Good Within Its Limitations

I was critical of the Stryker vehicle when it was rolled out. I, like many critics, had great worries about its vulnerability to hand-held anti-tank weapons. I based this worry on the history of thin-skinned armored vehicles in combat.

But Stryker has done well in Iraq and Afghansitan (although off-road limits of a wheeled vehicle--another of my criticisms--means the vehicle doesn't do as well as in Iraq), seemingly showing critics to be way off the mark. Strategypage sets out this misleading defense of the vehicle's armor protection:

The initial 2004 combat actions in and around Mosul were not as intense as they were down around Baghdad. But there were heavily armed Baath party diehards and al Qaeda terrorists up in Mosul. Thus the Stryker brigade saw a lot of action, some of it quite heavy. It was thought that the Strykers would be very vulnerable to RPGs, but only two vehicles were lost that way in the first year. In some actions, platoons (four vehicles) of Strykers had dozens of RPGs fired at them with no serious damage. The protection on the Strykers has been up to the job, but the troops, and hostile Iraqis, have also noted that the Strykers were faster, and quieter, than other armored vehicles.

Note that I did not dispute that the Stryker has done well in the road-based fight in Iraq. It did do well. We shall see how the Stryker does in Afghanistan if it is deployed away from the roads.

But I do want to take issue with the protection issue. The Stryker that critics (including myself) expressed worry about in regard to armor protection is not the same as the Stryker that has shrugged off RPG hits. The Army (thankfully) recognized that criticism of the Stryker's armor protection was valid and the Army added those cages you see around the vehicle. The cages are what have made the vehicles resistant to RPG strikes. The cages detonate the warheads away from the hull and dissipates the energy. Without that additional armor protection, Strykers would have been lost if hit by even a single RPG.

Critics were right about the armor protection--and the Army addressed that. And critics were right about cross-country mobility (which was just common sense since nobody is going to argue tracks are worse than wheels cross country).

The vehicle does have strengths notwithstanding the weaknesses of armor and cross-country mobility), and as long as we don't try to use it like a Bradley, it is a good weapon.