NationStates Jolt Archive

Report rips Army vehicle
Critics contend Michigan-made Stryker fails to protect soldiers from blasts. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050401-stryker-report.htm)

By Lisa Zagaroli / Detroit News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Army's most modern troop carrier, the Stryker, has failed to adequately protect soldiers from certain explosive devices and has demonstrated problems ranging from seat belts that don't fit around armored soldiers to tires that have to be replaced frequently, an internal Army report indicates.

(see above for the full article)

Info:
Striker LAVIII (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav.htm)
M 113 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113.htm)
Up-armored HMMWV (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/hmmwvua.htm)
Some more discussion of the issue:
http://www.geocities.com/air_mech_strike/
http://www.strategypage.com/articles/ibctrevisited/

All that having been posted, let the debate beging.

Should the Striker be replaced by the M113? Should both be replaced by another vehicle?

They both have their qualities and uses.
The problem is the US military tends to stick it's equipment in situations they're not designed for, or designed with less in mind, and expect them to do perfictly.

Besides, they ruined the Strikey, the LAV-III was better before.