CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35279
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:54 pm
 


But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States.

The $5 million Abrams was designed to fight a frontal war against a similarly armed enemy. But the Iraqis are killing the tanks with attacks from above, below, and behind.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19916
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:11 pm
 


The unexpected costs of unconventional warfare.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4332
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:23 pm
 


Try to comprehend the cost... 80 X 5 million....Thats a lot of money getting blown up every day id say


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1746
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:49 pm
 


I think the tanks are only being heavily damaged though. If they are totaled, then why send them back? And although i agree that they are not the best way to do things in urban warfare, but i would rather be surrounded with 69 tonnes of tank then in a couple tonnes of Hummer, or simply walking on the street when in a urban warfare situation..


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 299
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:13 pm
 


I hear only 17 or so are total right offs, most have to be taken back to the U.S. for repairs due to the lack of adequate repair facilities in the region. The machinery losses really mean nothing regardless as the U.S. has 1000s of unused M1s sitting in mothballs and will probably be scaling down its armored forces in the near future anyway.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35279
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:37 am
 


Study Faults Army Stryker Vehicle

$1:
The Army's Dec. 21 report, drawn from confidential interviews with operators of the vehicle in Iraq in the last quarter of 2004, lists a catalogue of complaints about the vehicle, including design flaws, inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better." Although many soldiers in the field say they like the vehicle, the Army document, titled "Initial Impressions Report -- Operations in Mosul, Iraq," makes clear that the vehicle's military performance has fallen short.

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. Nine tires a day are changed after failing, the report says; the Army told The Post the current figure is "11 tire and wheel assemblies daily."

"The additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season," says the report, which was prepared for the Center for Army Lessons Learned in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "Mud appeared to cause strain on the engine, the drive shaft and the differentials," none of which was designed to carry the added armor.

Commanders' displays aboard the vehicles are poorly designed and do not work; none of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used because of "design and functionality shortfalls," the report states. 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.

The main weapon system, a $157,000 grenade launcher, fails to hit targets when the vehicle is moving, contrary to its design, the report states. Its laser designator, zoom, sensors, stabilizer and rotating speed all need redesign; it does not work at night; and its console display is in black and white although "a typical warning is to watch for a certain color automobile," the report says. Some crews removed part of the launchers because they can swivel dangerously toward the squad leader's position.

Independent groups and a loose-knit group of retired Army officers who dislike the Stryker vehicle have alleged that the Stryker's 2003 deployment was motivated partly by the desire of the Army and the manufacturer, General Dynamics, to build congressional support for buying additional brigades. But Speakes said that was nonsense and that the brigade was deployed in Iraq simply because the Army needed it.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 266
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:38 am
 


its the same old adage...

built by the lowest bidder... what do you expect??


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19916
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:08 pm
 


Didn't the Canadian Army plan on buying a bunch of Strykers?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11108
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:28 pm
 


Yep, we are. The powers that be have decided in their infinite wisdom that Canada doesn't need tanks. Armoured cars will do.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
Profile
Posts: 1094
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:33 pm
 


I dunno but the thought of running hatches down in some of the crap we have in a place as hot as the middle east makes me feel ill.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35279
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:10 pm
 


"The LAV is experiencing many of the same problems that new weapon systems often do during their shakedown cruise in combat."

Media Report on 'Stryker' Misleading

By Andrew Teekell

On March 31, The Washington Post reported that the U.S. Army's Stryker Light Armored Vehicle (LAV), which has been operating in Iraq for a year and a half, is not faring so well in the war zone. The eight-wheeled vehicle is inadequately armored, its computers are too slow and crew accommodations provide inadequate protection during rollovers.

Deficiencies noted, but the media is a bit behind the curve.

The report cites a four-month-old Army report on the LAV's performance in Iraq that did in fact find room for improvement in the Stryker -- improvement that already has been implemented or soon will be. Since first arriving in Iraq in October 2003, the vehicles and their crews have been adapting well to the mission and the environment.

Army personnel at Fort Lewis, Wash., home to the units that deploy the Stryker, tell Stratfor the LAV is experiencing many of the same problems that new weapon systems often do during their shakedown cruise in combat.

One problem, which most likely will be addressed on the assembly line, is that the tire pressure has to be checked too frequently because of the weight of the extra armor that protects the crew from insurgent rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). The armor is a field modification installed when the vehicles arrive in Kuwait and before they cross the border into Iraq. Although the armor is saving lives, the Stryker's suspension and tires were not designed to handle the extra weight.

The Army report also cites problems with the Stryker's computer systems. The commander's display fails to function properly and the computers slow down or freeze up when processing large amounts of data. Sources at General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., the Stryker's manufacturer, say the computer issues have been addressed with software upgrades. The data processing and command and control equipment in the Strykers are completely new systems that had never been used in combat vehicles before the Strykers went to Iraq.

In addition, the vehicle's grenade launcher has proven to be difficult to operate under combat conditions. This is a problem that can be remedied with interim field modifications or improvements on the assembly line.

The Stryker is deployed with the 3rd Brigade of the Army's 2nd Infantry Division in Iraq. Since February 2004, when the "Stryker Brigade" deployed to Kirkuk and Mosul, two vehicles have been lost to RPG fire. Other vehicles have been totaled by landmines and improvised explosive devices. Casualties have been sustained in most cases, but few Stryker crewmembers have been killed.

The first version of a weapon system often requires refinement after being used operationally. During World War II, the M4 Sherman tank was plagued by inadequate firepower and thin armor and was shot full of holes by the powerful German tanks it encountered in Normandy. To give themselves a better chance of surviving encounters with the Panzers, Sherman crews took to bolting scrap armor plate to the front and sides and tying sandbags to the front.

An even more notable example of military field expediency is the rapid "up-armoring" of the Army's "Humvee" fleet in Iraq, which was introduced into a combat environment that it was not designed for. There have been dozens of modifications to the F-16 fighter and M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle since these systems were first deployed. Even the mighty F-117 Stealth fighter performed poorly when first used in combat in Panama in 1989.

These problems are not exclusive to the U.S. military. The suspensions of Soviet T-72 tanks used in Afghanistan were found to be inadequate for the country's rough terrain, so the T-72 was replaced by the older T-62. During Russia's involvement in Chechnya, the gas turbine engines on their T-80 tanks proved to be problematic and were replaced with diesel engines in later models. The British army's Challenger tank was completely redesigned to address problems noted during gunnery exercises and the 1991 Gulf War.

The Stryker was developed for the emerging doctrine of a lighter and more rapidly deployable force. It was a controversial shift from an Army based on heavy divisions meant to engage massed Soviet formations to a force more suited to low-intensity conflict and intervention.

When it was introduced, the Stryker was derided by critics of the new, lighter Army. So far, however -- despite some teething troubles -- the Stryker has proven itself in combat. Experience in Iraq has shown that the Main Battle Tank still has a place on the urban battlefield -- U.S. troops like the firepower and psychological advantage that the 70-ton M-1 gives them. And, from all accounts, they like the Stryker too.

That being said: Tanks, armored vehicles, and aircraft are being run at rates two to six times greater than in peacetime


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 621
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 5:54 pm
 


Aww we are going to loose our good german tanks? I planned on being an armoured soldier.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Ottawa Senators


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17037
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 6:29 pm
 


Our Leopard C2 tanks are staying on Canadian soil to serve a defensive purpose. We are buying the Stryker vehicle but with a tank cannon on the top of it. It will be called the Mobile Gun System. Pretty much an LAV 3 with a tank cannon on top. Our tanks might be sent over seas when we get our new Joint Support Ships.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 996
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 7:21 pm
 


The Stryker is a Canadian design...it's a modified LAV III. And yes, we are purchasing a whole bunch of LAV IIIs to replace our offensive armoured force; mainly because we don't have the logistics to move the Leapords (which are old and archaic compared to all other MBTs). The LAV III is a decent combat vehilce in its own element, but its the same old story: the Stryker is being used for purposes for which it wasn't designed, and thus isn't proving as usful as it could. Also, initial reports to the media always have to hype of the vehicles in the best of light for publicity purposes.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Ottawa Senators


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17037
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 7:27 pm
 


kal kal:
The Stryker is a Canadian design...it's a modified LAV III. And yes, we are purchasing a whole bunch of LAV IIIs to replace our offensive armoured force; mainly because we don't have the logistics to move the Leapords (which are old and archaic compared to all other MBTs). The LAV III is a decent combat vehilce in its own element, but its the same old story: the Stryker is being used for purposes for which it wasn't designed, and thus isn't proving as usful as it could. Also, initial reports to the media always have to hype of the vehicles in the best of light for publicity purposes.


We already have LAV III's, we're buying more but putting the mobile gun system on them.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.