US Army Strykers at Kandahar criticized

[MarkOttawa]

Any relevance to our LAV IIIs (fairly long story)?

Armored troop carriers called unsafe for duty
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/05/armored-troop-carriers-unsafe-for-afghan-duty/

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan | Staff Sgt. Daniel Paul Rabidou nervously rubbed the sweat from his palms onto his Army fatigues.

The tall, well-built 24-year-old from San Bernardino, Calif., had already survived two improvised explosive devices (IEDs) on convoys in the past six weeks, including one on the same road he was getting ready to traverse again from Forward Operating Base Ramrod near Kandahar to a small outpost in the heart of Taliban territory.

Since they arrived at the outpost on Sept. 13, the Blackwatch unit - Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment, with the 5th Stryker Brigade - had lost three soldiers and two civil affairs officers. IEDs had destroyed three of their four Stryker vehicles. Overall, 21 of 350 Strykers have been destroyed since the 5th Brigade deployed in southern Afghanistan in July; more than two dozen Americans have been killed and nearly 70 wounded.

Soldiers call the Strykers "Kevlar coffins," Sgt. Rabidou said.

"Lead vehicle always sucks," he said, as the convoy set off with a reporter and photographer from The Washington Times in the first Stryker. "It's usually the one to go first if there's a pressure plate bomb. Sure you don't want to get out now? It may be your last chance," he asked half-jokingly.

The eight-wheeled Stryker, introduced a decade ago as a faster, more mobile alternative to tanks and other tracked vehicles, has had a controversial history. In theory, the Stryker's speed and capacity -- it can carry 11 plus a crew of two -- makes up for its lighter armor. But critics say its vulnerability to IEDs make it unsuitable for duty in southern Afghanistan.

The Stryker is "essentially a paramilitary police vehicle," said retired Army Col. Doug Macgregor, a specialist on tank warfare. "It's designed to transfer American light infantry down a road," not to fight an elusive enemy in treacherous terrain.

Col. Macgregor said the U.S. Army would do better to follow the example of Canada, which has bought German Leopard II tanks for use by ground forces in Afghanistan [emphasis added, bit of apples and oranges]...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dapaterson]

Note that the main critic is a well-known tanker (retired) who is concerned that an increase in the number of Stryker units may decrease the number of tank units.

I suspect this article has more to do with internal conflict within the US Army.

 

[AC 011]

Making an issue of the IED vulnerability of the Stryker is just a continuation of the tracks-vs-wheels "debate" that's been going on since Gen. Shinseki put forward his plan to buy them.  No vehicle is invulnerable to IEDs.  The heavy track proponents seem to forget all the Bradley and Abrams losses to IEDs.  From the US Army pers I've spoken to from Strker units out of Iraq, almost all said they wouldn't want to ride in anything else.  The recent announcement that two heavy brigades (read "tracked") are set to be converted to Stryker brigades seems to have provided an opportunity to reignite the argument.

 

[kilekaldar]

The Stryker's are meant to replace the uparmored Humvees, not Bradleys or MBTs which the Americans mysteriously refuse to deploy to the relatively flat terrain of Southern Kandahar.
And frankly the American I saw on my tour liked to race down high risk roads going mock-chicken, ignoring basic counter-ied drills that saved us lives.

 

[Dean22]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3037

The recent experiences of the Canadian Forces and other nations in Afghanistan and other operational theatres continue to demonstrate the ongoing requirement for a highly protected, yet highly mobile Light-Armoured Vehicle.  The use of mines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and anti-armour weapons has become more prevalent, posing a greater risk to personnel.

The LAV III Upgrade project will capitalize on existing and evolving technology to improve the protection, mobility and lethality of the LAV III fleet.  The project will modernize a portion of the existing LAV III fleet to ensure it remains a highly protected, operationally mobile and tactically agile combat vehicle that will remain the backbone of domestic and expeditionary task forces, extending the life span of the LAV III to 2035.

The following upgrades will be performed on the LAV III:

    * Upgrade of mobility systems such as powertrain, suspension, running gear and brakes;
    * Upgrade of the weapon system; and
    * Installation of additional armour, heightening its protection against increased threats.

 

[ArmyRick]

That article is not well written. Hitting a pressure plated IED strong enough to do in a Stryker IMV is going to knock out a bradley.

Is that general on crack? Tanks are tanks and they are not troops tnansport vehicles. Yeah we have tanks but we also have LAVIII, hull and suspension is very similar to Stryker IMV.

Some of these IEDs have thrown LAVIIIs into the air, what the hell does this guy think IED that strong are going to do a Bradley? There will still be deaths and wounded, but in a slower vehicle.

 

[ArmyRick]

One other thing. I hope Sparky doesn't see this article. That will further fuel his irrational beleif that M113 (I won't call them Gavins) are the answer to any secnario.

 

[AC 011]

That article is not well written. Hitting a pressure plated IED strong enough to do in a Stryker IMV is going to knock out a bradley.

Is that general on crack? Tanks are tanks and they are not troops tnansport vehicles. Yeah we have tanks but we also have LAVIII, hull and suspension is very similar to Stryker IMV.

Some of these IEDs have thrown LAVIIIs into the air, what the hell does this guy think IED that strong are going to do a Bradley? There will still be deaths and wounded, but in a slower vehicle.

IMO, given the size of some of the IEDs encountered, the biggest thing a Bradley or Abrams has going for them is the smaller crew size (different role & different vehicle = different crew size?  go figure).  A catastrophic hit on a tank, with a crew of 4, generally won't garner the same attention in the media that a similar hit against, say, a Stryker ICV with a crew of 11.  Those with an agenda will exploit that.

 

[Jammer]

There are some in the US Army who have fought tooth and nail against the Stryker since the beginning for political reasons.
Maybe an LO from Foxhound U could school the Stryker types on what not to do...

 

[Dean22]

That article is not well written. Hitting a pressure plated IED strong enough to do in a Stryker IMV is going to knock out a bradley.

Is that general on crack? Tanks are tanks and they are not troops tnansport vehicles. Yeah we have tanks but we also have LAVIII, hull and suspension is very similar to Stryker IMV.

Some of these IEDs have thrown LAVIIIs into the air, what the hell does this guy think IED that strong are going to do a Bradley? There will still be deaths and wounded, but in a slower vehicle.

Indeed, I have seen a video before on the liveleak where an Abrams was flipped completely over.

There's such thing as mine resistant but I doubt there is such thing as naval shell resistant (referring to the big-mass 155mm IED's).

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... compared to IRQ from the folks at Small Wars Journal, via foreignpolicy.com:

Why are Strykers seemingly more vulnerable to improvised explosive attack in Afghanistan than they were in Iraq? Iraq has a much more developed road network than Afghanistan. A denser road network provided U.S. mission planners with more routes to choose from, complicating the enemy's roadside bombing effort. In Afghanistan by contrast, U.S. forces may be lucky to have one usable road to get from an assembly area to an objective. The standard counter-IED strategy is to constantly observe such roads for insurgent bomb-planting activity. Fewer roads would mean less for the Americans to observe, in theory making it easier to find the insurgent bomb-planters. But the level of surveillance assets in the 5th Brigade's area might not be at the same density that U.S. units have enjoyed lately in Iraq. In fact, Col. Harry D. Tunnell IV, the brigade commander, has called for more surveillance help.

The best solution to the problem of IEDs is to infiltrate, attack, and destroy the insurgent organizations that plant them. While that effort progresses, coalition forces can reduce the IED threat by 1) staying off the roads and 2) dispersing by putting fewer troops in a greater number of vehicles. Obvious solutions, but often impractical to implement ....

 

[155mmMoose]

Referring to MarkOttawa's original post, Its good that we are making a good impression to the Americans, and setting an example for all the troops in A-stan.

 

[Loachman]

There's such thing as mine resistant but I doubt there is such thing as naval shell resistant (referring to the big-mass 155mm IED's).

From where would terrorists get naval shells?

What fires 155mm ammunition?

What is the most commonly-used explosive in IEDs found in Afghanistan?

 

[AC 011]

What fires 155mm ammunition?

;D

 

[Dean22]

From where would terrorists get naval shells?

What fires 155mm ammunition?

What is the most commonly-used explosive in IEDs found in Afghanistan?

I haven't been to Afghanistan but I would imagine terrorists get their supplies by arms trading and then shipping through the Pakistani border. That, or they are still sitting on the massive pile of weapons and ammo the Soviets left behind after the Afghan-Soviet war. We all know that the IED's in Iraq however, came from the munitions warehouses and the Iranian border.

(It's practically cheaper for world powers to build new weapons/ammo/vehicles than to ship them back home)

155mm is fired by artillery, tanks (more so self-propelled gun) and ships.

Ship: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_61-52_MONARC_Hamburg_pic.jpg

Tank: http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/auf1_cat8g.jpg


I'd have no idea I only have second hand knowledge of 105's and 155's, there have also been reports of them using HME's and very rarely gas, poison and radioactive IED's (I would imagine these are built with the left over Depleted Uranium shells in Iraq due to the radiation on those bullets lasting 60 billion years but I would be willing to bet $20 that they aren't using thermite, C4, etc. I have also heard of the Taliban using anti-mobility mines on Abrams (what's used essentially when a tank can't be killed with mines and in modern warfare not many people have 8 hours of a day to bury four gigantic shells in the road). The mobility mines knock out the treads which, make the tank a sitting duck for 3-12 hours until things could be handled.


I can imagine why the americans are upset about the stryker however, these guys were lucky ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Size0-army_mil-44434-2009-07-10-090719.jpg ) but that bomb was very deep and under a large amount of concrete and still managed to flip the stryker.

 

[Jammer]

If you put enough bang in the road/culvert, whatever, you will destroy/mobility kill anything. Proven!

 

[Journeyman]

I haven't been to Afghanistan but I would imagine...

I'd have no idea I only have second hand knowledge...

I would imagine...

I have also heard...

I can imagine...

 
There are lots of threads where people can contribute useful information based on actual knowledge and experience. The other threads are often wonderful places to read and learn; there's no requirement to post. Opinion is fine, but informed opinion is much more valued.

But no, despite repeated suggestions they "stay in their lane," some folks persist in believing they're being unfairly picked on.

:brickwall:

 

[Jammer]

I haven't been to Afghanistan but I would imagine terrorists get their supplies by arms trading and then shipping through the Pakistani border. That, or they are still sitting on the massive pile of weapons and ammo the Soviets left behind after the Afghan-Soviet war. We all know that the IED's in Iraq however, came from the munitions warehouses and the Iranian border.

(It's practically cheaper for world powers to build new weapons/ammo/vehicles than to ship them back home)

155mm is fired by artillery, tanks (more so self-propelled gun) and ships.

Ship: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_61-52_MONARC_Hamburg_pic.jpg

Tank: http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/auf1_cat8g.jpg


I'd have no idea I only have second hand knowledge of 105's and 155's, there have also been reports of them using HME's and very rarely gas, poison and radioactive IED's (I would imagine these are built with the left over Depleted Uranium shells in Iraq due to the radiation on those bullets lasting 60 billion years but I would be willing to bet $20 that they aren't using thermite, C4, etc. I have also heard of the Taliban using anti-mobility mines on Abrams (what's used essentially when a tank can't be killed with mines and in modern warfare not many people have 8 hours of a day to bury four gigantic shells in the road). The mobility mines knock out the treads which, make the tank a sitting duck for 3-12 hours until things could be handled.


I can imagine why the americans are upset about the stryker however, these guys were lucky ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Size0-army_mil-44434-2009-07-10-090719.jpg ) but that bomb was very deep and under a large amount of concrete and still managed to flip the stryker.

 

[Jammer]

Taliban using anti-mobility mines on Abrams?
Wrong war, but thanks for coming out though.

"We all know that the IED's in Iraq however, came from the munitions warehouses and the Iranian border."

Really? ...and you are an expert how?

 

[Scott]

What Journeyman said.

And now what I say: Welcome to the Warning System for continually posting outside of your lanes.