There was a pretty negative article in the Washington Post this past week about the performance of the Stryker in Iraq. Here is an interesting counter editorial to that piece:

WASHINGTON POST OPINION-EDITORIAL SUBMISSION SENT OVERNIGHT 31 MARCH 2005 FROM A CONCERNED SOLDIER IN MOSUL, IRAQ FROM THE SAME UNIT FEATURED IN THE POST'S STORY OF 31 MARCH 2005 WORD COUNT: 628


I read the article about the Stryker's substandard performance in Mosul with interest. I offer the readers the following facts based on six months of fighting a counter-insurgency with Strykers in Mosul, Iraq and ask them to make their own conclusion. These facts are purely as they apply to one Stryker Infantry Battalion -- 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, which has operated in Mosul, Iraq since Oct 2004 with 75 Strykers.

The article specifically faulted the Stryker's substandard survivability and maintenance to the point of stating it places soldiers' lives at risk.
I would argue that nothing could be further from the truth.

Since Oct 2004, our Battalion's Strykers have been engaged with 122 Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), 186 Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs),
33 car bombs, of which 10 where Suicide Car Bombs, and countless mortar and small arms engagements. In November and December we were fighting an enemy that massed up to 70 insurgents during attacks. As a result the battalion has had 7 soldiers killed in action and 102 wounded in action (81 of which were able to return to duty within 21 days). The majority of all casualties have come from doing what the nation expects us to do - dismounted infantry operations closing with and destroying the enemy.

The insurgents most dangerous and powerful weapon is the suicide car bomb.
I have personally watched 4 of 10 suicide car bombs slam into Strykers creating an explosion that is equivalent to a 500lb bomb, one of which was a suicide truck carrying 52 x 155mm rounds (a net explosive weight 10% greater than a 2000lb JDAM) that detonated within 25m of a Stryker. In all 10 suicide car bomb attacks we did not lose a single soldiers' life, limb or eyesight for those soldiers riding on the Stryker.

One example -- Over the last six months, one Stryker, C21, has been hit by a suicide car bomb, 9 IEDs, 8 RPG direct hits, and countless small arms.
The Infantry squad has had 6 wounded but every soldier is still in Iraq and still fighting on a daily basis. After each attack, the Stryker continued to stay in the fight or was repaired in less than 48 hours.

Not only is the Stryker survivable, it is incredibly reliable. Our 75 Strykers each have at least 20,000 miles on them. We average over 1,000 miles a month on each Stryker and amazingly we average greater than 96% Operational Readiness rate. That is 3-4 Strykers down at any given time.
This is the highest operational readiness rate of any armored vehicle in the Army inventory. We average less than 24 hours to refit a vehicle after it has received battle damage. The electronic computers, monitors, mapping software, weapons cameras and radios that give us incredible situational awareness average greater than a 94% operational readiness rate.

Much like every other weapon system the Army has fielded it will continue to get modified and better with time. Remember, we are on the fifth major modification of the M1 tank. These are the irrefutable facts without emotion.

Now, let me share with you some emotion. I have watched this vehicle save my soldiers lives and enable them to kill our nation's enemies. In urban combat there is no better vehicle for delivering a squad of infantryman to close with and destroy the enemy. It is fast, quiet, incredibly survivable, reliable, lethal, and capable of providing amazing situational awareness. These qualities distinguish it from every other platform in the Army inventory but most importantly it delivers the most valuable weapon on the battlefield - a soldier.

Do not just take my word on the Stryker, ask one of the 700 soldiers in this Battalion which vehicle they want to go to combat in.


MICHAEL E. KURILLA,
Lieutenant Colonel
1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) MOSUL, IRAQ

I read an article that too. With all the push button and precision bombs I think people expect a perfect military where all bombs hit their targets with deadly precision, zero collateral damage, all vehicles can withstand battle damage with no loss of life and our armed forces be deployed in the morning with mission accomplished by the dinner bell.

While it may not be the perfect vehicle, unfortunately it's sometimes on-the-job learning that helps you improve the product. I would expect the Stryker 2 or whatever the nextgen vehicle would be to include some of these improvements integrated into the design rather than add-ons after the fact. Correct me if I'm wrong but even M1 tanks can be destroyed by RPGs and those things are beasts.

BTW: Be safe over there and thanks for the fine job.

Thanks...but I'm not in the service. In real life I got a desk job analyzing companies. One of them is General Dynamics who is involved with the Stryker and they pointed out this editorial by Lieutenant Colonel Kurilla.

I really appreciate you posting this. While I had not previously been able to read either article prior to this, I like what I am reading. The biggest reason I like it is in the way he tells the Post's author that he is wrong and here is why, backing it up with numerous facts. His opinion (somewhat biased, all things considering) is saved for the end and his attention is not on purely disproving the original author, but informing the public through a difference in both articles.

Jeff

I wonder what HeavyArty's take is on this. Dom?

Here is my take on the Stryker.....I feel it is too lightly armed. I do not for the life of me understand why the Army spent untold millions buying this version. The Stryker is basically an LAV which the USMC has utilized for years. The Armys basic Stryker version is Armed with a single .50 cal Machinegun where as the Corps' LAV-25 has the same Turret as the M2/3 Bradley minus the TOW launcher. In fact the Marines have a whole family of vehicles based on the LAV which include a mortar version, ATGM, recovery, medic and I believe anair defense version. Sadly, the Army is still developing its family of Stryker vehicles. Why the Army didn't follow the Jar-head example and save the American tax payer countless dollars is beyond me. I spent 15 months in Iraq, and am glad that I was in a unit equiped with M! abrams and Bradleys. I know first hand the firepower of the Bradley and would much rather have that 25mm and co-ax 7.62mm over that one .50 cal on the Stryker.

While your time in Iraq, more than qualifies your remarks in their basic sense, i have to disagree on some of it. Since when has the Army built and initially fielded something that has been considered adaquetely armored by everyone? Hence the slat armor kit for RPGs. To my knowledge, only three versions of the Stryker are still being developed, the mortar and NBC (?) being 2 of them. All the others have been deployed to Iraq.

Jeff

Like anything, there are two sides -- neither the Post nor LTC Kurilla can be tagged as completely objective, but both can be tagged with tailoring what they say to support their point. I read 'em both.

I happen to be one of those in favor of "down-sizing" to wheels (& a bigger reliance on aviation but that's another subject), so I'm not off on one of those track-wheel debates that has become almost like a civil war in the Army.

The Stryker history is a bit clouded -- the specs have been revised to meet capability -- that is unfortunate and now we have lost one of the prime reasons for being -- fitting in a C-130 & dashing off ready to go.

I note LTC Kurilla cites 1000 miles/month -- that's 33 miles/day -- not much really. And I suspect that the Army & the manufacturer are throwing everything they have at the vehicle to make sure it stays up (because of the still lingering in-service controversy), while other vehicles only get "normal" support.

Also, in contrast to what he says, the Stryker does not handle all that battle damage - the Stryker surrounded by a few thousand pounds of rebar & sand bags survives all that stuff. The Stryker waddles quite a bit & won't fit in small places anymore, etc, etc ... The protective stats for the Stryker aren't much different than for other armored vehicles -- the IEDs, RPGs, etc are doing their thing on the soldiers in trucks, hummers, etc -- the true softskins -- on convoys.

We're figthing in towns -- urban environment -- against an unconventional (but something we should have foreseen) enemy. No place for people in vehicles -- soldiers should be dismounted -- kinda the point LTC Kurilla inadvertently makes "dismounted infantry operations closing with and destroying the enemy" -- and so the comments of both he & the Post re suitability for operations in this environment are mis-placed.

Just my take, I defer to anyone who has been there.
John

Let me clarify my point....I think the armor protection on the Stryker is adequate for its intended role on the battleField. Yes, slat armor and sand bags have been added to harden the vehicle against IED's and RPG's, but even the M1 abrams has weak spots that are being hardened in the field. (ie - RPG screens for the rear). However, the firepower of the Stryker is seriously lacking, especially when compared to the LAV-25 operated by the Marines. Both vehicles essentially have the same role to fill, and I think it is a shame the Army is willing to spend the money to develope a "new" family of vehicles that, in reality, already exists. The Marines have been operating the LAV and its variants, for at least 20 years.

FYI, the Sunday Washington Post contained a more balanced follow-up. Input from Bde & Bn Cdrs (but not the one above?) & some soldiers.

John

First of all, the Stryker is not the same as the Marines LAV 25. It bears a similar look, but its not the same vehicle. Nor is the turret on the Marines LAV 25 the same turret as on the Bradley but without the TOW launcher. The turrets are not the same at all.

Nor is the 50 cal or 40mm grenade launcher equipped varient, are not designed to operate on their own. But are designed to work in conjunction with all the other varients of the same line. The MGS, mortor carrier, TOW carrier, etc, etc.

GM does make a 25mm turret for the Stryker, as our LAVIIIs here in Canada are equipped with them. We have multible versions of the LAV 25, in the Coyote (basically the LAV 25 with the 25mm turret, but with some other gear installed), as well as the Bison (which is pretty much the same as the Marines ambulance and mortor versions) we use them for ambulance, command post, etc, etc. But we also have the LAVIII/Stryker, which at the moment we only have the 25mm turretted version, but we are buying the MGS, and a TOW version with our own turret, not the same as the US army is using, basically the same TOW turret that is on our 113s

Thing is, if you take a stryker and put a 25mm turret on it....it severly limits its troop carrying ability, like the Bradley, can only carry about 6-8 troops, but the .50 cal version, carries alot more, again, its not designed to operate alone, but in conjunction with the other varients as well.

here is that Washington Post follow-up article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22009-2005Apr2.html

Actually its General Dynamics now. I think GM sold its defense biz to GD about a year ago.