New Stryker Brigade going to Iraq

[jizzmonkey]

It's official: One Stryker brigade will replace another in Iraq
Michael Gilbert; The News Tribune

Soldiers from the Army's second Stryker brigade will replace their Fort Lewis comrades from the first when they deploy to Iraq in October, the Army announced Wednesday.

The 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division will succeed the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, which is headquartered in Mosul and has troops operating across northern and central Iraq. The 3rd Brigade left for a year-long deployment last November.

Officials said the 1st Brigade's 4,000 troops will leave their 310 Strykers and most of their other vehicles home at Fort Lewis and fall in on those being used by the 3rd Brigade.

The Strykers – the Army's new armored troop carrier – are putting on lots of miles, but they are holding up well and the manufacturer, General Dynamics Land Systems, has mechanics in Iraq to maintain the fleet, said Fort Lewis spokesman Capt. Tim Beninato.

The Stryker brigades are a medium-weight force the Army is developing to complement its heavy armored and light infantry units. The brigades are designed to be easier to deploy and support than the heavy units, and more mobile and sturdier than light infantry.

The first two were built at Fort Lewis beginning in early 2000. Four more are being developed in Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, and Congress is pushing the Bush administration to pay for a seventh.
(Published 1:56PM, June 23rd, 2004)

[jizzmonkey]

ITS OOOOOOOONNNN!!!


Cause I'm rich Biyyyatch!

[seruriermarshal]

In Iraq allies just lose four Stryker .

It's a good weapon system .

[usa320]

I agree... I dont think anyone has been killed in a stryker, though the vehicles have been destroyed in some cases...

[UoUo]

In the US army doctrine...the crew saftey is above all?

[Midav]

In the US army doctrine...the crew saftey is above all?

Pretty much. The structure of the Apache helicopter, to the blow out pannels on the M1 to many, many other things are all designed so the crew can get out in one piece.

[Secret Squirrel]

In the US army doctrine...the crew saftey is above all?

Pretty much. The structure of the Apache helicopter, to the blow out pannels on the M1 to many, many other things are all designed so the crew can get out in one piece.

yea that would make sense. Equipment can be easily replaced, well more easily than highly trained crews. And of course, personally, i could careless if i lost of a tank and the crew survived.

[Fioraon]

Thats my Brothers Unit. God speed to him.

[Midav]

Thats my Brothers Unit. God speed to him.

Ask him if he knows a Sgt. Weaver. :)

[moughoun]

This is a bit off topic but is it true that the 75th Ranger regiment is forming a unit equipped with Stryker's?

[Brozozo]

This is a bit off topic but is it true that the 75th Ranger regiment is forming a unit equipped with Stryker's?

I didn;t hear anything like that, nut not likely. The 75th is strickly light infantry and would be encumbered by large vehicles such as the Stryker. I don't see any sense in giving the Rangers Strykers, a waste of their small unit tactics abilities.

[moughoun]

This is a bit off topic but is it true that the 75th Ranger regiment is forming a unit equipped with Stryker's?

I didn;t hear anything like that, nut not likely. The 75th is strickly light infantry and would be encumbered by large vehicles such as the Stryker. I don't see any sense in giving the Rangers Strykers, a waste of their small unit tactics abilities.

That's what I thought when I heard it too, but it keep's coming up on other forum's

[Brozozo]

This is a bit off topic but is it true that the 75th Ranger regiment is forming a unit equipped with Stryker's?

I didn;t hear anything like that, nut not likely. The 75th is strickly light infantry and would be encumbered by large vehicles such as the Stryker. I don't see any sense in giving the Rangers Strykers, a waste of their small unit tactics abilities.

That's what I thought when I heard it too, but it keep's coming up on other forum's

Could be true, I havn't heard anything, but as I said...it don't make sense to me.

[ronin2172]

the problem with the Stryker is they are not more easily transportable than heavier equipment (more mobile yes, on roads anyway)...to fit in a C130 (a requirement of the program) a Stryker has to remove parts (not counting the bird cage armor addon, which adds over a ton to the total weight), The crew has to travel on another plane...and still the c130 can only go 100 miles (don't even think about the MGS the C130 wouldn't even b able to take off)...now u can carry a fully equipped Stryker in a c-17 with ease...however u can also do that with a Bradley or an M1 so it makes that exercise pointless

[Operation Ivy]

In the US army doctrine...the crew saftey is above all?

Pretty much. The structure of the Apache helicopter, to the blow out pannels on the M1 to many, many other things are all designed so the crew can get out in one piece.

yea that would make sense. Equipment can be easily replaced, well more easily than highly trained crews. And of course, personally, i could careless if i lost of a tank and the crew survived.

For once i agree with you :D

[seruriermarshal]

the problem with the Stryker is they are not more easily transportable than heavier equipment (more mobile yes, on roads anyway)...to fit in a C130 (a requirement of the program) a Stryker has to remove parts (not counting the bird cage armor addon, which adds over a ton to the total weight), The crew has to travel on another plane...and still the c130 can only go 100 miles (don't even think about the MGS the C130 wouldn't even b able to take off)...now u can carry a fully equipped Stryker in a c-17 with ease...however u can also do that with a Bradley or an M1 so it makes that exercise pointless

C-17 just transportable 1 M1 , but it can transportable more Stryker .

:roll:

[ronin2172]

u missed the whole point.... :cantbeli:

[esl]

the problem with the Stryker is they are not more easily transportable than heavier equipment (more mobile yes, on roads anyway)...to fit in a C130 (a requirement of the program) a Stryker has to remove parts (not counting the bird cage armor addon, which adds over a ton to the total weight), The crew has to travel on another plane...and still the c130 can only go 100 miles (don't even think about the MGS the C130 wouldn't even b able to take off)...now u can carry a fully equipped Stryker in a c-17 with ease...however u can also do that with a Bradley or an M1 so it makes that exercise pointless

NO one deploy to serious war by plane. THat is for hollywood movies. Serious army units always deploy by sea.

[ronin2172]

by your reasoning the 82nd airborne are not serious? Or Special Forces? hmmmm....interesting

[moughoun]

So that drop by the 173rd wasn't it, in Iraq was fake? ;)

[usa320]

actually most units deploy by air now...the importance was showed by this again when Turkey refused to let the US use their sea ports to unload armor...

[cqbrdy]

NO one deploy to serious war by plane. THat is for hollywood movies. Serious army units always deploy by sea.

are you serious? :cantbeli:
:cantbeli: didnt know the army had a sea branch.

[mattnwnc03]

the problem with the Stryker is they are not more easily transportable than heavier equipment (more mobile yes, on roads anyway)...to fit in a C130 (a requirement of the program) a Stryker has to remove parts (not counting the bird cage armor addon, which adds over a ton to the total weight), The crew has to travel on another plane...and still the c130 can only go 100 miles (don't even think about the MGS the C130 wouldn't even b able to take off)...now u can carry a fully equipped Stryker in a c-17 with ease...however u can also do that with a Bradley or an M1 so it makes that exercise pointlesswell heck i thought that was why they built these things, to be "easily transportable"?

[jizzmonkey]

More Stryker troops going to Iraq
4,000 will head from Fort Lewis to relieve other units

By CLAUDIA ROWE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

The Army is planning a changing of the guard within its Stryker units deployed in Iraq.

More than 4,000 soldiers stationed at Fort Lewis, who have been training for the last few months in the use of the quick and lethal Stryker vehicles, have received orders to leave for Iraq in October. They will relieve other Fort Lewis Stryker troops there.

The 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, will take over from Stryker soldiers in the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, who have been serving in Iraq since last fall.

The replacements, who are expected to remain for about a year, will begin by shadowing their predecessors, learning the area and maneuvering through various threats before a full changeover takes place.

"The 3rd Brigade has done very well in Iraq," said Capt. Tim Beninato, a Stryker spokesman. "Once the theater commander is comfortable, they'll start sending the first soldiers home to Fort Lewis."

The first group also has about 4,000 soldiers in it. The transfer could take a month or more.

"I would surely hope that they get home before Christmas," Beninato said of soldiers in the 3rd Brigade. "But there's no guarantee."

About 300 of the high-tech but controversial Stryker vehicles are now on the ground in Iraq. They were designed to bridge the gap between heavily armored tanks and lighter Humvees, but some military analysts charge that the $4 billion Stryker program has built a fleet that is vulnerable to grenade attack.

Eighteen soldiers from the 3rd Brigade have died in combat, according to Beninato, although none of the casualties were caused by direct attacks on Stryker vehicles, he said.



Matthew Cox, a writer for the Army Times, which is independent of the military, spent a month with Stryker troops in Iraq in November and came away reassured. The soldiers were excited to put their long training to use, he said, and the vehicles showed notable speed and agility.

"I've deployed with a lot of light-infantry units, and I was impressed by the capability the Stryker units were able to maintain," he said.

"The technology inside them gives the soldiers unbelievable flexibility" to shift strategies as needed on the fly.

Army officials have been vague about how Stryker soldiers spend their days.

"They went over there with a certain mission, and over time those missions have changed and evolved," Beninato said.

But Cox found them "doing what everyone there is doing, which is trying to hunt down and root out these insurgents."

During his month embedded with the troops, "they were tested pretty early on and thrown into the fight," Cox added.

"They really had a trial by fire, and they did pretty well. They lost two Stryker vehicles to improvised explosives, but nobody was killed in those attacks."

Fort Lewis is home to the Army's first two Stryker brigades. Four and possibly five more are in line for bases in Alaska, Louisiana, Hawaii and Pennsylvania.

[jizzmonkey]

Email this story Printable version Subscribe Today
Top Stories Thursday, June 24, 2004

Second Stryker brigade ordered to Iraq



CHRISTIAN HILL THE OLYMPIAN
Starting in October, more than 4,000 soldiers with the Army's second Stryker brigade will deploy to Iraq, where they will replace another unit from Fort Lewis, post officials announced Wednesday.
The 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division will succeed the Army's first Stryker unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. That unit deployed to Iraq in November and has been patrolling near Mosul as the linchpin of Task Force Olympia, which includes Australian and Iraqi forces.

There had been word the second Stryker brigade might deploy more quickly to cope with a deteriorating security situation in the war-torn nation.

Instead, war planners brought in additional vehicles, including armored Humvees, Bradleys and tanks, and saved the second Stryker brigade to succeed the first.

"Because of its capability and its speed and its flexibility to cover large areas, it's the perfect unit to go back up to the north and then cover the ... sector," Marine Corps Maj. Gen. John Sattler, the Central Command operations director, said during a briefing in Qatar in late April.

One battalion from the first Stryker brigade did move south to secure critical supply routes.

The Army developed the Stryker program to fill a gap between its light and heavy forces by providing units that are faster than tanks but more lethal and better protected than foot soldiers in Humvees.

During a recent news briefing, Gen. John Abizaid, who leads U.S. Central Command, said the first Stryker brigade was doing a "great job" in the Mosul area.

More than a dozen soldiers with the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division have died since arriving in Iraq.

Soldiers with the second Stryker brigade are on leave until mid-July to prepare for the coming deployment and spend time with their families, said Tammy Reed, spokeswoman at Fort Lewis.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[ronin2172]

the problem with the Stryker is they are not more easily transportable than heavier equipment (more mobile yes, on roads anyway)...to fit in a C130 (a requirement of the program) a Stryker has to remove parts (not counting the bird cage armor addon, which adds over a ton to the total weight), The crew has to travel on another plane...and still the c130 can only go 100 miles (don't even think about the MGS the C130 wouldn't even b able to take off)...now u can carry a fully equipped Stryker in a c-17 with ease...however u can also do that with a Bradley or an M1 so it makes that exercise pointlesswell heck i thought that was why they built these things, to be "easily transportable"?
yea that was the point i was trying to make, maybe suriemarshal doesn't understand english too well or something....

[crazyman]

100 miles in a herky bird? i think you got fed some bull****. i mean think about it..who flies 100 miles? and im quite sure the crew could ship with it. ever been in a herk? theres' plenty of space in there for a cupla troops, even with vehicles loaded.

[ronin2172]

actually i read that in several different sources including one that was mostly positive about the stryker....

All of the LAVs will be deployable by C-130 and larger aircraft. As of September 2002 the Army was flying Stryker in C-130s under a temporary waiver issued by the Air Force. The waiver was necessary because the vehicle is too wide to accommodate the 14-inch safety aisle around all sides that is required by the Air Force for the loadmaster. Additionally, only a portion of its crew may fly in the same aircraft. Yet, the Army disputes claims that Stryker -- the centerpiece of its new Brigade Combat Teams -- is not transportable via C-130. During the Millennium Challenge exercise the Infantry Carrier Vehicle variant required multiple alterations to fit into a C-130: The crew removed two smoke grenade launchers, all antennas, a left rear bracket that blocked egress over the top of the vehicle, the Remote Weapons System and the third-row wheel's bump-stop. Reassembly upon landing took as long as 17 minutes.

The Stryker was reported to be 4,000 pounds more than the 38,000-pound requirement.

Add-on armor for the Stryker adds approximately 7,000 lbs to the vehicle weight and approximately 12-14 inches to each side. To accommodate the increased weight, the tires were inflated to 90 psi and the Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS) was disengaged. As the vehicles moved from a hard surface to a softer one (in a grove of trees) the vehicle's tires sank into the soft ground. The winch on the Stryker is not sufficient to recover a Stryker with add-on armor mounted; therefore, some other vehicle recovery asset must be used.


that part was from http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav.htm

[ronin2172]

and you r right about the 100 mile part which is my point...it isn't a useful distance....which is the problem...the Stryker is over the limit of the C130s ability to carry it anywhere useful thus necessitating a larger aircraft hence the c17...

[jizzmonkey]

So that drop by the 173rd wasn't it, in Iraq was fake? ;)

Actually, there is a guy in my company that just got here from Vincenza, he said the whole combat jump thing into northeren Iraq was a hoax, it WAS a secure LZ, they knew ahead of time it was a cold LZ, they just did the jump for the Mustard stain, and to say the 173rd had jumped since Vietnam..........
Go figure.

[jizzmonkey]

and you r right about the 100 mile part which is my point...it isn't a useful distance....which is the problem...the Stryker is over the limit of the C130s ability to carry it anywhere useful thus necessitating a larger aircraft hence the c17...

Thats not true, it does meet c-130 specs, just not with a full combat load, but it'll make the flight no problem. Weeeellll over 100 miles.

You have to Lower the ABS and the weapon system, but a seasoned crew can put it into configuration in 5 mins. with enough **** to sustain it for 72 hours, not including fuel.