Talk:Stryker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Not an all-wheel drive vehicle

It is not an all wheel drive vehicle. If you ever had a truck or suv that is all wheel drive you will understand. All wheel drive you cannot disengage any of the drive wheels. It is full time 4x4, etc. The Stryker is a 4x8 unless it needs 8x8. That all wheel drive is a untrue statement! Then when you click all wheel drive it redirects you to four wheel drive. This link needs to be removed. It not a four wheel drive for sure.

Criticisms never lost

The criticism's were never lost. You just have to click history of the page and you can see them.

 One thing that most people don't know how fast the styker can really go.  GDLS states 62 but I know many people who have easily exceeded this.  Maybe only 62 on dirt.  I also mean secrets on how the systems work.  The Styker is so complex it takes over 1 month to train a group of soldiers to use it effectivaly.  As you can see there is not that much information available on it compared with that.  I had a week training just for familiarization.  My hardest problem is how to organize the information.  To make it pleasing to the eye.  

As far as being a guarded secret. I could not take any kind of camera to work and you can not take schematics out.

Having them somewhere in the deep recesses of History is not the same as having them available on top. You do realize this page gets updated, and eventually the old histories go so deep no one will seriously look for them, do you?

Well, by that standard, a T-72 can apparently do (or at least work up to) 110km/h. Let's just stick to design speeds and put anecdotes in the text. I would have thought that most modern equipment would take a month of training. Anyway, just write whatever you are comfortable with.

As for style, you might want to avoid statements like "ton of computer equipment" - not awfully professional or neutral looking. BTW, let's not put your own stuff on top in the Talk page... Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right in being a mechanic I can have a bias opinion. However, most encyclopedia's do not offer pro's and con's but just the facts. I have seen most of the lincoln vehicles wiki's and none of them have pro's or con's. I think this page should be devoted to the facts. There are tons of them. Agian having worked on them I know more than the general public, but I have to be careful in what I put on the wiki since some info might compromise soldiers in the field using them. I have to make sure whatever I say is already out there somewhere. There are two main vehicles the RV and the ICV. If you see one you will prob see one of these. I have never seen a MGS and I worked on them. I would like to ask you how you even know about the stryker and or why you helped with the page? Thanks

You do know that the Stryker isn't some fiercely guarded secret right, and that its existance and information about it are readily available on a number of .mil websites and others? -- Thatguy96 00:07, 22 June 2006

I think he's referring to the details, which he may not be able to discuss as opposed to generalities. Nevertheless, I agree it is unlikely that the detail required in a encyclopedic level article will require bumping into too many secrets. By the way, thank you for helping to salvage and move all the Controversy text. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

To PlumbTN:

• It depends on the nature of vehicle being discussed. I would guess most Lincoln cars do not have controversies. Military vehicles are more likely to be controversial, though some page structures call their controversy by a different name. For example, the T-72's Design Characteristic section is actually a fairly in-depth discussion of the pros and cons of the T-72, leading to some stuff about Soviet design philosophy and decisions.
• In talking about the criticisms and counters, the technical characteristics of the vehicle is also being discussed. For example, "Critics attack the Stryker RWS for not being stabilized" is a way of saying "The Stryker RWS currently lacks stabilization." Furthermore, when discussing a controversial vehicle, that there is a controversy is a fact of the vehicle.
• I've pondered separating it on and off, but I figured the article still wasn't big enough for merit splitting.
• It is actually a good idea when writing Wikipedia to try and find some open-source material to back yourself up anyway - secret stuff or not. Verifiability is important.
• As for how I got involved in this page, I've been hearing things about this Stryker for awhile. In June 2005, I came on and decided the Criticisms section looked a bit bare, so like any good Wikipedian, I decided to expand it. Eveyr once in a while, I come and sort things out a bit to maintain better POV. In general, people have a tendency to undercut in each other's sectors, so I simply transfer them up and down. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are far too many criticisms maybe we should devote a page to this instead of making it the page.

Good idea. We can call it "Controversy about the Stryker" or something. Only thing is, right now the Controversy is most of the page. Oh well, I guess we can talk about Shinseki's vision or something instead. Kazuaki Shimazaki 00:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the MGS is the talked about variant.

There's a reason for it - mostly concerning that the MGS is very late and apparently quite flawed (which explains why it is very late) that even most Stryker supporters seem forced to leave it out as an exception. You did notice there were only "3" made to date. Kazuaki Shimazaki 00:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the MGS page but the Stryker in general page. No other variants are talked about in any detail. There are a lot of lies about this vehicle as well.

Considering the primary draw for the Criticisms came from a report to a Congressman (even if the report's ordering might have a political motivation) and reports from two other agencies, to call them "lies" (implying deliberateness) is a serious accusation. Kazuaki Shimazaki 00:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I know I was a mechanic for GDLS for a while on the Strykers that are in the 1st Brigade 25th ID.

Good and bad news. Good news is that you have personal experience. Bad news is a possible conflict-of-interest. Tell me, if you agreed the Stryker really stank, will you be equally enthusiastic about adding all your horror stories with it on? :D Kazuaki Shimazaki 00:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is the MGS talked about so much there are only 3 made to date. I will be devoting a lot of time trying to fix this article. I will be taking a lot of criticisms out. Please make a page for the criticisms if you want to list a ton of them. I will also be doing the different variants. Unless someone has more experience with these than me let us work together on this. If you have not been around them or worked on them please leave this alone and use the talk page to share your concerns or additions. Thanks

Page doesn't mention its designation

The page does not mention its designation. I believe its called the LAV-105, but I'm not exactly sure. Jigen III 11:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

disambiguation(sp?) maybe?

there seem to e a lot of things that use stryker, should there be a disambiguation page instead? I've seen a few with only two or three entries--198.53.138.109 17:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

news item

this news item [1] should be worked into this article. Kingturtle 09:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

resembles the South African vehicle?

The Stryker does not really resemble the South African vehicle any more than it resembles several other vehicles. The South African vehicle has the engine in the port rear, and the infantry cab in the middle. The stryker has the engine in starboard front, and the infantry cab in the rear. Troopers dismount from the side in the South African vehicle, and from the rear in the Stryker. They mount different turrets, and have a different number of wheels. They are not really that similar. So I am taking that passage out. -- Geo Swan 17:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe Canada's Strykers have already been delivered

I believe Canada's Strykers are not just on order, but have already been received... 67.70.86.103 20:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See below and/or read more on all the LAV III variants please. CraigWyllie 06:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Army using to replace its Leopard MBT?

The article asserts that the Canadian Army is replacing its Leopard tanks with Strykers. This is incorrect. The Canadian Army has been using vehicle closely related to the Stryker, for over a decade. The Stryker incorporates some lessons from the Canadian vehicles. The Canadian vehicles were originally equipped with a pair of propellers, to make them amphibious. The marine propulsion system was removed, and the weight and space allocated to additional storage. The Canadian Forces may supplement its existing fleet of wheeled vehicles with strykers, or stryker variants. But these will not replace the Leopards.

A variant of these vehicles has been proposed, worked on, but is not ready -- the Mobile Gun System. They would carry a large, high-velocity cannon, like a tank. But they would not be tanks. They may be tasked in some of the roles that would otherwise fall to a tank. -- Geo Swan 17:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Stryker, per se, is not replacing the Leopards, but Canada is replacing its Leopard tanks with the LAV III-based mobile gun systems mentioned above. This was announced back in 2003 by then defence minister, John McCallum. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/equipment.html and http://www.defense-aerospace.com/produit/28031_us.html. The relevant part of the announcement is: "Acquisition of a mobile gun system will allow us to replace the current fleet of Leopard tanks and continue to maintain direct fire capability."

I've removed the superfluous mention of the Canadian MGS purchase from the very first paragraph of this article - I'm Canadian and as proud as I am it doesn't belong in the very first paragraph. Besides, it's already in the "Operators" section - right where it belongs. (That sentence was also incorrect - it said the purchase was cancelled, yet the reference was to the original purchase announcement.)

I've updated the "Operators - Canada" section and provided much more recent references. CraigWyllie 06:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, in late 2006, after meeting tougher than expected Taliban resistance, the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan was augmented by the addition of about two dozen Canadian Leopard tanks. Would they have been Canadian MGS, if those were available? I don't know. -- Geo Swan 14:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Initial Impressions Report -- Operations in Mosul, Iraq,"

The report states, for example, that an armoring shield installed on Stryker vehicles to protect against unanticipated attacks by Iraqi insurgents using low-tech weapons works against half the grenades used to assault it. The shield, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times daily. 11 tire and wheel assemblies are changed daily after failing

The additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season, mud appeared to cause strain on the engine, the drive shaft and the differentials

The vehicle's computers are too slow and overheat in desert temperatures or freeze up at critical moments, such as "when large units are moving at high speeds simultaneously" and overwhelm its sensors. [2]

While I think this may well be significant, we should probably wait and see how this report bears out before adding it into the article. It's premature, and would turn out to be misleading if the report doesn't stand the criticism that is bound to be coming. siafu 16:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The expenditure in wheels is irrelevant compared with the rate tracks are being worn out by Brads and M1s in Iraq... the Army nearly had a shortage of tracks. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

Link dead...

I have disabled the link to Star & Stripes because it now references the homepage www.military.com. Apparently, the page has been removed. If anyone can find a replacement, that would be welcome. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 16:08 June 9 2005

Never mind, it is back up. I also made a substantial addition to the Criticisms section. I checked some of the history, and I believe this to be new stuff to this page, not something proposed and deleted earlier. I also added a couple of links to critic articles and sites, and a link to the BTR-60 (critics often compare to Stryker to the BTR series) --Kazuaki Shimazaki 18:33 June 9 2005.

Deleted IFV categorization

With only a .50MG and grenade launcher, it is highly questionable that the "ICV" (Infantry Carrier Variant) Stryker deserves the name of IFV (which generally refers to vehicles with autocannon or even small low-velocity guns). Kazuaki Shimazaki 16:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yet?

I see a bunch of improvements and corrections/other more optimistic data points have been added after I decided to dramatically expand the criticisms for the vehicle.

I'm just curious how are they going to eventually bump the C-130 to fly Stryker 1000 miles (as the "yet" implies). As I understand it, it is a weight problem that's preventing it from flying the required distance (600 or 100 or whatever it is), and the Stryker is probably not going to get any lighter, so how are they planning to change things the C-130 fly it any further? Perhaps a little elaboration by the person entering that correction is welcome. Kazuaki Shimazaki 06:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the C-130 difficulty is that all the Mowag variants, except the MG armed Strykers, are slightly too tall to be driven off a C-130, and straight into battle. But they can be shipped with the turrets dismounted, and then remounted upon arrival. Even the MGS is too tall. This operation requires a crane, and a couple of hours of work -- a problem in a hot landing zone -- but not so much of a problem once a landing zone has been secured, and made safe from snipers and direct fire.

The US Army considered the ability to drive straight off the transport and into battle to be critical -- hence the 50 cal armament. -- Geo Swan 14:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Both weight and size are problems. At the base 19 tons (with no slat armor, no ammunition, and no crew), the C-130 can fly a Stryker 860 miles. The C-130 also could not take off from high altitude locations in hot weather, such as Afghanistan in the summer, because the warmer, thinner air would provide insufficient lift. An additional ton of equipment (crew, ammo, et cetera) would reduce range to 500 miles. These ranges are assuming an unarmored C-130. For an armored bird, the range with a Stryker and one ton of equipment is around 70 miles. The slat armor makes Stryker wider than a Herc's cargo bay, and also raises its weight over the maximum safe weight of the C-130, so it could not be carried on the same plane. As it is, most variants will only fit if the tires are deflated. It is C-130 capable, but for short ranges in cool weather or low altitudes, and not with the drive-off/fight-off capability that was touted as a selling point. The Dark 21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Some wheeled vehicles can swim

In the section "ICV and general complaints", the first bullet, second sentence stated "Unlike tracks, wheels cannot swim without waterjets." While certainly true for the Stryker, there are fully-amphibious armored vehicles without waterjets/propellers that use their wheels for propulsion in the water. Examples include Cadillac Gage's private-venture LAV-150 4x4 and LAV-300 6x6 AFVs, and France's Berliet VXB-170 4x4 APC. Xanov 22:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Canadian precursors to the Stryker were equipped with props, and were amphibious. The water propulsion systems weren't useful enough to retain. They were removed, and the space devoted to storage. -- Geo Swan 14:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Russian BTR-80 Armored Personnel Carrier, which highly resembles the Stryker, is also amphibious. I'd have to argue that amphibious capability is absolutely crucial to certain forces such as the Marine Expeditionary Force under certain circumstances.

criticisms

I think the criticisms section is way too long. A lot of the info here is not specific to Stryker, but should instead be relocated to articles about tank/APC design or something like that. The washington post link I provided pretty much sums it up that soldiers support the vehicle and that it is effective and that the army will keep it. However, the wiki article as it stands right now is very biased toward criticisms, looks like a laundry list copied from that single link, and sounds very unspecific and unprofessional BlueShirts 23:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

All right, while the criticisms section had actually changed some (mostly soft-soaping) since I put it up, I still created it and I'd come and defend it.

1) Criticism of the Stryker is not really limited to the vehicle itself, but also the entire concept. The critic's thesis can be summarized into "Wheeled combat vehicles suck, and the Stryker sucks even for a wheeled vehicle." Thus I first had to summarize the weaknesses of wheeled vehicles, then go onto specific Stryker weaknesses to account for their point.

2) Soldiers that like Stryker is nothing new. There wouldn't be a controversy if the Stryker sucks in theory and all the troops hate it too.

3) A critical analysis of both articles would show that the interviewees do not substantially disagree. Since it is long, I've split it off here.

4) Yes, the criticisms list is kind of laundry. I left it that way. Put all the criticisms on one end and counter criticisms on the other. It is pretty obvious what my personal POV is, but I think that letting both sides stand, with minimal processing, comes the closest to achieving NPOV. Kazuaki Shimazaki 17:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

So theres too much NPOV "flannel". Consider it good precis practice and trim it.GraemeLeggett 21:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't hold a specific opinion on this vehicle, but reading about it on the web, I've found a disproportionate amount of critical articles on this on many different, independent websites. I therefore can't see any problem with the large critical section in this article. Joffeloff 03:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-4) The MGS and the NBC variants are the only ones in development where reports have come out that are almost brutally critical. The MGS is flawed in theory and poorly implemented, and the NBC variant seems to have been made unnessecarily complicated making it quite worthless when compared to existing M93 Foxes in inventory. I have heard nothing negative about the other variants currently in development.

Well, considering the importance of a MGS in a Stryker brigade as originally conceived, its failure is already a lethal flaw in the program. Now we are missing the whole "light tank" thing. IIRC, the mortar carrier is just that, a mortar carrier that requires you to take the mortar off the vehicle to fire (which means the crew's exposed). Compare that to a real SPM like the 2S23. The others presumably suffer all the problems of the base Stryker, such as being overweight and of poor cross country abilities. I doubt any of them are lighter than the APC variant and the APC is already marginal on a C-130 at best, so they probably won't load, period. Do we really need more specific, MGS-style flaws in all those vehicles beyond the ones afflicting the Stryker program in general? Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-5) I don't remember the Styker being devised as a catchall replacement for anything. The Stryker represents a move to create units within the US Army that are more flexible. You'll note this in plans starting to come out of the Army saying that Mechanized Infantry units can be modified so that they can be equiped either with Stykers or Bradleys depending on the tasks at hand. Furthermore, I meant it more as a catchall in terms of being useful in all enviornments. The Stryker is ideally suited in my mind to street patrols and urban enviornments. -- Thatguy96 10:57, 10 April 2006

Reorganization

The criticisms section needs to be reworked badly.
1. The organization of this section is not very professional. There shouldn't be an 'Updates' section, this should be incorporated directly into the appropriate place in the article. I also think that the various criticisms could be trimmed down significantly and organized a bit more specifically than 'ICV and general complaints', for example.

Agreed on the "Updates" part, Done. ICV is almost the baseline variant of Stryker. I've tried splitting the two, and as you can see, there are about two ICV specific points (and I suspect the cramped spaces are hardly really an ICV problem). Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Many of the criticisms lack reputable sources. I don't see any cited sources for the criticisms in 'ICV and general complaints' and 'MGS-specific criticisms'. If they're somewhere else in the article they need to be moved next to the appropriate criticism.

Done. Moved up. Besides, you might also note the lack of sources in the Counter section. Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

3. As other people have stated, the 'Wheeled vehicles VS. Tracked vehicles' section does not seem appropriate for this article. This a much more general issue and is not specific to Stryker. This needs to be moved to a more appropriate wikipedia article such as Tracked vehicle. This article can briefly mention the general criticism over wheeled vehicles vs tracked vehicles and link to the appropriate wikipedia article.

OK, you do it. I took a quick look and had trouble figuring exactly how to fuse it so we don't lose data. Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Instead of citing the washington post article under 'Updates', link directly to the internal report which is at http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-StrykerBrigade-12212004.pdf. Also mention that this report states that the slat armor was effective in the defense of certain types of RPGs.

The present criticisms already discussed its limited aspect in which it is effective. Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

5. The only reputable source cited in the Criticisms section is the Washington Post article. The rest look self-published with no independent review or editing. This section needs to cite some reliable and reputable sources that backs up the criticisms. The criticisms that can't be backed up need to go. --JRavn 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The POGO report was written by a professional agency. The report to the Congressman was republished in Globalsecurity, doubly ensuring at least a minimal reliability. The Combat Reform website itself quotes countless newspapers and photographs. That covers virtually all the stuff in Criticisms. Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If anything, it is the Counter-Criticisms section that is inadequately supported. To today I had yet to see the source claiming a 600 mile operational radius for the C-130 after Strykers are loaded, nor about that Kongsberg RWS which is supposed to be stabilized this time (it is now 2006, the claimant hasn't come back to claim it has been installed yet). Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Credentials

Endorsement

I don't believe that being published on Global Security's counts as "doubly insuring reliability" any more than posting other congressional reports counts as an endorsement by them. Virgil61 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said that it was endorsed. I don't know if the Globalsecurity's runners agrees or disagrees with the conclusions of this or any other report. I just said the fact it was included in Globalsecurity (rather than just his own webpage) says something positive for its reliability. I'm presuming GS doesn't generally let total pieces of junk sit around on their page. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Validity

The report by Victor O'Reilly, a fiction writer whose exposure to the military was tagging along with the 82d and a few other units, was simply put on Global Security's site along with congressional reports (being written for a congressman). Virgil61 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That last should make it above average as far as sources go - probably one of the reasons why GS archives them. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between being a valid source, ie a congressman's report and the issues behind that report.Virgil61 04:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing. Since the source its valid, its viewpoint can be included. Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

”Since the source is valid”, ie it’s on a website, is a weak argument especially if not up front about it's origins. It's intellectually dishonest not to include it imho. Virgil61 03:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply here. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Experience

He's never served a day in the military and after 15 years in the Army I wouldn't call spending a few weeks with a unit exactly impressive. Virgil61 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is insulating that he has the same experience as a 15 year veteran solider. On the other hand, it does give him the advantage of being able to talk without potentially frying a 15-year career. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That point isn't valid. Take it from me--bitching, complaining and bellyaching over poor equipment is a sport in the Army and the vast majority of decent officers and NCOs don't 'stand down' on giving honest feedback. The first bite at that apple came from the initial competative tests between the Gavin and Stryker where soldiers from Mech units participated and whose feedback came into play. No one's 'career suffers' from it.

Bellyaching in your barracks or over beer is not the same as doing it where everyone can see it (the press, blatantly open websites, writing publicly available reports). The Competitive Test part I'd do below. Kazuaki Shimazaki 08:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Use it as a source, fine, but don’t fool yourself. You’re not aware of the Army’s AAR process or CALL reports in general; NCOs and officers write after-action reports on, among other things, newly fielded equipment where they openly express their views. The CALL criticisms are exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about and contradict your assumption that official honest feedback isn’t given since it depends on end user input. CALL is quite valid, it criticizes the lack of vehicle refinements in response to the conditions present in Iraq and the approach to training. Virgil61 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply here. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

His sole advantage came from being able to write well enough to supply an opinionated report for a congressman with vested interests whose constituents lost out on a lucrative contract. Virgil61 04:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

His sole advantage came from being able to write well enough to supply an opinionated report for a congressman with vested interests whose constituents lost out on a lucrative contract. Virgil61 04:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly has an opinion. But he is not writing for Wikipedia and does not necessarily have to be NPOV. And unlike what you've been doing so far, he at least is able to mix his opinionated statements with things that at least look like facts. He also just happens to have CALL and POGO come to a similar conclusion. 08:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You want me to do a point by point rebuttal right here? You're distracting the issue of source validity by making that sniping accusation. I've given you a fact about a source used to criticize the Stryker that you were unaware of; he was hired to do the report by a biased congressman. It’s an important element in measuring the validity of a source. His conclusions are drastically different than the CALL report and dramatically more vast in scope, not the ‘similar conclusion’ you claim. The CALL does not call into question the core validity of the Stryker. What it does is mention it’s shortcomings and the process for improvement. Nothing dramatic to anyone who’s dealt with fielded new military equipment. Between the CALL report and O’Reilly’s tome there’s an very obvious qualitative difference. You also missed POGO considering reassessing it’s position: http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2005/06/tell_all_the_tr.html.

Many if not a majority of O’Reilly’s questions' are loaded. He makes wrong assumptions about how the Marines used the nearest equivalent, LAVs, in Iraq. They often went without close support. He misquotes that the Stryker can’t defeat RPG rounds. He makes factually mistaken comments about negative criticism not being available to Army leadership while quoting criticisms from the CALL report used by that same leadership. He states the Stryker isn’t C-130 deployable when it is. And further the requirement for the C-130 is intra-theater deployment not global deployments. He makes a claim that Marine LAVs were sent to Afghanistan via C-130 as a criticism of the Stryker but doesn’t mention that where the Marines flew in from and their distances or conditions.

A simple google would’ve led you to the GAO’s addressing many of his accusations of impropriety in testing: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03671.pdf , which occured months before the date of O’Reilly’s paper which is odd. Further research would’ve revealed the GAO’s criticisms of Stryker, which are more valid and thoughtful and would form the better basis for ‘sources’ than an angry website and a paid political tome. Virgil61 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply here. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Political motives

The congressman he was commissioned to write the report for, Saxton, happens to have a division of UDLP in his district. They manufactured a variant of the 113 that was the Stryker's main competitor, which lost out. It's an analysis based on politically driven motivations, might be important to note! Virgil61 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but the fact it may be politically motivated does not mean the report's data is false. UDLP's proposal may indeed be superior in an objective sense. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no 'maybe' about it's political motivation, it's a fact. They 'may' be superior somewhere but were found not to be in an open competition judged and reviewed at least partially by 'combat developers', ie those who were in Mech units and play the part of user representative during selection, along with engineers, analysts etc. It's not done blindly without soldier input. I know, I was a combat developer for a PSYOP system and came from a line unit who was to receive that system. My and my partner's input in requirments and later in deciding which system to choose played a large role in the process. Virgil61 04:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you have felt the same had they picked PSYOP system B instead of the A that you and your partner wanted, despite that you may be able to see countless flaws in System B? You had an input, but the decision is far elsewhere.

Furthermore, you assumed that the Stryker program was run as openly or as well as tbe one you participated in, even though you apparently have no role in it. And you assume the critics are wrong even though you (at least as far as you have demonstrated) cannot find a truly critical flaw in the report. Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You aren’t acquainted with the Army’s acquisition process and you’re making assumptions. The decision wasn't made 'far elsewhere'. It was made by the same command body that took our combat developer input and had us cross-check requirements and whom we worked with to improve after fielding. The Stryker combat developers did the same thing since the procurement system is standardized. You don’t know that, I guess it’s understandable. As with the Stryker even post-testing and selection refinements were carried after fielding as soldiers continued to use the systems on deployments, ie something unforeseen always pop up, it’s the nature of the business.Virgil61 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And you assume the critics are wrong even though you (at least as far as you have demonstrated) cannot find a truly critical flaw in the report. Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Read my posts above on the ‘truly critical flaws’, although you're changing the focus of the my original commentary on this section, the intent of my statement was to criticize the source's motivations (a paycheck from a politician with a vested interest.Virgil61 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Rail deployment, Rhetorical Style

Additionally the self-deploying criticism linking to a photo showing Strykers on a train bed seems exceptionaly silly and amateurish. No context whatsover. Are they meeting up with troops already deployed? Are they traveling a great distance so utilizing soldiers to drive them who are prepping for deployment is a waste of time and resources? There are a million reasons for that to be a rationale approach to transporting them in one situation. I'm curious have you ever been in a Stryker while in combat? Virgil61 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was a caption: Strykers need transporters to get to the battlefield and once there, cannot survive non-linear attacks, so what's the point? I wasn't sure how to integrate such a caption in a link-only situation, so I just decided to let the picture speak for itself. They used too much JPEG to be sure, but I think I see heads on the 2nd and 3rd Strykers. When combined with the report stating how much Strykers cost to run, I'm inclined to the side this is a rail deployment. Kazuaki Shimazaki

Do yourself a favor, type Mike Sparks into google groups, that’s his web site. Read the article; he uses terms like “narcissist egomaniacs”, not exactly the stuff of professional discourse. Even his captions are questionable. One criticizes an LAV for having the wrong paint job which has nothing to do with it’s capabilities, problems or effectiveness. Part of the article includes an amateurish tirade against DOD, Jessica Lynch, etc.

Anyway, I think you're missing my point. I'm not sure how else to put this--again--it isn't unusual for the Army to use rail for deployment of everything to port areas from their home station. Our humvees were loaded on rail for deployment. 'Heads' on the Strykers doesn't mean anything, perhaps they were just loaded or these are the individuals tagged to drive the rest off when they get to their destination. The proof in the pudding isn't whether they are put on rail to get to port areas but what happens when they get to Kuwait. Since I've been there I'll tell you, they're unloaded and meet up with their units. Then they are driven the 350 miles to Baghdad and beyond. Virgil61 04:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Caring only about the present, not recollections of ancient memory, let's take into account this is his website, not a professional paper. Or that his webpage is not only about the Stryker, but really about what (at least he sees) as a widespread Army culture problem. Under that, going off about DOD and Lynch, and the wrong camouflage is perfectly appropriate.

All right, in light of your personal testimony, I'd withdraw that criticism on the page (I'd actually prefer you put your personal experience in as an alternate viewpoint in the Counter-Criticisms section, but that might violate the "Original Research" stuff, so...) Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I do, to be fair, think the newsgroup gossip that he was kicked out of the USMC for running in w/ authority plausible - it'd jive with what he's writing. BTW, if you had looked closely, the first picture with the wrong colored LAV really is meant to show the terrain-mobility weaknesses of wheels - something that is quite consistent w/ physics. Kazuaki Shimazaki 16:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not being an American but very much a physical wimp, I think I would never have the chance to even ride in a Stryker. Still, nothing I've learnt about it so far makes me want it as my ride if I'm going to a warzone. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's something to help you. When you're at home in the US or wherever and getting your info from poor or opinionated sources and guys on the ground who use the equipment day in/day out and whose lives depend on it praise that equipment in numbers that outweigh the criticism, trust the guys on the ground.Virgil61 04:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I parse through what they have to say very carefully whenever they become available. However, I'm not relying on them totally for information, espeically since reports such as CALL and POGO also have problems.

On the subject of trooper testimonials, I've read both raves and rants. Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you’ve read negatives by soldiers in anywhere near same number as positives. I’d wish you’d bring that same amount of critical ‘parsing’ to the use of the geocities site or the uncritical acceptance of a paid political tome as sources. For some reason you’ve got something against the Stryker that seems to move you to throw impartiality to the wind. You accept O’Reilly criticisms without hesitation but admittedly don’t have the faintest idea of how the acquisition process or the AAR process works, nor seem aware that at least one of your sources has had second thoughts on the matter. Criticism is fine and should be presented, CALL, the GAO reports and POGO are fine examples. In the final analysis I’m not opposed to criticism in fact it should be addressed, but using valid sources, not some random idiot’s outburst on a geocities webpage, or a politically motivated report by O’Reilly without giving full disclosure is amateurish.Virgil61 03:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alt-Silverburg

I see you have deleted my bolding, the first change to that section since I put it up. I'm not complaining, I just want to know why you think that the recoil of the MGS cracking test helmets of dummies, which implies a danger to any humans operating the thing and not just the equipment, is not worthy of being bolded. Thank you. Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Band tracks

The references to "band tracks" and the provided link http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/bandtracks.htm seems rather out of place. Any comments? Erzengel 17:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would you say that? One of the points made by the anti-wheel people is that with modern band tracks, most of the advantages of wheels can be regained without most of the disadvantages. Why do you feel a link to a page explaining what those are is out of place? Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be unwieldy if this track vs wheel argument were to be replicated for every other vehicle page. Perhaps moving the discussion to Tracked vehicle, expanded to include the Stryker as a case study, would be better. Erzengel 00:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that the geocities link is dead speaks well in support of Erzengel, here. Why not start a "band tracks" article on Wikipedia?Drogue 00:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A WHOIS of the 131.46.41.71 IP who added the band track references leads to a .mil address, so I have no reason to doubt the author's familiarity with the issue. A cursory Google search of "band track" also confirms many points made of the technology. I still believe, however, that the provided Geocities link (especially in it's current state) is unsuitable and that a link to a more reputable source would be more welcome.

I agree that this band track technology warrants it's own article. Erzengel 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

M113 Wankfest

There are far too many references in this article to the M113 and how it could be better than the stryker given X Y and Z speculation. Could we at least eliminate the redundant bits? (like how the first line of the "specific criticisms of the stryker" is redundant with the whole wheels vs. tracks section) This is supposed to be an objective article about the Stryker, not a Gavin circlejerk. Night Gyr 22:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling it a wankfest is certainly appropriate. The M113 is an obsolete piece of junk. Soldiers get bumped arround and crawled out dizzy. The thing is a slow, fat target. Vietnam era troopers prefer to ride on the roof of the vehicle instead of being in the transport compartment, because mine or RPG is likely to create catastrauphic failure to the vehicle--aluminum crumbles in high temperature. The sane critics of the Stryker focuses on the concept of interim brigade/tracked vehicle instead of comparing Stryker to M113.(plz don't call it Gavin) -Chin, Cheng-chuan

Just using the typical fanboy's own term. Night Gyr 18:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Firstly, the so called "wankfest" represents a very real view by critics of the Stryker - click the links provided. Thus, according to the NPOV policy, their view must be at least included, though you may add a criticism.

2) I am not familiar with the faction that thinks that the solution is a "interim brigade/tracked vehicle", though no doubt such a solution would also satisfy the M113 Faction that I am familiar with (they have an affection for General Gavin, but mostly they just think Stryker is a deathtrap).

3) Second, the M113 has undergone a few generations of revisions between Vietnam and its A3 variant, and Stryker in any case is also a modification of a long lasting family itself.

4) Considering the much higher off-road mobility of the M113 (this is physical due to the greater area of tracks), they would tend to spend more time off road, and thus they naturally get bumped around more - it isn't hard to be relatively smooth if you keep running on flat roads.

5) As for RPGs, both are short by a couple hundred plus millimeters of armor to resist an RPG without an addition like a pre-det birdcage. The mine disadvantage is acknowledged in CounterCriticisms.

6) As for relative size, it is pretty undeniable Stryker's bigger. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that anyone of any military reputation, such as a retired general or well-known designer of weapons supports the use of a modified M113 in place of the stryker, or is it just a bunch of armchair internet tacticians?

for example, the article currently contains: "Since Stryker is barely airmobile and unit cost is high, funds could be more effectively spent on more versatile systems instead of a narrow-focus armored car. Israeli M113 Zeldas and US (informally named) SuperGavins are successful in urban combat yet can cope with conditions that would strand armored cars."

"funds could be more effectively spent" is blatant POV, and needs a citation. A random internet webpage is not a reliable source, so until we have an expert's analysis to cite, the article needs to be stripped to facts. NPOV policy supports acknowledgement of criticisms, but they need to be cited to reliable sources, rather than just representing the speculations of editors themselves. Night Gyr 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The meat of the Criticism section even now (when I first expanded the Criticims several months ago it was my primary reference) is based on the report to the Congressman, and as you can see from the link, is good enough to merit reprinting in Globalsecurity.org, a site of some repute. The "random site" to which you obviously refer (and which is used for some of the others) is a mix of armchairs and real officers. But even some of the armchairs boast considerable histories. Short of saying they are flat out lying about their histories (a serious charge), one has to assume they have some experts onboard. They further back up the articles they write with countless newspaper articles and even pictures (hard to argue against them short of a fabrication accusation).

As for the "funds ... spent" part, it is clearly in Criticisms, so there is no confusion of the POV, and is merely the reasonable conclusion considering the criticisms levied. If you accept that the Stryker is barely airmobile, costly, and not too protective, what else is there to say?

Oh, that other guy down there, just wait a bit. My lunch period is almost up, but I'd try to reply to you tonight. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll repost here what I wrote above. The report by Victor O'Reilly was written for Congressman Saxton who has in his district, a division of the company who fielded the main competitor to the Stryker which lost the procurment contest. Again, a few weeks with an Army unit by a fiction writer isn't what I'd call a 'considerable history'. Global Security posted the report along with several other congressional pieces including bills, which they did nothing to vett, change or comment on. Their hosting was informational not an indication of support nor even seemed to vett any of the congressional bills or articles on the page. Virgil61 09:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly agree with this view of the pro-M113 camp as cited in this article. I have seen nothing official to suggest this viewpoint is held by a large portion of the US military, especially seeing as the M113 is still being fielded and there doesn't seem to be any serious effort to get them back on the front lines. If put in a room with the people in this camp I would have to say that the Israeli Zahal (IDF) said the exact same thing about M3/M5 halftracks in the 1970s, that they could do everything an M113 could do if upgraded properly, but cheaper. In the end they were shown that the M113 simply provided a better system for the tasks at hand. The After Action reports from units using the Stryker APCs (haven't heard about any of the other models) have been quite pleased with how the vehicle works for the situation they're in. The new Army plan, as well, appears to be to create units that can be quickly redeployed with either Strykers or Bradleys (or some other vehicle on the horizon) to suit the task at hand rather than trying to find a catch-all vehicle. -- Thatguy96 01:51, 10 April 2006

1) It doesn't have to be held "by a large portion of the US military". All it needs is to have is a significant following for it to be discussed. Many of the points are objective. Remember, the main point in this article is Criticizing the Stryker. The M113 comparison is Secondary as a sign of how badly off the Critics think Stryker is.

2) About the serious effort, some effort is being made on the count.

3) You can discuss the IDF experience in the article or in the M113 page as a counterpoint, but I'd point out that the M113 is reliable and a genuinely new system compared to a bunch of halftracks. The Stryker is an overloaded upgraded LAV and not too reliable.

4) Part of the reason you don't hear much about the "other models" in action is that they aren't ready. Take the MGS. As for the reports, there are also investigations by POGO as a counterpoint to show the flaws.

5) That last sentence in itself is an indictment against the Stryker, which was meant to be a catch-all, remember? Mortar carrier, light tank... etc. Kazuaki Shimazaki 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-3) How is the M113 genuinely new system that dates back to the 1960s? I would also like to see where it is stated that it is universally more reliable than the Stryker. The M113 is exactly like the halftracks of the Zahal, and continually upgraded system, but its not genuinely new. If we're considering new iterations of the M113 to be in that category than the IDF halftracks of the 1970s would also have been in this category at the time. Thatguy96 10:57, 10 April 2006

Obviously, I meant when the Israelis were considering whether to upgrade halftracks or buy new M113s, the M113s were presumably reasonably new and are certainly genuinely of superior concept, being full-tracked. As for the reliability, try clicking on the report and looking for the costs per mile stuff. I' think I'd move your other responses to a more appropriate area: Criticisms.

---

The M113A3 came out in 1987 as I recall. Countries like Australia, which has LAV's and just recently a wheeled infantry transport known as the Bushmaster have retained and updated their fleet of M113's, and the Israelis obviously still use the M113, in progressively upgraded form. In fact in 2005 the Israelis decided not to buy the Stryker because they didn't think it made a good urban combat vehicle, prefering to stick with their M113's and Heavy APC's whose hulls are bassically a MBT chassis without the turret. I can tell you from what I gathered (atleast from an Australian perspective), when talking with people in Mech and Cav units that one reason that LAV vehicles were more popular than M113's (other than speed on flat hard surfaces such as roads and arid country in areas of the outback and up in NT) was because it was supposedly easier to replace tyres than tracks! Personally I took their line of reasoning as just being bone lazy. I've seen a demonstration where a change of tracks was called for which is the basis of my opinions on their comments. Though not easy it certainly wasn't as hard as they claimed it to be. With good training and practice it is not that difficult to change a track. My opinion about speed is, well, you may as well invest in aircraft (fixed-wing and rotary) if you want speed, if people know what I mean or what I'm getting at. Cat Balou 15:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

IFV?

The Stryker doesn't fall under the IFV designation as commonly defined. It is an APC. Why is it under "Modern armored fighting vehicles"? On a seperate note, the term AFV itself is all-inclusive and cannot be used as a classification for just IFVs, as, presumably, the creater of the category intended. A tank is an armored fighting vehicle, an APC is an armored fighting vehicle, and, likewise, so is an IFV. This needs to be changed. -PFC Casiani, US ARMY

Reverting anonymous edit

I see a anonymous pro-Stryker guy had decided to unilaterally undermine and add POV to the page. I've already reverted it and am providing some explanations here. Stay tuned. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Line 46

Since you've left the limitations themselves in, there seems little reason to cut out the word "limited. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Line 56

1) What mobility is there since you already agreed to leave the sections concerning how the RWS has to be taken off to fit in the C-130 (thus presumably it'd have to be reattached when it goes off the C-130). 2) Maybe if the Stryker was less overweight and so vulnerable to being overweight, it wouldn't be so "burdened" with an autocannon, which can be used for both short and long range engagements, and being stabilized, can be used in a fast-moving engagement as well. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Line 69

Since the meat of this article is the vehicle controversy, let's not immediately POV by using words like "smartly execute". Considering the MGS, a big part of the plan, is not really ready (and IMO does not look like it'd ever get ready), it is hard to say the present stage Stryker is "smartly executing" the goal. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Line 75

Let's not immediately poison the well by calling everyone who criticizes the Stryker "novices." Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Line 81

You not only show POV here, but more critically you do not seem to understand the point of the section you are scrawling on. We are not on specific flaws on the Stryker yet, just on generic disadvantages of wheels. Countering with possible advantages of Stryker as a specific vehicle is inappropriate. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Stryker weight

Lighter weight? It certainly is NOT lighter than the M113, whatever else it may be. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Magnetic fuzing

That may be a valid call because of the non-magnetic ceramics used in the Stryker's armor. On the other hand, the M113A3's aluminum armor is also non-magnetic, and there is AFAIK much steel in both. In any case, since this is a vehicular advantage/disadvantage issue, this does not belong here. Moved, pending a citation that the Stryker's magnetic signature is lower than a M113's. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Track vs Wheel Weight Efficiency

Not only would your opponents claim otherwise (not to mention they can provide a webpage explaining their theory), but you have a chance to air such opinions out in Countercriticisms. Moved. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Run flats

The run flats have already been very fairly mentioned down in Countercriticisms. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Narrower?

The Stryker is not narrower than the M113. The BTR-80 (read: wheeled vehicle) is even wider.

Obstacle-clearing

The whole point, which I see you agree, is that tracked vehicles have superior traction and can climb over things much more easily. I see no reason to softsoap this very fact with words.

Delete the off-road and maneuverability stuff

Pal, there is a reason why tracks are chosen, pal.

Band-tracks

If you want, put something in countercriticisms. There seems no reason to change it. Since part of the argument for using wheels instead of tracks in Stryker is IIRC that wheeled tech have improved, using the latest for tracks is just fair game. No reason to change.

And that last snide comment is POV and has to be removed. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Line 122

Out of hatch manual reloading

1) Is it better than being able, for example, to do the loading inside the turret? 2) Again, this goes in Countercriticisms. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Track throwing

And tires can burst - which will also be dangerous because they are so over-pressurized. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Engaging inside the vehicle

1) The squad is still protected inside the vehicle when they are shooting out of little ports. 2) The countercriticisms section very fairly does refer to the sacrifices involved in this (which seems to have to do with the seating arrangement) - I know, I added this myself. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Line 148

Merely small changes here of wording. I do agree with that point about removing the band track counter-countercriticisms. Only fair to give the Pro side a zone like we critics claim for unfettered expression. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Three suggestions: Section "Mission"

I found that to someone like me (who was unfamiliar with the term "Stryker"), the section Mission was the most informative since it provides a good introduction to what the Stryker is and what it does. Three points about that:

• It's a pity that this excellent overview section is so far down. Imho it could be moved up to position 1 or 2 in the TOC, as opposed to 5, where it currently is. (The things up there like Production history and Design are nice and offer lots of detail, but if you aren't a buff already, they don't tell you much about what a Stryker can do.)
• Maybe the "Mission" section could be renamed to "Use", "Purpose" or something, that would make it even more clear.
• There seem to be two separate sections called "Design" (numbers 2 and 5.1 in the TOC). Section "5.1 Design" is more of a critique of how the vehicles are used in Iraq. Difficult to understand --
  • why this is a subsection of "Mission"
  • why this has the headline "Design"
  • why the first part of it is repeated on the Stryker Vehicle Controversy.

Geheimdienst 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Stryker Vehicle Controversy

I put the Stryker Vehicle Controversy article up for AFD, it's time to end the POV fork and bring this all under one article. PPGMD 19:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why AfD the article rather than {{merge}} the two? modify 11:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because the AFD voting seems to be going against you, doesn't give you license to do it by yourself. The SVC article seems to be viewed as a certain necessity, and its content detracts from the informative nature of the article on the vehicle. Work on improving the format of the SVC article so that it isn't just a collection of pros and cons, but don't add it back where it doesn't belong. You'll notice here on the discussion page that there was a collective debate and the decision was taken to move it, because it severed no productive purpose on this page. Most people seem to agree that it either needs to be seriously condensed to be placed back on this page, or needs to remain seperate. -- Thatguy96 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

When was the Stryker first produced or entered service?

The article mentions when the Stryker was first deployed to Iraq, but doesn't mention when it first entered service with the US Army. A section on its development history would be useful. How long did it take from first concept to entering service? Were there any changes in the vehicle from first concept to entering service? 71.246.233.222 03:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Stryker Casualty Superiority vs Iraq IEDs: Stats

Please add this important info to the entry [IMHO, once again it looks like Shinseki was right while Rumsfeld was not]: "In contrast [to Bradleys, Abrams, and Humvees], military units equipped with the 19-ton Stryker medium-weight armored vehicle, have reportedly suffered a lower number of catastrophic vehicle losses in Iraq due to enemy attack. With a maximum speed of more than 60 mph, the Stryker can dash past ambushes and roadside IEDs that might catch the slower moving Abrams tank and Bradley. Between December 2003 and October 2004, news reports show that Strykers deployed in Iraq have successfully withstood 56 attacks by IEDs. Even when vehicles were rendered inoperable by the attacks, there was reportedly no loss of life among the Stryker crews." SOURCE: Congressional Research Service (9/25/06) _Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan: Effects and Countermeasures_ by Clay Wilson http://www.fit.edu/fip/documents/SecNews1.pdf [might be temporary link but google cached copy available] Flyingpenguin 12:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you want this removed? Your entry could come in handy for future discussions. --Edward Sandstig 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing, Citing, and Rewrite

I've started all the above. Please feel free to do the same Tirronan 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

"However, Canadians have had quite a bit of trouble with the LAV IIIs (which the Stryker is based on) getting stuck in the mud in Afghanistan and rolling over. [9]. This is not in fact accurate, the vehicle has performed exemplary service, and any vehicle at high speeds, on narrow roads, dodging civilian traffic with weak shoulders unable to support a 16+ ton vehicle will have rollover issues. Especially when civilian vehicles run into it. There has only been a handful in six years of service in Afghanistan; as for mud, Afghanistan has very trying terrain for any vehicle, and all vehicles get stuck in mud as any experienced armoured personnel can attest to."

Does anyone else think that the uncited information here seems rather biased?

I am working on the article to get it less POV among other things. However the LAV III has had roll over problems. The tone of this seems defensive where the vehicle is concerned and the tone should be neutral.

Well, the Stryker is Canadian-made - and if the Canadian Army decides to cancel further procurements of the Stryker/LAV and instead modernize their fleet of M113 Gavins and buy German Leopard 2 tanks although the Stryker/LAV is a Canadian-made product - then that should tell you something: The problems and short-comings of the Stryker/LAV are really severe. The US Army won't admit it, however - they've even classified the number of Stryker deaths in Iraq. And that although there should be a huge impetus to tell the truth about the Stryker, cause it is killing American jobs ( both M113 Gavin and M2 Bradley are all-American tanks, from the idea over the drawboard to the production ).

In order, the LAVIII order is complete. There is nothing to cancel. The Canadian M113s have been undergoing constant upgrades. You may be confused with reports that the Canadians are looking at retiring their LAVIII fleet. I am confident that the upgraded M113 be proposed along with the LAV-H. This would provide some commonality with the British and their FRES vehicles. Also, I would be surprised if these two vehicles were the only competitors.

The following website has a listing of all deaths of the soldiers serving with Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs). The official cause of death is shown. Not all are combat related. http://www.strykernews.com/memorial.html

The company that made the M113 and M2 was a US company was acquired by the British defense company, BAE, in June of 2005.Vstr (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I have responded to an IP address which I normally will not. If you wish to contribute please create an account on Wikipedia its free. Tirronan 13:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

At one point in the past the criticisms section included early production errors. The armor plating of many of the units was manufactured incorrectly, resulting in Strykers being deployed which were not bullet proof. I think that this is an interesting bit of hostory worthy of being in the article. I'm hoping someone can find this and put it back in. (Alleyward (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

The price

I think it would have been nice if someone could dig up the price for this item, and on some index. (or just compared to average wage or something). Ie, so the price of items (vehicles etc) could be comparable over space and time. Greswik 13:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No one would object if you did so. Just cite your source when you insert it. Tirronan 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

According to a May 13, 2007 AP article which appeared in the NY Times, the army has ordered 7,800 more strikers at a cost of 8.4 billion dollars, which would put the cost at slightly over $1,076,000,000 per vehicle.

-dialectric —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.73.90.213 (talk • contribs) 22:17 May 13, 2007 (UTC).

Three too many zeros. 8.4 billion dollars is 8,400,000,000 so price in above-mentioned article would be US$ 1,076,923.08 per vehicle (1.077 million dollars) --Edward Sandstig 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stryker costs around 3 million dollars apiece, in vanilla condition, i.e. without bird-cage etc. Link - http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair04222006.html . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.141.18 (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your source is a preview of a new book called Grand Theft Pentagon. Both your source article, and the book were written by the same author, Jeffrey St. Clair. The USD 3 million number refers (according to you source) to the first vehicles built.Vstr (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Vehicle named for Medal of Honor Winners, not for John Wayne Character

I would like to point out that the Stryker vehicle is named for PFC Stuart S. Stryker and Specialist Fourth Class Robert F. Stryker, recipients of the Medal of Honor 214.13.162.2 16:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)TPVMI04

• Thanks. That's been fixed and a reference added for it. -Fnlayson 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I brought this up in the Stryker vehicle controversy talk page.[[3]] Can the same be applied to the criticism section of the article? This user seems to be making some valid points. Tsurugi (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, do not bring up those videos on this page. See my response to your talk on the Stryker vehicle contorversy Talk Page. Vstr (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Tsurugi (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Verification Requested

This is in response to the entry requesting verification about a fact that I entered. That fact was that there was only one rollover incident mentioned in the book "My War" by Colby Buzzell. Granted, he did spend quite a few pages regarding it, but that was due to this incident causing the first deaths in his unit while it was in Iraq.

My problem is how do I verify this? The only way to do that is to have any doubters read the book. Since it is copyrighted, it is not freely available on the internet. However, copies of the book are available at some public libraries. The copy that I read was obtained through a library that my local public library was on a network with.

The solution that I could come up with is to post a link to a third party source that shows the book. I didn't want to point to Amazon, because its a store. I tried the Library of Congress, but it has a time limit. So, the link quickly became unusable. I ended up using Google Books.

If you do not think that this is enough, please specify exactly what you would want to see as a source.Vstr (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

if you have a copy of the book then just cite the work on the pages WP:CITE this is your proof. Its used all over wikipedia. Tirronan (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It just needed a proper inline reference, maybe state the pages involved. Thanks. I added the book info to the reference. That's fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)