I still get Armor and have been reading about it. It looks like a great new vehicle for Rapid Deployment/Light Cav ops. Is it an update LAV or something more? How is the armor protection? Is it really any good?

Last but not least, when will the first model hit the shelves??

It is basically an LAV III+. Big flap lately that 6 out of 8 variants are too heavy for the C-130 and that they had to add extra armor when they found out .50 cal could penetrate the hull. Looks neat for shooting and scooting, but even an old M-48 or T-54/55 tank could wipe it off the battlefield (or a Brad or BMP for that matter). Designed to be supported from above and behind with CAS and arty, not a stand alone weapon system.

When I read that it was too heavy for a C130, the AGS came to mind again. Why we ever got rid of this great vehicle is beyond me. I served with the testing of this vehicle and we COULD move it by 130, and airdrop it too. We were initially concerned about the barrel flexing too much when dropped but it performed fine. If the powers that be will get these vehicle issues straightened out our new Interim Brigades will have some great set ups. "Q"
ps. Dragoon..who did you serve with in the 2nd Cav? I'm guessing second SQDN by you r call sign. I was with Ghost Troop from 86-89 in Bamberg, and at Camp Hof'

Ft. Lewis is getting Stryker’s this week.

Here is a local article (Tacoma http://tribnet.com ) on the Stryker http://search.tribnet.com/archive/archive30/0512a11.html and some quotes from the article.

"In this vehicle here, they're going to have to be real careful," Howard said. "If they start getting in that tanker mode, that Bradley mode, they're going to be taking fire, and guys are going to get shot."

"It's meant to carry the squad to the engagement, not to carry them into the thick of a firefight," said Army Maj. Bob Schumitz, the Stryker acquisition officer at Fort Lewis.

The Stryker is also battling a weight problem. A fully loaded infantry carrier is about 1,700 pounds too heavy to meet the Air Force weight limit for a 1,000-mile flight aboard a C-130 cargo plane.


The article had nice graphics that aren’t in the archive article.

Dave

The Canadian Army uses the same vehicle but with a turret, and is called the LAV III. I have a photo on my website: http://members.rogers.com/trackjam/index.htm It is significantly larger than a LAV 25 type vehicle. the tires are a larger diameter and the silhouette is larger than a Leopard C2. The vehicle replaces the M113 fleet and comes in APC, TUA, Engineer, Arty OP, and Mortar variants. We too are looking at a Direct Fire support vehicle but that is some ways down the road.

By the way, Armor is the professional journal of the US Army Armor community, and probably the premier professional journal of any of the various branches. Highly recommended for modern armor buffs. Once upon a time, it was the best place to find info on Soviet/Warsaw Pact armor this side of Jane's.

Well, there are alot of OFF THE SHELF vehicle that could have filled the roll of the medium BDEs, fill in here not american made, but crappy berets are made in canada was to be china. We could have fielded the units with equipment already feilded by are allies. Too bad the army wants to over R&D something that should be simple.

Keep it simple stupid is a phrase the army no long seems to understand.

Rant mode off now.

Is there a way for us Non-active-duty types to get it?

Some links that might be of interest.

Armor Mag
http://knox-www.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/index.htm

Subscribe to Armor here

https://secure.aye.net/usarmor-assn/subscribe.html

Field Artillery Mag
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/

Soldiers Mag
http://www.dtic.mil/soldiers/may2002/index.html

Bunch of Army Unit Newsletters online.
http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/newspapers/

Sure, I will post subscription info tomorrow.

RE: Steve's rant;
I think the US Army did compare a number of different vehicles for the Stryker role and teh LAV III won the comppetitio. I Hope you consider Canada, NZ and Australia as allies and note that all three use variants of the LAV II and III, Note the LAV 25 in use by the USMC is manufactured by GMDD in London Ontario. I think the more important point of discussion here is tracks versus wheels. In my opinion, tracked vehicles offer more armour protection, a lower silhouette, can carry more firepower and have greater cross country mobility. Wheeled vehicles offer greater strategic deployability and are generally more mine surviveable. I think the jury is out regarding cost.

Paul,

I think the most important point is what war are we going to fight. the army had no expectation to fight a LARGE scale armor battle outside of Europe and with the fall of the soviet union the army and especially the politications believed we need a smaller force. Well along came desert storm. The medium concept is full of flaws and will not last IMO.

Nothing aganist canada but if the LAV III is over weight and can not be air deployed it's the wrong vehicle for the mission profile.

I still rather be in a Bradly than a wheeled vehicle that ran over a tilt rod equiped AT mine.

For subscription services call (502) 942-8624 or fax (502) 942-6219, e-mail at [email protected], or via the website at www.usarmor-assn.org. It is also available online at Armor Magazine.

Thank you Rob.

There was/is a major controversy about the 'fairness' of the competition. There are a significant number of folks, in and outside the Army, that feel the competition was biased at least, and 'rigged' at worst, to favor the vehilce that became the Stryker. By the way they controlled the circumstances and performance measures, the testing folks gave the impression that the outcome of the competition was predetermined. The competition results were far from satisfactory. A further issue is that the Stryker is NOT the vehicle the won the competition, since significant changes and modifications have occurred since the LAV was selected as winner. All of this, added to the weight and dimensional problems that persist with the Stryker, has raised serious questions about the whole ICBT process and concept.

I don't thing the Stryker is the right vehicle for the job, and I have no strong opinions about what is. I have heard a strong case for an upgraded M113 being a better choice, and have liked what I heard there, but the jury is still out. I think the medium-weight brigades are a good concept, but how they are deployed and employed are still pretty hazy. So far no one has presented a clear case of where and why they are the best force structure to do a job, and for how they integrate in to the overall force structure, and the conflict continuum. Who, when, where, and how they fight is still unclear, and it seems like putting the cart before the horse to form the brigades without clear doctrine to support them. Time will tell, and I hope no one has to loose a son or father before we sort it all out.