Shadowalker
Active member
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050401-stryker-report.htm
Army report showing the failures of the Stryker vehicle in raq
Army report showing the failures of the Stryker vehicle in raq
"The reports we get from the field overwhelmingly is that the vehicle is performing in an outstanding manner," Lt. Col. Kevin Curry said.
"Soldiers say they appreciate the vehicle, they want to stay in that unit, they want to go back, and if they go back they want to go in that vehicle. You couldn't get a better stamp of approval or show of confidence."
cPFC/SAJROTC said:-Stryker limits the range of it's transport, the C-130 Hercules.
cPFC/SAJROTC said:Our local newspaper recently did a story using some elements from the linked story. We have a Stryker Brigade posted here in Alaska at Fort Richardson, and they sighted these failures with the vehicle:
-Alaska Strykers burn 11 tires a day
-Primary weapon cannot fire accurately while vehicle is in motion
-Laser sighter fails to function at night
-Vehicle susceptable to RPG fire
-Added armor makes tires have to be checked 3 times daily to insure pressure isnt dangerously high or low.
-Commander's screens are black and white, while most of the ways prescribed to ID a potentially dangerous vehicle is based on color.
-Some screens fail entirely
-Screens obscured (as article states)
-Stryker limits the range of it's transport, the C-130 Hercules.
-Seat belts do not fit soldiers wearing combat gear and/or body armor.
-Vehicle prone to rolling
Whispering Death said:The problem with computer screens and the seatbelts should probobly have been fixed earlier.
But at least 1/2 of those bulletpoints are just filler to make it look worse than it is.
Limits the range of a C-130? As the other guy said, so does a sack of potatoes.
Vulnerable to RPG fire? It wasn't designed to withstand RPG fire
Problems with tires with extra armor added? That's why the it is called EXTRA armor, because the vehicle wasn't designed to have that much armor.
cPFC/SAJROTC said:-Vehicle susceptable to RPG fire
Doppleganger said:cPFC/SAJROTC said:Our local newspaper recently did a story using some elements from the linked story. We have a Stryker Brigade posted here in Alaska at Fort Richardson, and they sighted these failures with the vehicle:
-Alaska Strykers burn 11 tires a day
-Primary weapon cannot fire accurately while vehicle is in motion
-Laser sighter fails to function at night
-Vehicle susceptable to RPG fire
-Added armor makes tires have to be checked 3 times daily to insure pressure isnt dangerously high or low.
-Commander's screens are black and white, while most of the ways prescribed to ID a potentially dangerous vehicle is based on color.
-Some screens fail entirely
-Screens obscured (as article states)
-Stryker limits the range of it's transport, the C-130 Hercules.
-Seat belts do not fit soldiers wearing combat gear and/or body armor.
-Vehicle prone to rolling
Those sound like some serious flaws that really should have been spotted during prototype testing. It's all very well saying that the troops are happy using it - that isn't the point. The point is that these flaws have slipped through when they should not have done. You wouldn't be happy with a car if you had to check the tyres three times a day or if some of the features failed to work properly right?. Why should combat troops have to put up with it?
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:Doppleganger said:cPFC/SAJROTC said:Our local newspaper recently did a story using some elements from the linked story. We have a Stryker Brigade posted here in Alaska at Fort Richardson, and they sighted these failures with the vehicle:
-Alaska Strykers burn 11 tires a day
-Primary weapon cannot fire accurately while vehicle is in motion
-Laser sighter fails to function at night
-Vehicle susceptable to RPG fire
-Added armor makes tires have to be checked 3 times daily to insure pressure isnt dangerously high or low.
-Commander's screens are black and white, while most of the ways prescribed to ID a potentially dangerous vehicle is based on color.
-Some screens fail entirely
-Screens obscured (as article states)
-Stryker limits the range of it's transport, the C-130 Hercules.
-Seat belts do not fit soldiers wearing combat gear and/or body armor.
-Vehicle prone to rolling
Those sound like some serious flaws that really should have been spotted during prototype testing. It's all very well saying that the troops are happy using it - that isn't the point. The point is that these flaws have slipped through when they should not have done. You wouldn't be happy with a car if you had to check the tyres three times a day or if some of the features failed to work properly right?. Why should combat troops have to put up with it?
Not to be rude but,
All vehicles have flaws and they are never fully know until combat, you can't simulate 6 RPGS, an IED and a grenade hitting a vehicle all at one time in a crowded urban area.
The M113 had flaws and its the most widely used and manufactured APC used in the world.
Question? How often do you driver your car throught pothole ridden, IED infested, Fydayeen shooting at you with RPGs in the streets road?
I'll say it again, all vehicles have flaws that aren't detected or spotted until combat because you don't see them until then. Thats why during Nam we tested alot of equiptment in actual combat but the loss of life was to great, so know we have to test and thats not as effective.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.