stryker really that bad?

Question

hi I have seen some webpages about the Stryker APC. according to these pages, the stryker is not a perfect weapon carrier it should be, but only a 20 tons of metal worth of scrap. anyone has personal experience with this staff?

Answer 1

From what Ive read, the quote " experts" most who never served, have trashed the Stryker.

But the troops who have actually used the stryker in Iraq seem to love it.

Now who would you believe?


The biggest problem with the stryker, is it was supposed to be air deployable.

But with the added upgraded armor on them, they are to heavy to be air deployable.

Answer 2

The Striker is the vehicle that is between the APC and Bradley. As a leader, one must know when to use this particular tool. This vehicle can not go against the M1 but is good enough for the urban type of warfare that we are fighting right now. Keep in mind, this is a carrier and not a tank, is use to move people around and to give support to the troops on the ground.

Answer 3

Everyone I know who has served on a Stryker has nothing but good things to say about them...

A friend was the vehicle commander when a vehicle born IED (suicide bomber) crashed into his vehicle. After the explosion, the tires were flat and the transmission was a little jacked up, but they drove away.

The higher ups are disappointed with the vehicle because it was meant to be airlifted by a C-130, but with all of it's armor it is overweight. It also took longer than expected to finally make it to the Army from the drawing board...

Answer 4

I would like to know of one "Perfect" weapon.

odds are if some one is gripping about it, it's because they were expecting to use it like a tank not an APC.

some yahoos automatically think because it has a few inches of armor and a turret you can go nose to nose with anything on the battle field.

like the Bradley, it has some serious fire power but its role is close support, heavy gun mixed in with an infantry squad. if you run it out in front of a main Battle tank then you better pray the guy shooting you is a bad shot.

if it gets the guys in and out, does not roll over on a gentile turn, can protect you from small arms and some explosives and does not catch fire after getting hit, i would say it is a hell of a lot better then the stuff they were using not twenty years ago.

Answer 5

Here is the biggest complaint. It doesn't do what it was designed to do. The whole purpose of the Stryker was to be part of a rapid deployment force to be carried 2,000-3,000 miles away from a base via a transport plane. At best they can be sent 800 to 1,200 miles away (depending on the transport plane) which is about what the Bradley could have done.

Answer 6

The reports I get from my friends in the army who have returned from Iraq is that the thing isn't too bad when it's working which isn't too often. The mechanical parts are good but the electronics are a total headache as soon as it hits the sands of Iraq. The armor isn't great but better than some vehicles and if you want more armor you can load up the basket armor with as much junk as you can and use it to stop the blast effects of a IED.

Answer 7

It suffers from the same faults as most American made weapons. It is made to do so many different tasks that it is rarely good at any one. The Bradley received modest reviews for the same reason. But it is effective in its own way and the troops are better with it than the Bradley.

Answer 8

PULL UP STRYKER - YOU'RE COMING IN LOW

Soldiers have used strykers to crash through insurgents' homes which sometimes have 2 feet thick concrete walls.

Strykers have saved lives.