• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Styker‘s first deaths

Recce41

Sr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Maybe our Generals should read this.


December 13, 2003

Stryker destroyed by homemade bomb; one crew member injured
Attack marks first combat loss of latest Army vehicle

By Matthew Cox
Times staff writer


AD DULUIYAH, Iraq — Guerilla forces ambushed a Stryker patrol near here today with a homemade explosive device, destroying one Stryker reconnaissance vehicle — the first to be lost to hostile fire.
The four-soldier crew managed to escape but one soldier was injured in the attack.

It occurred about 1 p.m., as elements of the Army’s first Stryker brigade’s 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry was conducting a combat patrol near this city of about 50,000 people, said Lt. Col. Joseph Piek, spokesman for 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (SBCT).

The brigade is now under the command of the 4th Infantry Division and has been running operations out of Forward Operating Base Pacesetter after completing an 800-kilometer movement from Kuwait that began Dec. 2. Pacesetter is located about six miles northeast of here.

Brigade officials believe someone detonated an improved explosive device near the patrol, setting one Stryker on fire, Piek said, adding that the vehicle is now considered out of action. Heavy concussion caused one soldier to suffer foot and ankle injuries.

Because of operational security concerns, Army Times has agreed not to release the exact location of the ambush.

This is the second time in less than a week that the brigade has suffered casualties and lost Stryker vehicles on patrol in Iraq.

During a Dec. 8 patrol here, three soldiers were killed when two Stryker infantry carriers rolled over into a canal on their tops. The two vehicles were recovered, but it is too soon to tell if the waterlogged Strykers can be repaired, Piek sai
:evil: :tank:
 
Whoops!
Guess they should rethink that! Funny but I don‘t think you could damage a tank that way.
Oh well...
 
Keep in mind that by stryker, they don‘t neccesarily mean the MGS that we‘re buying.. It‘s a family of vehicles based on the LAVIII.
 
Funny enough, a improvised explosive took out a M1A1 and crew a little while ago in Iraq and others where injured. Other soldiers were killed or injured when they rolled their steel beasts over in other incidents. As well, I think that a MBT would probaly sink a little quicker than a LAV if it fell in the canal. Just because it is heavily armoured does make the MBT indestuctable. The Stryker is basically a LAV3 without the turret. Every type a veh has it time, place, and purpose. Each has its advantages over the other. The DFS Veh that Canada is buying is a DFS veh and not a tank. It is when you think it is a tank or employ it as a tank is when your going to lose.
 
Good points above. Naysayer of the LAVIII/Styker series of vehicles compare apples and organges and forget that Bradley and armoured Humvee units have suffered heavily. I would much rather be in a LAV III in Iraq right now than a Bradley or Humvee.
 
M1A1 Abraham isn‘t all the much better. Primitive weapons could easily take it out due to the gas turbine engine. All it would take is one Molitov coctail to the intake then boom! One of the most high-tech tanks in the world, however easily destroyed by primitive weapons, little bit ironic dont you think? The Russains lost a significant amount of thier tanks to Chechnynains that utilized primitive weapons in the same way.
 
a terrorist or homeland fighter will do whatever it takes. like shooting heilcopters blowing up veh‘s & people to justified his/her cause.
 
a terrorist or homeland fighter will do whatever it takes. like shooting heilcopters blowing up veh‘s & people to justified his/her cause.
 
It bugs me that all the Dragoons whom i‘ve spoken with (Guys i consider fairly well versed in armored affairs) don‘t have anything good to say about the Striker were getting. Same goes for all the expert reports i‘ve read here and there.
 
Originally posted by Grunt_031:
[qb] Funny enough, a improvised explosive took out a M1A1 and crew a little while ago in Iraq and others where injured. Other soldiers were killed or injured when they rolled their steel beasts over in other incidents. As well, I think that a MBT would probaly sink a little quicker than a LAV if it fell in the canal. Just because it is heavily armoured does make the MBT indestuctable. The Stryker is basically a LAV3 without the turret. Every type a veh has it time, place, and purpose. Each has its advantages over the other. The DFS Veh that Canada is buying is a DFS veh and not a tank. It is when you think it is a tank or employ it as a tank is when your going to lose. [/qb]
The thing is, they want to get rid of our tanks, so we‘ll need to be using DFS Veh‘s and LAV‘s and so on to fill in the gaps - we‘d need to employ them as tanks if it came to that.
 
Ghost 778

I have to agree about the MGS Stryker, but only about reports specific to the problems with the gun system. The LAV III/Stryker chassis is good to go. The gun system however, by even the most optimistic accounts have reported serious problems, particularly concerning recoil and muzzle blast danger to dismounted friendly troops. There is a fully developed alternative 105mm gun system that is available. It is the United Defense Armoured Gun System developed for the M-8 light tank developed for the US Army in the 1990s. Indeed, the M-8 AGS was the direct fire support vehicle tendered to the US Army by United Defense for the Brigade Combat Team vehicle system competition.

Pte. Scarlino

What is the point of spending extremely limited capital equipment funds on vehicles that will not be used? Yes, I do know that a troop of 4 Leopard 1 tanks were deployed to Kosovo in 1999, but they were barely used and reports from troops claim they spent most of their time less than 1Km from base camp, because they were prone to break down. Soldiers need a direct fire support vehicle that is going to be there when needed and not have to ask for it after it was needed.
 
Well I hear all you guys voting the styker and its brothers and sisters in. Great..I hope we get a good vehicle out of the deal.
I‘m not and never did say that tanks and afv‘s are indestructible. But I do have concerns.
1. The gun system in it‘s current configuration has severe problems.( For instance what happens if power is lost in the veh...in a tank you can still manually fire the gun!)
2.My biggest point is movement over rough terrain. Tracks can go places that wheels can‘t period! I‘ve driven Leo‘s and Lynxes and I‘ve been in AVGP‘s and Coyoties. Tracks win..end of statement. If the stryker family is a support vehicle then it needs to deploy everywhere that the other combat arms do. ( like the Infantry for instance.) The avgp‘s won‘t go alot of the places that a track will.
Point to ponder Gents...
 
The main issue is that the politicians are buying this veh under the assumption that they are replacing the tank, they are not. One example of how an all wheeled army will fail is that, if and when we ever go to war, once we take the enemy ground we will not be able to maneuver over it as thier tanks will have torn the ground up and we WILL be stuck. This is only one of many disadvantages that we will have...
 
PM Paul Martin has suspended spending on a variety of government contracts including the Stryker acquisition from my understanding. Perhaps with a new PM, new MND, or maybe a new government (if the suspension drags on long enough), hope for a better direction or armoured veh is there. Nows the time for the armoured military minds to lobby the government.
 
What surprised me is how much Gen Rick Hillier is backing this, the man is a Dragoon for Gaia‘s sake if anyone should understand the necessity and value of tanks its him.
 
When were the Leos last deployed out of country? Have they had an active participation in Bosnia? Was there ever any thought to sending them to A-stan? Assuming the Bizzarro World scnerario where Canada actually followed through on it‘s promise to send troops to Iraq, would the Leos have gone?

What about the M109s? Have they been deployed recently? I have no idea, please fill me in.
 
A troop of tanks went to Kosovo in 99/00 and were used rather effectively. We haven‘t deployed them to Bosnia I don‘t think that there is a great need for an abundance of tanks there (the Dutch have Leo2‘s in theatre). Had we sent a BG to Iraq, I feel that haveing tanks there would have been a must, as we seen during the war, all the US used was tanks. As for M109‘s, I ‘m not to sure...
 
M109s were used while we were over in Germany. Haven‘t been out of the Country since. Unless it was to go down and play with the Jarheads in the States.......
 
Back
Top