Wheeled Versus Tracked Vehicles

[Duke]

For several years, the US Army and Marine Corps has sought to become lighter and quicker, especially strategically. (Quickly deploying to hotspots.) The new doctrine is to rely less on the logistics nightmare of tracked vehicles and towed howitzers, and more on lighter faster wheeled vehicles. Wheeled vehicles when compared to tracked vehicles are more readily transferred to forward areas; whereas wheeled vehicles can be airlifted, track vehicles must be railed and then shipped to their destination. The difference can be measured in weeks.


The USMC is looking into France's Caesar wheeled howitzer in place of the M198, a towed howitzer. Towed howitzers have difficulty in maintaining itself with a fast moving infantry.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/caesar/images/caesar7.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/caesar/images/caesar4.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/caesar/images/caesar1.jpg

The Stryker has several configurations, but CW calls it a wheeled tank/APC. Strykers will replace tanks in the Army's new maneuver doctrine of light and quick deployments. Note Strykers or their analogues will not replace tanks entirely, only in the certain units and battlefield conditions.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/403103765.jpg

Two soldiers with the Fort Lewis-based Stryker Brigade Combat Team guard the perimeter as their squad reconfigures their vehicle. The craft was unloaded from an Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft Tuesday at the Bicycle Lake Army Airfield at Fort Irwin, Calif.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2002/200205101b.jpg

The rubber-tired Stryker weighs 38,000 pounds, can mount a machine gun, grenade launcher, or a 105mm cannon, and can travel more than 60 mph on hard roads and maintain 45 mph cross-country. Photo by Gerry J. Gilmore

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/images/stryker_6.jpg

Stryker vehicles will equip six Brigade Combat Teams

[Trigger]

Stryker looks Badass.

[Duke]

The first Stryker pic with the C-130 in the background is total propaganda. Many critics of the Strykers program wanted to see if it could actually fit inside a C-130 and if the C-130 could take off. Since the Strikers weight and dimensions are roughly equal to the C-130's maximum cargo capacity. So, the Army had a photo op. They had journalists observe a Stryker entering and exiting a C-130 with no room to spare. Also, everyone assumed the photo op would entail a C-130 airlifting a Stryker. It did not and I don't know what the Army's excuse is. So far the Stryker hasn't yet been airlifted.

[Apogee]

Duke,
Although you are normally right, you are a little outdated on this one. The airlift capability was in question for a while, but the pictue above was not from the press demonstration you mentioned. Rather, they were pictures from Exercise Arrowhead Lightning I.

http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadlightning/stryker_c130/images/ICV_0070.jpg


A squad leader assigned to Fort Lewis, Wash.'s 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) directs his team as they reconfigure their Stryker interim armored vehicle. The vehicle was transported to Bicycle Lake Army Airfield at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif., aboard an Air Force C130 Hercules aircraft as part of an early entry training exercise marking the beginning of Exercise Arrowhead Lightning I. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Gary Ogilvie) (Released)



http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadlightning/stryker_c130/images/ATGM_0054.jpg




A Stryker interim armored vehicle assigned to Fort Lewis, Wash.'s 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Divison (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) rolls from an Air Force C130 Hercules aircraft and into a dust storm after landing at Bicycle Lake Army Airfield at the U.S. Army's National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif. This early entry training mission marked the beginning of Exercise Arrowhead Lightning I, a series of operational evaluation exercises used to test the readiness and effectiveness of the brigade. The mission included six Air Force National Guard C130s from Mississippi, Nevada and California. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Rhonda M. Lawson) (Released)


Didn't mean to flame you Duke, just wanted to get the correct info out about my service. Have a good one everybody.

[Merik]

The problem with Wheeled vehicles is that thier armor is lighter and they are wheeled.One RPG can take it out in no time.If the Army wanted lighter and faster vehicles, tell them to go buy the Russian BMP.Low profile, not as light armored as the Stryker, and fast.Plus it can carry 8 troops(I cant remember if its 8 or lower. Anyone wanna correct me?)

As much as I love Armor and the Stryker does look really cool, the Army is gonna learn the hard way that Wheeled is not the answer.

[OUGrizz]

The stryker may have less armour, however can move quite quickly. Remember you just need to damage one track on a tank to render it imobile....

[RMT]

In order for stryker to get onto a C130 the weapon station has to be removed and stowed inside, and only the driver and TC go with the vehicle, dismounts have to catch the next flight.

[Merik]

OUGrizz,
True but if a tank went over a mine and then a Stryker went over a mine, which vehicle would you want to be in?

Another thing is that unless we went up against a enemy force that knew exactly how to disable a tank then I dont think there is much of a problem.
When someone shoots at a tank coming right at them or whatever, they just point and click most of the time.So the armour around the tank catches the RPG and everything is fine and dandy.When they shoot a Styker or an LAV for that matter, it goes...............BOOOM!

See where Im going with this?

[XASA]

Good points all, but most of them are rather dated. The Stryker Brigade just completed its certification for deployment by participating in two back-to-back exercises where they did deploy the vehicles with their crews successfully. The Stryker Brigades are a compromise between the light infantry forces used in Afghanistan and the heavy mech ones used in Iraqi. Bradleys and M1A2 Abrams are too heavy to quickly deploy in an emergency, while the light infantry divisions aren't robust enough to wage a prolong battle.

The Army intensively tested several vehicles including tracks before deciding on the Stryker (which is really a third generation LAV). The Marines have had great success with theirs, the Germans similar success with their Fuchs six-wheeled vehicle and even the Russians swear by their BTR series. Compared to modern APCs wheeled or tracked, the BMP-1 and 2 series are seriously outdated, and the BMP-3 is more a light reconnaissance vehicle than an APC. Also, BMPs are easily put out of commissioned and are firetraps. Before it was named "Stryker" it was called the "Interim Armored Vehicle," which means it's only a stop gap until the Future Combat Vehicle (FCV) in its various modes is delivered.

http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Jun2003/a20030602sbctexfinal.html

[Duke]

In case someone asks, the DoD is still looking at the Caesar Howitzer regardless of its French origin. The Caesar is currently the best wheeled medium howitzer on the market. And the Army is also looking to the Caesar to fight along side the Stryker.

Some of you are missing the advantages of a wheeled vehicle over tracked. Of course, a tracked vehicle has more armor and can take more punishment than a wheeled one. However, the time required to move an armored cav across the world is too great when compared to a wheeled unit. In some scenarios, by the time a tracked unit appears on the battlefield, the conflict could be over or shifted or spilled into other regions. In the Gulf War, Saddam, for idiotic reasons, gave the coalition forces that required time to build an overhelming force with tanks as the centerpiece. In the next conventional conflict, however, our enemy will likely strike quickly and not allow time for a build up.
Furthermore, Merik you cannot divorce American Armor/Infantry doctrine. Both work together for their saftey and lethality, where infantry screens antiarmor personnel and the Strykers engages hard targets. In addition, the new doctrine has UAV screening the Stryker units (IBCT)

[Dmitri]

Does anybody know if any of the armored or ID's have strykers yet? Or are they just still being tested?

[Duke]

...3rd Brigade, 2nd ID and the 1st Brigade, 25th ID...ready...during...2003.
dmitri, a NG unit the 1/111 IN BN (M) is slated for Strykerdom.

[EvanL]

What about the Canadian LAVIII??? http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/ames/images/ccclav2.jpg

http://www.army.dnd.ca/cfb_gagetown/units/images/tanks.jpg

[He219]

The Marines have had great success with theirs, the Germans similar success with their Fuchs six-wheeled vehicle and even the Russians swear by their BTR series. Compared to modern APCs wheeled or tracked, the BMP-1 and 2 series are seriously outdated, and the BMP-3 is more a light reconnaissance vehicle than an APC. Also, BMPs are easily put out of commissioned and are firetraps


I am a strong supporter of fast and maneuverable large weapons platforms. Reduced weight to transport is key, but lighter armor is a definite drawback. Iraq showed how fast and effective a Blitzkrieg offensive can be.

More Stryker Stuff:

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/stryker/2.jpg

The rubber-tired Stryker weighs 38,000 pounds, can mount a machine gun, grenade launcher, or a 105mm cannon, and can travel more than 60 mph on hard roads and maintain 45 mph cross-country.


http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/stryker/3.jpg

The Army is committed to fielding six IBCTs with more than 300 Strykers in each. In October 1999, The Army announced its first two IBCTs would be located at Ft. Lewis, Wash.: 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division and the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division. These two brigades are expected to be equipped and ready for deployment during fiscal years 2003 and 2004, respectively.

The next brigades to transform, in order, are the 172nd Infantry Brigade (Separate), Fort Richardson, Alaska; the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light), Fort Polk, La.; the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light), Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; and the 56th Brigade of the 28th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Pennsylvania Army National Guard.


http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/stryker/4.jpg

Stryker is a 19-ton wheeled armored vehicle that will provide The Army a family of ten different vehicles. The Stryker can be deployed by C-130 aircraft and be combat-capable upon arrival in any contingency area. The Stryker family includes the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, Mobile Gun System, Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle, Mortar Carrier Vehicle, Reconnaissance Vehicle, Fire Support Vehicle, Engineer Squad Vehicle, Commander's Vehicle, Medical Evacuation Vehicle, and a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Reconnaissance Vehicle. The vehicles have robust armor protection, can sustain speeds of 60 miles-per-hour, have parts commonality and self-recovery abilities and also have a central tire inflation system. The Infantry Carrier Vehicle carries a nine-man infantry squad and a crew of two and has a Remote Weapon Station with an M2 .50 caliber machine gun or MK19, 40 mm grenade launcher.


And now for some Video :P
The Stryker:
http://www.gdls.com/images/sow.mpg (8 Mbyte MPEG format)
http://www.gdls.com/images/lav_long.mov(1.3 MBytes, .mov Format)
http://www.gdls.com/images/lav_short.mov(294 KBytes, .mov Format)

The Spähpanzer Luchs:
http://www.deutschesheer.de/C1256B6C002D670C/CurrentBaseLink/N25CHEFA763SWINDE

The Spähwagen Fennek - 40mm Granatwerfer zeigt Wirkung im Ziel:
http://www.deutschesheer.de/C1256B6C002D670C/CurrentBaseLink/N25CHFZ9766SWINDE

The Spürpanzer "Fuchs":
http://www.deutschesheer.de/C1256B6C002D670C/CurrentBaseLink/N25FKCKE668SWINDE

Upgraded BTR-80,
The BTR-80A has a 30mm Automatic Cannon:
http://www.rusarm.ru/video/btr80_1.wmv
http://www.rusarm.ru/video/btr80_2.wmv

It may be tracked, but the Russian 120mm 2S31 VENA automated Self-propelled Howitzer / Mortar system on BMP-3 chassis is an example of a light weight maneuverability for a mounted large weapons platform:
http://www.rusarm.ru/video/vena.wmv

More to follow....

Nice Canadian LAVIII, EvanLloyd! ;)

p-)
He219

[FallenAngel]

The Canadian LAV series is what the USMC has been using for what? 15 years or more now?

Not to bash the Army...but what is really the reason for the Stryker? I mean, yes, it's quicker deploying. It doesn't guzzle gas like a tracked APC and it's actually faster than tracked vihicles on roads, compacted sand/dirty/etc.

However...the Army has never really been a "quick reaction force"...that's what the Marines are for. That's why the Marines have had LAVs for so long. That's because after WWI several Generals noted how the Corps was "just another land army" and that the duplication was unnecessary. So, the Marines became the amphibious quick reaction force it has been for most of a century...now the Army is trying to become more like the Corps? Hmm....now who's duplicating ;)

The Army is an occupying force, not a reaction force. That's why the Marines where used in the "Banana Wars" of the '20s and '30s. We weren't technically "invading"- merely "reacting to protect American interests".

That's why I don't understand the role of the Stryker. Didn't they just finish upgrading to M2A3 Bradleys not too long ago? Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I truly think that the DoD would be better off getting Marines better equipment. They have AAVs left over from Vietnam still in frontline service. They should get the V-22 Osprey (or a replacement) off the ground and into the air-wings. They should get the AH-1Z Cobras into action too while they're at it...

Again, sorry for the inter-service squabbling, but the Army gets ALOT of new equipment and they still want newer and better while the Corps in a way is expected to do more with less. (Which they do pretty damn well I might add...). I just dont understand berauacracy very well. :(

[He219]

I got a bit sloppy, the correct Stryker links: :P

These are good!
http://www.gdls.com/images/lav_short.mov (294 KBytes, .mov Format)
http://www.gdls.com/images/lav_long.mov (1.3 MBytes, .mov Format)
http://www.gdls.com/images/sow.mpg (8 Mbyte MPEG format)

p-)
He219

[He219]

I have to agree with FallenAngel's rationale. The Marines need this type of equipment. The real benefit is for rapid deployment and maneuverability. The Army could have used them well on the road to Baghdad, but it would have been overkill thereafter. Occupying forces are better off with greater armor to fend off RPG attacks and the like.

p-)
He219

[Duke]

Exactly! Fallen Angel that's what everyone is saying at the DoD. For years the Army has encroached onto Marine territory--forward light infantry brigades, soliders training in the SSGNs. Strykers... When will it stop.

[FallenAngel]

Good points Tane about technology. Unmanned this, and remote controlled that are all cool to play with and could decrease casualties in future conflicts HOWEVER....

you will ALWAYS need men on the ground. If for no other reason than to be the one to carry the flag, plant it in the ground and say "This is now mine. You want it back...you're gonna have to pay for it and get through me." There is no other way to take and HOLD territory.

And again...I STILL don't see the point for the Stryker. If the Army just wants to become the Corps...why doesnt congress increase the Corps budget. Its now only 1/10th of the Army's budget. Although, for some reason, I think some in the Corps might actually oppose expansion of the Corps.

Why? Because the Corps has always had the stigma of being "elite" compared to the Army (in general). The training is longer and harder by many accounts, and they are the US's "911 force". Some third world country wants the US to help build schools- we send in the Army Corps of engineers. Some other country wants the US to enforce a 50 year old cease fire- we send in the Army. Some country is trouble and whats the US to kick some serious ass quickly- we send in the Marines.

It's been that way for a century. Now the US Army is seeing it's role as occupiers become obosolete like Tane said. The future is going to be urban fighting much like what we saw in Somalia or even the Balkans. Ideal for the Marines and their doctrine. The Army would be relegated to a "baby-sitter" role. The Marines would get there quickly, kick the ass that needs kicking, and what's left over would be contained for a few months by Army troops while the Marines moved on to the next hot-spot.

Ugh...it's all mind twisting. Semper Fi. :)

[Merik]

But the Marines are just doing the opposite and trying to be like the Army.They have tanks and equipment to do what they did in Iraq, mass land combat.Thats not what they are intended to do and the Army isnt intended to do what the Marines do.

Please for love of God dont get me started on the Osprey.Its a flying piece of junk and a deathtrap.

Well other than what I have already stated and others have said there is nothing I can really put down into words about what I feel about the Stryker and wheeled combat platforms.I still think its a waste of money. :roll:

[FallenAngel]

agreed....plus the Osprey is the first of it's kind (well...besides a few prototypes in the '50s and '60s). Naturally there are going to be bugs in the system. However, the DoD hasn't helped things by putting so many demands on the craft. They want a jack of ALL trades and it's not going to be REALLY good at any one specific one. It was origionally suppose to replace the aging Sea Knights (what in the Corps isnt aging?). Now, it's suppose to take over for the few Hueys still in operation, there's talk of a gunship model, SAR version and even one for "heavy lifting" capability like the CH-53 (which, by far, is the most outstanding military helo we have IMHO). That's great if they can make it work, but it's going to take a while.

As for the USMC having tanks....what's wrong with that? They only have <300 I think in all of inventory while the Army has >1000 (correct me if I am wrong). Also, the Corps is used in quick deployments. 99% of the time Marine units are the first on the scene. Are we to deny them tanks? The "Gator Navy" can easily transport them and keep them on stand-by for the MEUs. Also, you will note, that the Marines were only in Iraq for the actual combat. About half of the units have already returned while even MORE Army personel are slated to go there.

I also agree with Tane. Certain Army units are very much akin to the Corps. The 82nd, 101st, 1st Cav., Rangers, SF. are the first to come to mind, but these represent the very best of the Army...and to say that they are basically the same in mission profile to the ENTIRE Marine Corps speaks volumes IMHO. And even THOSE units don't have the extensive "combined arms" package the Corps does with close air support and off-shore facilities. ;)

[Dmitri]

Wow now, where is all this talks about the army are coming from? I think everyone has been watching to many commercials "The Few, The Proud, The Marines"... Everybody seems to be forgetting about the what army did and keeps doing this day... Look at what it has: Special Forces (by far one of the most useful and effective and quick force multipliers), Rangers (a whole batallion can be anywhere in the world max 18 hrs), 101 and 82 airborne (I doubt it would take them long too deploy anywhere)... The fact that army is trying to be lighter and more mobile is not because its trying to compete with marine core or anything like that, thats the realities of the new wars. So far I have never heard anybody in the army talk anything about marines (besides that they are cocky for no reason), NOBODY CARES, the Army is going its way, and mobility is the way to go no matter what kind of force you are

[Dmitri]

Don't even try to compare the mission profile of SF and Marines...its like earth and the sky... Rangers have always been and will be the best oof what ANY CONVENTIONAL troops have to offer.. And 82 and 101 are also one of a kind, i wouldn't compare them with marines, how many marines are airborne qualified??

[XASA]

Great thread and excellent pictures and links. I wonder how long it will last before someone starts a flame war :P

I think the point is to have a mix of heavy, medium and light forces that can be use for a myriad of missions. With that goal in mind, the DOD is presently studying reorganizing the Army into smaller, more deployable brigade size units. Plus, every vehicle will have the latest surveillance, target acquisition and NOD equipment, which will fit in with the current policy of "if you can see it you can kill it." So far as the RPG factor is concerned, they are looking at add on armor packages to complement the current thin skin it now has.

Also, any time new equipment is fielded on a large scale, there's discontent. When the Abrams came on line in the early 80s, it was blasted for its weight, high fuel consumption and cost. The Bradley was lambasted so much HBO made a movie about it. The M-16 was sidelined for years because of its caliber and lack of robustness (as in "You can't but stroke with it.") If you want to go way back in American military history, the Spencer repeating rifle was scorned during the Civil War because generals thought soldiers would expend more ammunition, and Custer left his Gatlings back at the fort because he thought they were too cumbersome :P

[96B]

First off I believe the Stryker will be a great vehicle, but I agree that it is something the Army could wait a few years on. Adapting to meet future wartime requirements is something that every branch of the military does, and in this case with the Army wanting to get more mobile. In the future, you will see the Army become much like what the Marines are today in the sense of light armor etc, and the Marines themselves will become even more mobile and rapid deploying.

There is absolutely no question that the Marines should get more funding for their equipment. There is no excuse whatsoever that the Marines shouldnt have the latest equipment and training. While the Army outfits pretty much everybody with M4s that you see usually only in the hands of Recon Marines and the others still carry the M16A2, you know there is something wrong. The MV-22 Osprey, like MANY other revolutionary aircraft and weaponry has its glitches and they will be fixed. Unfortunately, because of the lack of funding, the program has been delayed and held up so much that it will be years before it makes it to the fleet operationally.

Marines have always done more with so much less, and it proves that it doesnt always matter how good your technology is, but the man or woman behind it. Though they wont like to admit it, Army personel at their boot camps will tell you they are producing quantity, whereas in the Marines they focus on quality. Thats not to say that Army training isnt good, but when you look at the numbers, Ft. Benning is one of five boot camps and it alone turns out more soldiers than both MCRD San Diego and Parris Island combined. Because of their mission profile and the requirements put upon them, the Marines can thus be more picky.

After many of the beach landings in the early 1900s, the Army claimed there really was no need to have a Marines. The Air Force said the same about the Navy claiming that its long range bombers could strike the same targets. The fact is, we need every service of our armed forces and they work together as a giant team to ensure victory. They all have their specific missions and niches on the battlefield, but what I believe we need to do is make sure that they all get their appropriate funding and resources.

[gilgoul]

I don`t know for the last version, but the BMP1 is the worst piece of crap you`d like to sit in, the 12.7 mm penetrates the flanks and the roof w/o any problem, and a Milan breaks it appart.




The problem with Wheeled vehicles is that thier armor is lighter and they are wheeled.One RPG can take it out in no time.If the Army wanted lighter and faster vehicles, tell them to go buy the Russian BMP.Low profile, not as light armored as the Stryker, and fast.Plus it can carry 8 troops(I cant remember if its 8 or lower. Anyone wanna correct me?)

As much as I love Armor and the Stryker does look really cool, the Army is gonna learn the hard way that Wheeled is not the answer.

[Apogee]

talk about dragging up an old thread

[Chris1]

Good thread though :)

[marktigger]

yes but no one answered the question about the Herc there is a video of a Piranah being loaded into a herc and it taking of.

BTW how many bradley's fit in a herc?

[Ian H]

About half of one:

Weight 50,000 lbs (www.fas.org)

The Stryker weighs I think 38,000 lbs, and only just fits in weightwise.

To move anything 'heavy' in the Army's inventory you need a C17 at the least.

[GazB]

"I don`t know for the last version, but the BMP1 is the worst piece of crap you`d like to sit in, the 12.7 mm penetrates the flanks and the roof w/o any problem, and a Milan breaks it appart. "

Hehehehe... the engine compartment of an M1A2 can be damaged by 50 cal weapons. Early model BMP-1s could be penetrated at close range by 50 cal.. they were up armoured with side skirts to fix that.

And Milan can penetrate over 1 metre of steel plate... exactly what sort of APC can shrug off a Milan hit from any angle?

Wheeled vehicles are fine if you just want a troop transport. They lack all terrain mobility but are cheap enough. What I don't understand is this American practise of all or nothing. What I mean by this is that when the US decided that unguided rockets might be useful as artillery (ie lots of near instant explosions... good for getting high concentration of HE or Chem warfare agents or laying down mine fields or destroying enemy concentrations quickly). The result was MLRS which replaced conventional tube artillery in many units. Equally the use of short range close in weapon system missiles were developed by the US... called RAM, made up of various parts from Sidewinder, Stinger and other missiles... the point is it is intended to replace the Phalanx system.

Now they want wheeled vehicles to take over.

Makes more sense to me to have a variety of systems to allow flexibility... wheeled vehicles are great for use in developed countries with good road networks. They are also very good for non-war situations or low intensity war situations like peace keeping where their less aggressive appearance and speed and low cost make them useful.

There are plenty of types of terrain that will stop a wheeled vehicle... very soft ground, deep snow, rocky, that tracked vehicles can drive over easily.

In some places local vegetation can stop a wheeled vehicle... I have heard of cases in South Africa where Ratels have been stopped by dense Thorn bush areas where the tires have been ripped to shreds, while tracked vehicles have had no problems.

The Russians use MT-LBs for deep snow areas because they are light an manouverable, the BTR series where roads are good, and BMPs where they are not, or where the enemy is expected to be engaged at longer range.

[Yard Ape]

The Canadian LAV series is what the USMC has been using for what? 15 years or more now?
EvanLloyd asked about the Canadian LAV III which is definatly not the same as the LAV 25 used by the USMC . Have a look at the difference: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=124042#124042

The Canadian LAV III has more in common with the Stryker than with the LAV 25. Even the turret, while similar, is not the same as what is on the LAV 25.

[Yard Ape]

The problem with Wheeled vehicles is that thier armor is lighter and they are wheeled.One RPG can take it out in no time.
AntiArmour weapons kill armour.

Insurgents fired the rocket-propelled grenade at the Bradley in the town of Beiji, north of Tikrit, late Saturday, piercing the driver's compartment and critically wounding the soldier. The soldier was evacuated to a military hospital, where he died.http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040125.wiraq0125/BNStory/Front

The Stryker ICV will be no worse off than any other APC for armour protection. Infact, with 11 dismounts the Stryker will be better protected from antiarmour in close country than a Bradley with 6 dismounts would be.