|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
 
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 6/26/2008 4:54 AM
Posts: 2,730,
Visits: 1,306
|
|
RR I have a very nice pic of a BRT60 that my 90 gunner took out down there also
sticky307
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
Garandman, We talked about the Stryker that rolled in another thread. The important things to remember in that incident is that the Stryker did not run into or roll over that IED. The Stryker was blown over by the force of the blast wave from a car that it was driving by. In Another words, high pressure expanding air BLEW it over. If the Stryker didn't have such a high center of gravity, would it have rolled over? Would a Bradley have rolled over from the blast wave? Has a Bradley ever been rolled over by a blast wave to it's right front side? Secondly, the vehicle ended up on it's side thus exposing it's soft underbelly. Had the Tango's followed up the IED explosion with a direct fire assault with RPG's on the soft underbelly, it would have been a very bad day. As I recall, the week this happened, the Stryker Unit in Mosul lost at least 3 Strykers. 2 of the Stryker losses involved US KIA and several WIA. The Stryker is only better than a HMMWV.
|
|
|
|
|
Cherry
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 9:39 AM
Posts: 6,
Visits: 115
|
|
Well...so those are the negative aspects of the stryker. So many negative comments. Have any of you guys been to Iraq? And/or rode in a stryker. Or even a 113 or brad? I am not in the stryker brigade, but I have had the opportunity to get a class on the stryker vehicle by some of the scouts up here at Lewis. After a year of experience in them they hold them in very high reguard. This is coming from senior NCOs as well...guys who have experience in brads, and 113s. And after a day riding around in them going off road and such...i must say, that IF i had to be in any vehicle on the ground in iraq. It would be the stryker.
"Speak softly carry a big stick"-Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
OIF Veteran
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 6/27/2008 8:01 PM
Posts: 3,582,
Visits: 24,536
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cherry
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 9:39 AM
Posts: 6,
Visits: 115
|
|
| Well i have skimmed this article...it does provide some info on flaws of the stryker vehicle. BUT a lot of this information is distorted. The most important issue with this piece of information, is that it is dated before the strykers were ever on the ground in Iraq,therefore nobody really knew how effective it would be in combat. You cannot honestly tell me that you would rather be in a slow, loud tracked vehicle over the stryker. I am not promoting the stryker by any means, but just trying to understand where all this negativity is coming from. BTW-there is no way that the stryker has a 50' turn radius....that thing turns on a dime.
"Speak softly carry a big stick"-Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 12:16 PM
Posts: 1,517,
Visits: 1,833
|
|
| I'm not sure what the pictures of the burning Strykers were supposed to "prove" either. Anthing will burn if you hit it with a big enough weapon. I have pictures of an M-1 with it's turret blown off by an IED, and another one of a Bradley that was blown to shreds. What's your point? That some vehicles blow up? Do you think an M113 would have done any better? If a 60-ton M1 can't survive that IED, then there's no way a 113 would either. I notice the Marines haven't been in a rush to trade in their LAVs, either. Like any other weapons system, it has its advantages and disadvantages. There's no such thing as a perfect system, and when you have an enemy that is constantly adapting and changing, he's going to exploit the weaknesses of the systems he sees. If the decision had gone the other way, if we had fielded an improved 113 instead of the Stryker, I can't help but think the same people would be here bitching about that damned 113 POS and how we should have gone to the Stryker.
Martin  "When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission" - Zapp Branigan, Futurama
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 12/1/2007 5:21 PM
Posts: 392,
Visits: 100
|
|
| I used to be one of the naysayers on this board talking about how the strykers were POS vehicles, but after spending the last year in Iraq with them, I have been sold. I have several pictures of strykers after they have been hit with VBIEDs in which the strykers rolled home under their own power with no PAX injured. The only stryker we had burn to the ground were ones in which the spare tire being carried on top caught fire when a fougas VBIED went off. Taking the spare tire off the top of the vehicle solved that problem. We only had one stryker get stuck in the mud, and that was the BN CDR's. I've seen Bradleys get stuck in the mud too. True the strykers do have their flaws, but the positives more than outweigh the negatives. The armor is great. It's not an abrams, but that should be understood. You can safely sit inside a stryker without worrying about most attacks. We only had one rocket penetrate a stryker (much larger than an rpg), and it was a one in a million shot that went in between two pieces of slat armor. The thing is fast....fast enough that we were able to chase down cars in heavy traffic. It's also quiet...great for nightime raids. The infantry carrying vehicle variant is able to move a squad+ anywhere on the battlefield relatively safely. Four stryker vehicles can move an entire infantry platoon quickly and quietly to the battlefield. It's also a fighting platform. The ICV allows a gunner to man a .50 or MK19 while 3 other PAX are able to shoot M4s, SAWs or 240Bs from their "airguard" hatches. I must not be the only one who thinks these things while not perfect, are one of the best vehicles made for urban combat, because a certain unit that will remain nameless now has their own stryker vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |