Stryking Out

The Army's Stryker vehicle is racking up enough losses in Iraq to prompt some questions about its vulnerability, according to this interesting story by the Associated Press:

Since the Strykers went into action in violent Diyala province north of Baghdad two months ago, losses of the vehicles have been rising steadily, U.S. officials said.

A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month in less than a week, according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost recently is classified.

In one of the biggest hits, six American soldiers and a journalist were killed when a huge bomb exploded beneath their Stryker on May 6. It was the biggest one-day loss for the battalion in more than two years.

"We went for several months with no losses and were very proud of that," a senior Army official said in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly. "Since then, there have been quite a few Stryker losses."

"They are learning how to defeat them," the Army official said of Iraqi insurgents.

When it was first introduced in 1999, Stryker quickly became the centerpiece of the Army's plans to field a faster, more agile and lethal force. The Army has since ordered more than 2,900 Stryker vehicles (which carries 13 soldiers, including two crew members) for a total of $13 billion from General Dynamics.

The AP story notes some disagreement about the vulnerability of Stryker, however. Some soldiers and commanders interviewed in Baghdad said the problem is that roadside bombs are getting more powerful and sophisticated and are better hidden, making all armored vehicles more vulnerable than they used to be. Still, others say the mounting losses are evidence that Stryker is more suited to peacekeeping than urban combat.

--Catherine MacRae Hockmuth

Comments

[Big D]

Didn't we go through this a couple of years ago when the Stryker was first sent to Iraq? Critics issued press releases left and right, telling us how troops were being slaughtered in them.

Then, it turned out that Strykers were eating up to a dozen RPGs (thanks to the bolt-on slat armor) with no casualties inside. The critics quietly melted away.

Now, it's the same old song. Once before, I was skeptical of the Styker, but at this point, I'd like to see some solid evidence that they are dying to weapons that would *not* kill something else. EFPs and triple-155 IEDs will go through a M-1 if they hit it right.

[Peter]

Again this post highlights the need rethink basic military vehicle design all the way from the Abrams Tank to the truck that hauls cargo.

The nature of the warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan has lent itself to the use IED's or mine as a effective method to Kill or wound US soldiers.

No vehicle can withstand a big enough mine, but we can design our vehicles using passive design features, highlighted by MRAP vehicles to enhance the vehicles and soldiers survivability.

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-3-04/vehicle-protection-design.htm

[irtusk]

the question isn't whether they are being destroyed, it's "are they protecting the occupants"

if five strykers get destroyed and there are zero serious casualties, then that is definitely a success