From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 - 15:39:20 PST
Hi Ryan,
>Oh, granted, they work, but they're not as fast
>as the wheeled armor is. The Strykers are very
>quiet. Read some of the AARs or user accounts of
>their effectiveness. Or better yet, the sped and
>stealth that they have.
Ryan's correct. Soldiers who are using Strykers, and were initially
bummed out about it Stateside, are now raving about the things. Remember
that Stryker that survived the 500lb IED a few weeks ago? According to
one report I read the vehicle was operational again in 6 days. Another
drove back to base on 8 flat tires even though in theory it isn't
designed for that.
While they have not been fully tested (eg: open terrain vs. dug in enemy
armor), they have proved to be a critical and strategically important
asset in Iraq. Fast redeployment, absurdly high readiness levels, easy
repairs to battle damage, stealthy qualities, flexibility, etc. have put
most in theater critics in their place. I've also not heard much
negative coming from outside the theater either.
BTW, the 113 that people talked about being used in place of Strykers are
not the ones being fielded today. That design, the Gavin, is a much
improved version of the old reliable 113. Pre-Iraq hoobaloo about how
much better they are vs. Stryker has been pretty much proven to be
nothing more than ill informed, highly biased, often baseless criticism.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:37:42 PDT