Stryker Accident in Iraq Kills 3

[He219]

Three U.S. 2nd Infantry Division soldiers were killed and one was injured yesterday near Balad, during a road accident involving two Stryker infantry carrier vehicles, according to a CENTCOM press release.

The injured soldier was taken to the 21st Combat Support Hospital for treatment.

Names of those killed and injured are being withheld pending notification of next of kin.

The accident, CENTCOM said, wasn't caused by enemy action.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2003/n12092003_200312091.html

RIP :(

[Seoulstriker]

Three U.S. 2nd Infantry Division soldiers were killed and one was injured yesterday near Balad, during a road accident involving two Stryker infantry carrier vehicles, according to a CENTCOM press release.

The injured soldier was taken to the 21st Combat Support Hospital for treatment.

Names of those killed and injured are being withheld pending notification of next of kin.

The accident, CENTCOM said, wasn't caused by enemy action.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2003/n12092003_200312091.html

RIP :(

how did they crash?




this is sad. :( :( :(

[He219]

Two Stryker infantry carrier vehicles were traveling on a rural road when the accident occurred, causing them to roll over into a canal. (http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/Casualty_Report.asp?CasualtyReport=20031207.txt)


:(

[Spooky]

So much for another 20 million dollars in tax money. Stryker will be:

A: Worthless in combat

B: Worthless in rough terrain

C: RPG Magnet

D: Overall death trap

[jizzmonkey]

So much for another 20 million dollars in tax money. Stryker will be:

A: Worthless in combat

B: Worthless in rough terrain

C: RPG Magnet

D: Overall death trap

Dont hold strong opinions about things you dont understand, first of all the Stryker does very well in rough terrain, its not a bradley (ie infantry fighting vehicle) its a troop transport, RPG's will damage it, but as far as preliminary test's go, wont harm the crew, and I disagree with it being worthless in combat, having trained with them for the last year, they are very useful. We rolled one last summer at ft.knox, and besides the RWS(remote weapon system) being damaged everything was good, no one hurt seriously.

[Argyll]

Em that fact that you rolled one in training doesn't account well in a a rough environment then does it?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

What do you mean by that Argyll?.

I doubt there is a vehicle made that can't be rolled. Every armoured vehicle is a compromise between mobility, protection and firepower amongst other things. There is no such thing as a perfect, 'jack of all trades', can do every mission assigned to it equally well vehicle.
I'm getting sick of hearing people whine about how useless the Stryker/LAVIII is when it has yet to be tested in combat. I have read that USMC LAV's performed well in they're role during OIF. They apparently didn't turn into RPG magnet death traps. I know that the USA have different roles for the Stryker compared to the USMC LAV, but at the end of the day it was still combat.

[Ratamacue]

As far as I know, the Marines' LAV-25 is a different design from the Stryker. And also as far as I know, they're not really used in urban combat, but primarily for light armored recon. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[NcDeuce]

I was skeptical about the Stryker but I still support it.

I mean how many helicopters have crashed in the past 10 years? Hundreds, perhaps thousands...

Anyway, I'm going to bed, I drank too much Nyquil.

[Kingpin]

Dont hold strong opinions about things you dont understand, first of all the Stryker does very well in rough terrain, its not a bradley (ie infantry fighting vehicle) its a troop transport, RPG's will damage it, but as far as preliminary test's go, wont harm the crew, and I disagree with it being worthless in combat, having trained with them for the last year, they are very useful. We rolled one last summer at ft.knox, and besides the RWS(remote weapon system) being damaged everything was good, no one hurt seriously.

It seems that Stryker family concept developers took in mind that Bradley and M113 failed on rough terrain to do thing like BTR did during tests in Saudi Arabia and Emirates. :)

And now Stryker looks like heavy upgraded BTR (which also have RWS variant :) )

[Durandal]

So much for another 20 million dollars in tax money. Stryker will be:

A: Worthless in combat

B: Worthless in rough terrain

C: RPG Magnet

D: Overall death trap

No more or less than any other IFV/AFV. A RPG will penetrate a M2/3 like butter. Same with the LVPT7 the Marines use. The LAV is MUCH faster than either of the the other two. The vehicle is not designed to fight from, but is a "battle taxi", carring troops from one point of conflict to the other and providing support.

It does quite well in rough terrain. MUCH cheaper and easier to fix than a tracked vehicle, and much closer to a universal platform.Keep in mind that all the vehicles...APC, mortars, FS, etc, uses a Stryker...in theory.

The value of the Interim/Stryker Brigade is the number of assets it contains...multiple Predators and a high amount of artillery (including their own MLRS battery).




As far as I know, the Marines' LAV-25 is a different design from the Stryker. And also as far as I know, they're not really used in urban combat, but primarily for light armored recon. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I am correcting you. For all intents and purposes they are the same...as far as this discussion goes. Stryker is just a way of saying "newer LAV".

[Ballistic]

Dont hold strong opinions about things you dont understand, first of all the Stryker does very well in rough terrain, its not a bradley (ie infantry fighting vehicle) its a troop transport, RPG's will damage it, but as far as preliminary test's go, wont harm the crew, and I disagree with it being worthless in combat, having trained with them for the last year, they are very useful. We rolled one last summer at ft.knox, and besides the RWS(remote weapon system) being damaged everything was good, no one hurt seriously.

It seems that Stryker family concept developers took in mind that Bradley and M113 failed on rough terrain to do thing like BTR did during tests in Saudi Arabia and Emirates. :)

And now Stryker looks like heavy upgraded BTR (which also have RWS variant :) )

Actually, it just looks like an overhauled LAV.....the BTR is fugly. :P

Shame about the deaths though, more senseless deaths. I hope the bastards over there causing all these problems are dealt with in the harshest of manners, they deserve nothing less. RIP. :(

[Spooky]

To elaborate on my issues with the Stryker (and these are just observations that I've made from reading specs - there haven't been any specific battle field narratives on its performance that I've seen published):

-Has a higher center of gravity and comparitively narrow wheel base. I assume that this is the cause of the lateral rolling experienced in your training exercise as well as this recent incident.

-Although it was used in OIF to success, I don't think that RPGs were as prevalent in those situations. In an urban environment (where its speed will not be as great of an asset) it will be significantly more vulnerable. Then again, that can be said of any vehicle in an urban environment.

-There is a problem with having a LARGE profiled "battlefield taxi" with light armor plating. Too vulnerable to light improvised explosive devices(not just RPGs).

-I have some issues with the modular systems that have been proposed for its internal compartment. Especially the Stryker that is to serve as a medivac vehicle. As someone mentioned, when these things roll it is their fragile systems that get punched out, but it seems like the proposed variants contains too much sensitive equipment to perform its desginated role effectively after sustaining even minor damage.

-Similar problems as I have with the OICW - combat is rough. Will this thing be able to survive continued abuse/heavy use without having critical systems failing? It's easy to repair mechanical systems in the field but not electronic components.

I agree though that perhaps my original post was overly cynical or at least lacking in any anecdotal evidence.

[Durandal]

Will this thing be able to survive continued abuse/heavy use without having critical systems failing?.

Several armies field the LAV (I, II, and III). This is not all that "new" of a system. The "newness" is the WAY and the HOW it is being used. The Interim Brigade is the important issue, not the vehicle. Eventually the plan to replace the Stryker with a vehicle styled for that role.

Whether this happens or not, who knows.

[Royal]

To an extent I agree with Spooky.

First of all let me say that the Coyote as an ISTAR asset is way ahead of anything we have and we should have bought it years ago.

As a recce vehicle the concept works, but the whole 'battlefield taxi' idea was discredited years ago - look at Saxon, or even VPK's for f**ks sake. Either you need protection or you don't. Yes tracks are less manouverable, but they provide protection. The Isrealis and Russians have learned this the hard way - light armour doesn't survive IS Ops in urban areas, heavy metal does (sometimes). The only advantage I can see is air portability.

I find it strange as a classic light infantryman to be advocating heavy metal, but with public opinion on casualties having such a disproportionate effect on Ops, that's the way I see it.

air port

[Durandal]

Yes tracks are less manouverable, but they provide protection. You mean like an LVPT7? You HAVE to be kidding me. Or a Bradley? You can punch a whole through ANY of those with a .308.

The purpose of the Stryker in the Interim Brigade is to provide a one vehicle platform NOT be an M1A1.

Technology advancment are making people think it can be done. They may be right, they may be wrong. Things have changed since the Saxon, a lot. The Interim Brigade would have been perfect for convoy duty inthe early stages of the war and they would be perfect for Afghanistan right now.

[Royal]

You mean like an LVPT7? You HAVE to be kidding me. Or a Bradley? You can punch a whole through ANY of those with a .308.

No I mean proper tracks like Warrior, Bradley or better still something like the Isreali T55 conversions.


The Interim Brigade would have been perfect for convoy duty inthe early stages of the war and they would be perfect for Afghanistan right now.

Have you been to Afghanistan? Any kind of armour, let alone light armour will be crucified in the mountains, look at the Soviet experience there or for that matter the German experience in the Balkans in WWII.

[Durandal]

[quote=Durandal]You mean like an LVPT7? You HAVE to be kidding me. Or a Bradley? You can punch a whole through ANY of those with a .308.

A Bradley AND a Warrior will get punched by a .30, .308. or .50 cal round. An RPG will burn em like paper. Have you ever seen aluminum burn? Come on now. These vehicles provide pretty much the armor same protection. What they do have that supposedly the LAVIII has is high crew survivability rates compared to say French or Russian equipment along hte same lines. I think the Brits, Israelis, and the Germans design their stuff that way too.


Have you been to Afghanistan? Any kind of armour, let alone light armour will be crucified in the mountains, look at the Soviet experience there or for that matter the German experience in the Balkans in WWII.

Different wars my friend, different wars.

You know, you send ANYTHING through the mountains or a town or city and it gets chewed up there arre two things that help prevent this. Infantry and Technology. Keep in mind that the Russians lost their HEAVY armor in Grozny in 1995 because they sent it unsupported. We are not talking about BTR60s.

The purpose fo the unit is to have a fast moving, quick to deploy Brigade sized unit with a massive amount of heavy assests...like artillery and intelligence gather devices. The unit is not supposed to fight a tank war but deal with insurgents, urban centers, recon, security, and so on. All built around a single vehicle.

[martinexsquaddie]

er does'nt Warrior have chobham armour same stuff the challenger has and been up armoured so it is proof against rpgs and .50cal etc.
I also think your find its steel not aluminum
your confusing it with cvrt thats aluminium but then yanks seem to easily to confuse AFV identifications

[Royal]

Warrior has a steel turret and an aluminium hull (although the hull has Chobham protection). I've seen Warriors hit by mine strikes, RPG rounds and 37mm canon rounds (as well as an AAR of one hit by a 120mm HESH round from a Challenger I). In none of the above was there a serious crew casualty.

And yes, I've seen aluminium burn. Anyone who's had anything to do with the Royal Navy during or since the Falklands war has a horror of aluminium :(

[Spooky]

I have a hard time believing that .308 rounds will punch through a Bradley or Warrior. Were that the case, there would be no point in providing armor protection at all (except in the form of an M1A1 or Challenger). I think it's difficult to argue about this because, for obvious reasons, none of us have seen the documented armor ratings of these vehicles.

Granted what the army says they can take on paper might not be the actual damage it can take in combat, but it gives a comparitive idea.

Also, I realize these vehicles have been in operation for a bit and are not just "brand new", but the electronics systems/internal components are new and probably very fragile. Hell, they were thinking of using mag lifts in their medivac variant because hydraulics would pose the risk of exploding. Granted I got that from a documentary on History Channel on armored transports, so it might not be incredibly reliable but the mere thought of using something like that in the field makes me shudder.

I guess, like so many others on the forum, I'm starting to question the integration of technology into fundamental systems like in OICW and particularly Land Warrior. Many of the components in Stryker seem like a further dependence on things that can easily break and not-so-easily be repaired.

[marktigger]

the armour on aifv's is designed to stop shrapnel a .308 ap will probably punch a hole in it.
Warrior/Bradley are the ideal solutions but they are heavy an difficult to transport. Btw how well do tracks do on prolonged running on roads.
Tracks are slower on roads.
The battlefield taxi concept was discredited in the 80's and saxon was probably the worst vehical in that class. even as an IS vehical it failed.
LAV25 is a mark 1 and stryker is MK III so i would say there is some improvement. I would agree with royal about Heavy armour and the israeli Puma apc Based on the CENTURION
there is a role for some armour proection being avialabe for light forces hence Royals Bde buying Viking.

[Royal]

the armour on aifv's is designed to stop shrapnel a .308 ap will probably punch a hole in it.
Warrior/Bradley are the ideal solutions but they are heavy an difficult to transport. Btw how well do tracks do on prolonged running on roads.
Tracks are slower on roads.
The battlefield taxi concept was discredited in the 80's and saxon was probably the worst vehical in that class. even as an IS vehical it failed.
LAV25 is a mark 1 and stryker is MK III so i would say there is some improvement. I would agree with royal about Heavy armour and the israeli Puma apc Based on the CENTURION
there is a role for some armour proection being avialabe for light forces hence Royals Bde buying Viking.

From memory (in UNPROFOR days) warriors were changing tracks every 3-4000km (less often than MILAN tubes, which have a 3000km track milage) - a lot of that on road (?) the rest on unmade (gravel) tracks. CVR(T) were changing more often.

The Isreali vehicles I've seen in 'Recognition' are a T55 chasis with new superstructures, suspension, engines and a weapons platform and infantry compartment.

[marktigger]

ok so whats the wheel life on an LAV?

havent seen recognition since i left the sandy place. AMS don't appear to see a need to get it :roll:

[marktigger]

ok so two troops have been killed when a stryker rolled into a canal. were they crushed or did they drown?
And if it had been a Humvee or a bradley would it have made any difference if ti had rolled into a canal?

[martinexsquaddie]

but if it had'nt been a stryker would it have rolled?

[Durandal]

er does'nt Warrior have chobham armour same stuff the challenger has and been up armoured so it is proof against rpgs and .50cal etc.
I also think your find its steel not aluminum
your confusing it with cvrt thats aluminium but then yanks seem to easily to confuse AFV identifications

I do not confuse AFV identifications. Specifically I was refering to the M2 Bradly, which has an Aluminum Hull and like the Warrior a classified armor design for the turret (and probably front hull). Both the Marine LVPT7s and M2s took a good beating, not in huge quantities, but MANY more than M1A1s (which were mostly mobility kills...with RPGs).

All of these vehicles, much like the M1A1 are designed to receive a kill shot from a forward 60 degree arc on center. I'll agree that any fo these vehicles will shrug off a kill shot from that frontal arc. On the flanks and rear though the story is MUCH different.

I talked with the Army Officer responsible for getting the contract together for the 120mm M256 smoothbore gun, developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Germany. He claims that the DoD KNOWS there are sections of the tanks that can be penetrated by a .50 SLAP round and has seen the ballistic data.

Bottom line, there is NOT an APC that cannot be killed by an RPG and/or if not killed at least penetrated by a .50/12.7mm round. We had three American companies design ACR's that could penetrate the flank armor of BMP with flechette (one of the rquirements before the program was halted...Colt and AAI were two of the three, I forget the third). While some folks here may have seen or witnessed first hand impacts of such rounds...HMG or small HEAT warheads, that does not mean that they cannot penetrate, only that they did not.

What IS important however is crew survivability and as we have already discussed, current generation British and American AFVs and IFVs are designed to protect the crew as best as possible when receiving a kill shot. Unlike a lot of Russian and French equipment, these AFVs and IFVs normally do not explode in a brilliant fireball.

With that said, lets review some of the recent stuff about the Stryker.

Based on a LAV III vehicle.

Multiple Configurations including a Mobile Gun System using the Leo1A4 105mm.

Armored to withstand up to 14.5mm rounds (though like any APC this is probably not standard all aspect protection). Additional applique steel plate armor (132 panels all together per vehicle) was affixed after the ceramic plates built by the German firm IBD sent the wrong size and were later found to be of substandard compostion.

The 1st Brigade that is currently in Kuwait/Iraq shipped with 309 Strykers.

The Stryker's upper hull structures are beiing produced at the Lima Tank plant, in Ohio (I had a chance to visit this place when it was making M1s in 1990...it was also my first ride in an M1 :), which was magic ).


The contract will provide the Interim Brigade Combat Team with two vehicle variants that are deployable anywhere in the world in combat-ready configurations. The two variations of the LAV III that will be produced for the Interim Armored Vehicle program are the Infantry Carrier Vehicle and the Mobile Gun System. The IAV will have eight configurations besides the basic infantry carrier model — mortar carrier, reconnaissance vehicle, anti-tank guided missile vehicle, fire-support vehicle, engineer support vehicle, command-and-control vehicle, medical-evacuation vehicle and the NBC reconnaissance vehicle. The IAVs are not a replacement for the M1 Abrams tank or the M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The IAVs will be used in places, such as urban areas, where the heavy armored vehicles are not suitable for the mission.

The Infantry Carrier Vehicle is swift, easily maintainable and most importantly includes features designed for the safety of soldiers. The LAV has armor protection all around, even on top. The armor will stop 50-caliber bullets and protect against 152mm airburst shells, and the armor is twice as thick as original contract specifications called for. The tires of the LAV can be inflated or deflated from inside the vehicle to make it safer for different surfaces ranging from deep mud to hardtop, and the vehicle has run-flat tires. The LAV has a built-in fire suppression system and self-recovery winch.

The LAVs will run quieter than the current armored personnel carriers, increasing their "stealth." They will also give the new brigades a reduced logistics footprint, and make the units cheaper to operate than today's heavy brigades. The Interim Brigade Combat Team should be about 25 percent cheaper to operate than today's heavy brigades.

The LAV engine is a Caterpillar engine, which is common to the Army's family of medium tactical vehicles. That means some of the same repair parts can be used. Commonality of equipment reduces the brigade's logistical footprint and support costs and makes the entire vehicle fleet easier to maintain. This will allow the use of the same support structure for all of a unit’s vehicles, including mechanics and parts.


The first interim brigade combat team will contain three substitute vehicles, because the mobile gun system and support systems for the nuclear, biological and chemical reconnaissance vehicle, and the fire support vehicle, will not be ready by May 2003. The Army will not field an interim brigade combat team supported by all configurations of the Stryker IAV until 2005.


The Army's IBCT is a full-spectrum, wheeled combat force. It is employed in all operational environments against all projected future threats. However, it is designed and optimized primarily for employment in small-scale contingency operations in complex and urban terrain, confronting low-end and midrange threats that may employ both conventional and asymmetric capabilities. The IBCT deploys very rapidly, executes early entry, and conducts effective combat operations immediately on arrival to prevent, contain, stabilize, or resolve a conflict through shaping and decisive operations. The IBCT participates in war (with augmentation) as a subordinate maneuver component within a division or a corps and in a variety of possible roles. The IBCT also participates (with appropriate augmentation) in stability and support operations as an initial-entry force or as a guarantor to provide security for stability forces by means of its extensive capabilities.

The IBCT is a divisional brigade. It is designed to optimize its organizational effectiveness and to balance the traditional domains of lethality, mobility, and survivability with the domains required for responsiveness, deployability, sustainability, and a reduced in-theater footprint. Its two core qualities are its high mobility (strategic, operational, and tactical) and its ability to achieve decisive action through a dismounted infantry assault. The major fighting components are its motorized infantry battalions. The IBCT has a unique reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) squadron to enhance situational understanding.