through information superiority engage enemy threats first or avoid them.
The low weight also makes them rather easy to airlift.
In an environment that poses threats from strong IEDs, a patroling duty -wich somewhat means to show presence- this 'light' concept might have it's defficiensies regarding protection.

My opinion of the Stryker remain basically positive. It was designed as a battlefield taxi, and it is being used in a very different role in Iraq than what it was originally intended to. It was designed to be very much like the BMP-1 or the WWII SdKfz 251 (albeit with the distinction of integrating digital/network centric warfare technology and doctrine into its design). That purpose is to provide infantry with the speed and protection necessary to keep with a fast moving, conventional battle played out on a large scale.

In Iraq it is basically being used as a big, well armoured Humvee. That is, it is used for patrol duties and as an all-purpose vehicle. I would say that it is a quality vehicle, even in that role. It is pretty well protected, enough to make it relatively safe from normal-sized IEDs, certainly more safe than a Humvee. And its digital capability helps in the exceedingly confused situation of urban, guerilla combat.

However they are still being destroyed. But what is one to do in that situation. You can't have everyone driving around in M1s. And when you upgrade the armour, the enemy makes a bigger bomb. Nobody would say the T-34 was a bad tank even though thousands upon thousands were destroyed. Dozens a day at times. So the Stryker does its job, and does it well. Just because it has suffered losses doesn't change that. Besides, the vehicle has had problems and been fixed before. A while ago RPGs were penetrating their armour with alarming frequency. The soldiers in Iraq came up with the solution: they put metal railing around the side of the vehicle that detonated the RPG before it reached the armour.

Strykers getting blown up by IEDs is more of a strategy problem than something wrong with the vehicle. I seriously don't think Americans soldiers should patrol mindlessly around Baghdad in vehicles on a routine bases, because they are good targets for insurgents who know when they'll show up and set traps accordingly. For patrolling, I recommend the army getting a fleet of UAVs and fly them around. Any trouble spots will be answered quickly by Strykers or attack UAVs/ helicoptors.

There are some real benefits, and problems with the Styker concept.

The benefits:

1. A mechanically simpler vehicle than an IFV to maintain and easier to supply with less fuel and fewer spare parts (and mechanics and their tools and equipment).

2. Lighter and able to be airlifted in larger numbers and IFVs.

3. Somewhat cheaper than IFVs (depending on the sensor and weapons fit, that can bring the price up pretty close to that of an IFV).

4. Can squeeze into some areas that larger IFVs have more difficulty maneouvring in - but not necessarily always an advantage.

5. Not as noisy as tracked vehicles (usually), especially on paved roads.

6. Being newer, it has (in some armies) more amenities (like air conditioning, and heating that actually works!) - but still no coffeemaker.

7. Strykers have proved useful for forced entries. In Afghanistan, Canadian troops use LAV-IIIs (Strykers) to "kick-in" the door (actually driving the armoured car right into part of the house) while fighting through villages held by the Taleban. This saves a lot of losses (and stress) on the troops going door-to-door making unsocial calls at village houses where the occupants are not always happy to see you.

8. Nice, comfy ride, until you start going at higher speeds, then you're being thrown around in the back and your kit is jumping around everywhere.

The disadvantages:

1. No matter how much is it modified, redesigned, turned upside down and spun like a top, it remains essentially the same Swiss-designed MOWAG Piranha armoured car designed for aid to the civil power, ie. riot control and internal security against unruly students, protesters, "urban guerillas", and local bandits and malcontents wielding sticks, stones, and the occassional rifle, pistol, Molotov Cocktail, and under-the-driver's-seat terrorist assassin bomb. Not designed to take on heavy infantry, anti-tank missiles, medium artillery, and tanks.

2. No amount of add-on armour of any description presently extant will protect a Stryker against anything mechanized and armoured troops can fling at them. Maybe not a problem in Iraq, but if Styker brigades ever have to face such forces in the future against, hypothetically, some Iranian armoured divisions and hold the line against them until US heavy divisions arrive, well, provided the Iranians are at least reasonably competent, the Strykers will be dog meat.

3. No-one has developed a successful IA that will stop an MBT sabot round from punching through a Stryker on one side, going out the other, and doing the same to anything else nearby.

4. The ride. Notwithstanding the first part of 8. listed above, wheeled vehicles are bad rides when going cross-country or at higher speed. Many tracked vehicles, because they are tracked and are much heavier, give (relatively) smoother rides.

5. In many cases, tracked vehicles can operate in terrain that wheeled vehicles can't, as tracks give better traction and spread groung pressure out better. Tracked vehicles aslo tend to have a lower centre of gravity than wheeled vehciles, giving them better stability. That said, wheeled vehicles, because they are usually much lighter than tracked vehicles, can go places where the ground is too soft for heavy vehicles of any description.

6. Tracked vehicles can carry the heaviest weapons more easily and have more room for sensors, and can carry very heavy, very thick composite armours, giving them a real chance against most anti-tank weapons and artillery.

7. Tracked vehicles can crush dug-in troops in their entrenchments by pivoting from side-to-side using their tracks - wheeled vehicles can't really do this.

8. Ever since the US Marines first got the LAV-25 in the 1980's (Canada first got them in the 1970's), some of them have been screaming for a replacement. In GW1, the Marines were not universally impressed with the LAV-25's performance, and I can tell you from personal experience that the original LAV-1 ("Grizzly") was not only a piece of crap, as you didn't even have room to set your feet flat on the floor and you sat back-to-back so you could use your rifle from inside the vehicle (a concept that doesn't work), but it was a death trap as its two rear exit doors were hard to open and get in and out of (if you and half the guys didn't keep tripping on the lip at the bottom) and it couldn't have kept out 7.62mm at close range. The LAV-25 ("Bison") was much better, much more comfortable and you sat facing each other along the side of the hull (and was 8x8 instead of 6x6 so it rode better), and had a rear exit ramp instead of two separate doors, but didn't offer much else in the way of protection. LAV III has all sorts of bolt-on armour options, but it doesn't keep out the heavy stuff.

I find the Stryker to be a decidely mixed bag, and I suspect that the Stryker Brigade concept is seriously flawed.

Excellent analysis Norfolk!

Personally, I'm partial to Heavy IFV's like the Israeli Achzarit/Namera, Russian BTR-T/BMPT, and Ukrainian BMT-72/BTMP-84.

The newest Israeli Namera HIFV, based on the Merkava Mk 1 chassis, is said to cost $750,000 each.

According to the GAO report in 2003, each Stryker cost the US Army $1.42 million, not including C4ISR suite (additional cost). By 2005 some pundits increased the cost estimate to $4 million each + $2.9 million operating life cost.

I'm not sure about these inflated numbers for the Stryker, but it's obvious that they're expensive. The US just agreed to give Israel $30 billion USD in military aid over next 10 years. For just $1 billion the US could import 1,000 Israeli Namera HIFV + $250k worth of spare parts for each vehicle. But I doubt the US defense industry would like this "cost effective" solution.

I wonder if the M1A1 can be built into a HIFV?

The PLA has a vast collection of old T-55's. I think as these become obsolete as tanks, they can still be rebuilt into IFV's like the Achzarit.

adeptitus said:

Excellent analysis Norfolk!

Personally, I'm partial to Heavy IFV's like the Israeli Achzarit/Namera, Russian BTR-T/BMPT, and Ukrainian BMT-72/BTMP-84.

The newest Israeli Namera HIFV, based on the Merkava Mk 1 chassis, is said to cost $750,000 each.

According to the GAO report in 2003, each Stryker cost the US Army $1.42 million, not including C4ISR suite (additional cost). By 2005 some pundits increased the cost estimate to $4 million each + $2.9 million operating life cost.

I'm not sure about these inflated numbers for the Stryker, but it's obvious that they're expensive. The US just agreed to give Israel $30 billion USD in military aid over next 10 years. For just $1 billion the US could import 1,000 Israeli Namera HIFV + $250k worth of spare parts for each vehicle. But I doubt the US defense industry would like this "cost effective" solution.

I wonder if the M1A1 can be built into a HIFV?

The PLA has a vast collection of old T-55's. I think as these become obsolete as tanks, they can still be rebuilt into IFV's like the Achzarit.

Click to expand...

Thanks adeptitus. I have to say that I seem to very much tend to agree with you on the Heavy IFV's you point out and propose. I am increasingly of the view that armoured infantry must be borne in IFVs that possess the same or nearly the same amount of protection that MBTs possess if they are to survive long enough, and get close enough, to the enemy position in order to take it by storm quickly and minimize losses. In areas and under conditions that are suitable to armoured operations, I can see no other way leading to success in sustained high-intensity mechanized warfare.

Besides, with a weight approaching that of an MBT, the infantry inside an M-1Abrams IFV variant would have a very smooth ride compared to even a Bradley or Warrior. The infantry would arrive in much better condition after such a ride in which they suffer substantially less bouncing around than lighter IFVs and APCs, and they would be a good deal less tired out after such a ride since they could spend their time inside their vehicle catching up on some sleep, instead of holding on for dear life while their heads are battered and their spines impacted (and their kit flung all over the place).

And with the Stryker and similar vehicles becoming nearly as expensive as MBTs (in large part because the cost of sensor and fire control equipment is the same ragrdless of vehicle size and weight), go with the larger, heavier vehicle. Besides, the Israelis have decided to junk APCs and stick to converted tanks, and they have as much mechanized warfare experience as anyone else, and even the Merkava MBT can infantry inside it as you well know.

Norfolk said:

There are some real benefits, and problems with the Styker concept.
6. Being newer, it has (in some armies) more amenities (like air conditioning, and heating that actually works!) - but still no coffeemaker.

Click to expand...

we could talk to the British about that, they might just offer there top secret Tea Set form the challenger 2. :rofl:

Any way the Stryker seems to be doing just about as well as any other Armored vehicle deployed with a few more upgrades they could do better. the real death traps seem to be the hummers and unarmored logistics trucks

@ Norfolk and Adeptius:

I think you are both correct on the issue of heavy IFVs/APCs. We have seen time and again that lighter IFVs fail. The First Chechen War is an excellent example, as is the Afghan-Soviet War, and to a lesser extent the Iraq War and the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The modern threat enviroment is simply too full of weapons that can destroy light infantry vehicles. RPGs, ATGMS, large IEDs and mines are simply far too easy to come by for these vehicles to be very practical in most modern war enviroments.

Of course the other side of this coin is that heavy vehicles have a lot of problems too. I'm sure that you completely understand what those are but I'll just say that fuel and logistics is the biggest one.