Talk:Stryker/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page doesn't mention its designation 

message: 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)
thread_title: disambiguation(sp?) maybe?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  resembles the South African vehicle? 

message: 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)
replies: text: See below and/or read more on all the LAV III variants please. CraigWyllie 06:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe Canada's Strykers have already been delivered 

message: 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. 
: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)
thread_title:  "Initial Impressions Report -- Operations in Mosul, Iraq," 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Yet?

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Endorsement

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for agreeing. Since the source its valid, its viewpoint can be included. Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ”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)
replies: text: Reply here. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Validity

message: 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)
thread_title: Dear Alt-Silverburg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Band tracks

message: 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)
thread_title: Reverting anonymous edit

message: 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)
thread_title: Line 46

message: 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)
thread_title: Line 56

message: 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)
thread_title: Line 69

message: Let's not immediately poison the well by calling everyone who criticizes the Stryker "novices." Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Line 75

message: 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)
thread_title: Line 81

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Magnetic fuzing

message: 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)
thread_title: Track vs Wheel Weight Efficiency

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Band-tracks

message: ====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)
thread_title: Line 122

message: 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)
thread_title: Out of hatch manual reloading

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Engaging inside the vehicle

message: 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)
thread_title: Line 148

message: 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)
thread_title:  Three suggestions: Section "Mission" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why AfD the article rather than  the two? modify 11:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Stryker Vehicle Controversy]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  When was the Stryker first produced or entered service? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why did you want this removed? Your entry could come in handy for future discussions. --Edward Sandstig 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stryker Casualty Superiority vs Iraq IEDs: Stats 

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The price

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vehicle named for Medal of Honor Winners, not for John Wayne Character 

message: I brought this up in the Stryker vehicle controversy talk page.[] 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Verification Requested