But try telling some of the Stryker MGS crews that their battle-tested vehicles are not effective, and you get a more nuanced appraisal. In a new round of on-the-ground reviews from U.S. troops (a master gunner also offered his defense of and suggestions for improved Abrams tanks), next-gen armored vehicles appear to be improving safety in Iraq.
“My platoon and I know the real deal, so let me tell you what your tax dollars bought,” says Sgt. 1st Class Scott Collum, who has served in Army tanks for 19 years, including combat tours in Bosnia and Iraq during operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. He is assigned to A Company, 1/38 of the 2nd ID, deployed in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad. “Some commanders look at the MGS as a tank,” he says. “I cannot stress enough that it is not a tank; it is a support vehicle with some tank-related features. This vehicle is fast, maneuverable, quiet and accurate. In my opinion, it is the most lethal ground vehicle for an urban environment in Iraq today.”
I noted the critics earlier. This will be a good vehicle after we deal with teething problems. But it will fail if commanders try to use it like a tank. I know reporters often can't tell the difference between a tank and any other armored vehicle because they think anything big and green is a "tank". But there is no excuse for officers not to know.
If you want a tank, call an Abrams.
[NOTE: Years later I randomly updated the dead link to get the original article.]
