EXCERPT from Chapter 5 "Army Force Development", page 39: this captures how the Army generates "requirements":

"The new joint and Army concept development processes have changed to become top-down driven."

Basically, you will see an opportunity for a general officer to insert his vision (a "good idea") and how the rest of the Army is then obligated to make it happen...reality and facts be damned...

"How the Army Runs" an "untitled paper" from TRADOC circa 2005 (see above) institutionalizes no analysis programs, shows a preference for top-down general officer (GO) wish lists without factual examination; the process should not allow one individual to decide issues based on their prejudices on things like derogatory labeling like "cold war" or the urge to make some radical change to make a name for himself when what we already have might be best ie; M113 Gavin light tracks; Planet Earth and the laws of physics don't care about how many times the earth has revolved around the sun something has existed, this is something stupid avant garde' humans do that has no bearing at all on what a thing is capable of doing.

GOs should focus on the concepts required and let the true facts drive what specific equipment is used (Stryker trucks cause we want to be seen in wheels), otherwise he states his equipment demand sans analysis and those underneath scramble to give him what he wants by dishonestly cherry picking some minor silver lining while ignoring the cloud of failings, distorting data or outright lying.

www.sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1302&Itemid=97

Army Deploys (Stryker) Unready Brigade

The U.S. Army's "Stryker" brigade from Fort Lewis deployed to Iraq in early May. It had target strength of 4000 men, but 700 stayed behind for various legal and medical reasons. An Army officer admitted this was a very high figure, which indicates that hundreds of Soldiers sought reasons to miss the 15-month deployment. The officer mentioned that such problems have become common in other deploying units.[2]

Within two months of arrival, the unit suffered 17 killed and 170 wounded, which included 30 so disfigured that they were sent home. At this rate of attrition, during the remaining 13 months, the 3300 Soldiers that deployed with this brigade can expect another 110 killed and 1105 wounded, to include 195 so badly injured they will be discharged. After this brigade returns to Fort Lewis, surviving Soldiers can expect to return to Iraq within a year since President Bush has indicated that pacifying Iraq may take 50 years of sacrifice. As a result, career Soldiers should expect they will end up dead or crippled before they can retire.

BREAKING NEWS!

Plain old "Gavin" M113 is ranked #1 by Top 10 IFV show

Liars call Lav3Strykers "New"; Facts are they were rejected over 53 years ago by the competent Korean-era U.S. Army!

Page 77 of Hunnicutt's book Bradley: a History of American Fighting and Support Vehicles shows the post-Korean war U.S. Army considered wheeled tin cans to motorize troops along with cross-country-mobile tracks. The "revolutionary", "new" road-bound wheels were rejected and M113 Gavin tracks were built; 57 years of combat success has followed ever since. Those that say LAV3/Strykers are "newer" are incompetent ignorants of armored vehicle history or willing liars.

Several Stryker trucks wiped out in stupid presence patrol surging: 7 killed when one Stryker was blown up by landmine underneath their flat and unreinforced bottom

GDLS "bleeding" America and the Army of money and blood with their wheeled deathtraps....notice the Freudian slip....

www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200706/NAT20070618b.html

Army, Manufacturer Face Criticism over Combat Vehicle

By Matt Purple and Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Correspondent June 18, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - An Army vehicle controversial since it was conceived in the late 1990s is facing mounting scrutiny from military experts and a leading government watchdog amid a recent spike of American casualties in Iraq.

The Stryker Light Armored Vehicle, manufactured by General Dynamics, was designed as a fast, medium-weight combat vehicle that can [allegedly] be airlifted into combat zones. It was originally intended as a key component to a more nimble and mobile Army.

But since March, when Stryker brigades were deployed in Iraq's violent Diyala province, casualties associated with the vehicles have been rising steadily. They have been found to be particularly vulnerable to automatic weapons fire and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). One infantry company stationed in Diyala lost five Strykers in less than a week, the Associated Press reported last month.

Still, about 700 Soldiers and nearly 100 Stryker vehicles have been deployed to Diyala this year as part of the "surge" of 30,000 additional U.S. troops.

"The whole basis for the Stryker was the fundamentally false assumption that you did not need heavy armor and you did not need direct, organic firepower," retired Col. Douglas MacGregor, a military writer and analyst, told Cybercast News Service. "The idea was that you would know where the enemy was and the enemy would not know where you were. This is hardly the case in Iraq."

Others have defended the vehicle as an important staple in the Army's overall force.

"We have to be careful of two things," Dan Goure, a vice president at the Lexington Institute, told Cybercast News Service. "First, not to think that all vehicles in urban settings or insurgency settings must be 40-ton or 50-ton armored behemoths. And second, that the only kind of conflicts that we're going to be fighting are Iraq-like. Neither is true."

A General Accounting Office report issued after a federal investigation of the Stryker and its closest competitor, the United Defense M113 [Gavin], praised the Stryker for being comparatively quiet and heavily armored. The report also noted that the Stryker could achieve a maximum speed of 60 mph which is 15 mph faster than the M113. [Editor: not on band tracks]

The Stryker's speed can be very extremely beneficial in urban warfare, said Kendall Pease, vice president of communications at General Dynamics. [Editor: dumbass wants troops to drive into land mines fast]

"This is a transport vehicle. It's not intended for heavy urban combat, though it has proven its mettle in transporting troops stealthily and quickly into battle." Pease told Cybercast News Service. "It's not a tank you can hear coming from eight blocks away."

Conflict of interest alleged

On November 19, 1999, six weeks before Lt. Gen. David K. Heebner was scheduled to retire from his post as the Army's assistant vice chief of staff, General Dynamics announced that he was taking up a "newly created position" of the company's vice president of strategic planning.

Heebner got 4,000 shares of stock in March 2000. The following November, the Pentagon awarded General Dynamics with a $4 billion contract to build the Strykers. According to the Project on Government Oversight, a government watchdog group, by 2005 Heebner's stock had grown to 28,859 shares, valued at $3.4 million.

This sparked suspicion among some Stryker critics that Heebner may have violated conflict of interest rules that prohibit government officials from being directly involved in a matter that could affect their personal financial interests.

But an internal Pentagon review into the matter concluded, "Given the lack of evidence for a conflict of interest violation, any further investigative work would take on the character of a 'fishing expedition.'"

The review, by the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) office, also stated that in July of 1999 Heebner issued a memo to his staff and supervisors informing them, "I have a financial interest in the following organizations because I intend to seek and possible [sic] negotiate employment with them." In the memo he listed 12 companies, including General Dynamics. The report also found that he held no General Dynamics stock while employed by the Army and that he had not dealt with procurement matters during his last six years of active duty.

Nonetheless Stryker critics want more answers.

"There definitely should have been an investigation," said Nick Schwellenbach, defense investigator with the Project on Government Oversight, which obtained the IG report dated Feb. 2, 2004. "Just look at the timeline. It raises eyebrows."

"You can officially recuse yourself, but was he truly out of the process?" Schwellenbach asked. "This is not a tiny contract. Billions of dollars are at stake and lives are at stake. This is a war."

Bruce Shrader, a former employee of United Defense -- which lost a contract bid awarded to General Dynamics to build the Stryker -- has been independently investigating the Stryker vehicle and what led to the awarding of the contract.

"Are we supposed to believe that he bought all [the stock shares] on his Army salary?" he asked.

In 2003 Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.) -- an advocate of the United Defense vehicles built in his congressional district -- asked the Pentagon's IG office to investigate Heebner's relationship with General Dynamics.

In a Feb. 11, 2004 letter to Platts, the IG office said there was no conflict. On Oct. 13, 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to Platts declining to pursue a criminal probe into the Heebner matter.

Platts declined to comment for this story.

Heebner, promoted in 2005 to head the land systems division of the company, would not be available for comment on this story, said Pease, the General Dynamics spokesman.

Heebner's acquisition of stock came in the form of standard company compensation packages, Pease said, noting that General Dynamics' stock options had been rising rapidly at the time of Heebner's hiring.

Pease called allegations of wrongdoing "baloney" and added the "IG report showed there was nothing to it -- no evidence of anything."

Army on wheels

Promoted heavily by former Army Joint Chief General Eric Shinseki, the Stryker was initially devised in 1999 as a key component in an entirely transformed Army, one that could airlift, deploy, and assault enemies with speed and alacrity. Shinseki commanded the NATO Stabilization Force during the Bosnia intervention and many analysts believe this experience profoundly shaped his military philosophy.

Shinseki's plan for transformation also called for wheeled combat vehicles rather than the tracks typically seen on an Army tank. "[Shinseki] wanted to shake up the status quo," according to a 2002 West Point report titled "US Army Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle: Issues and Questions."

"He had been heavily influenced by peacekeeping in the Balkans where wheels proved ideal against no opposition and where most military traffic was road bound," the report said.

The Stryker vehicle' 19 ton weight is distributed over eight wheels. Critics charge that the unarmored wheels are vulnerable to automatic weapons fire and do not provide the maneuverability afforded by tracks.

"A track is 28 percent more efficient in terms of space [than wheels]," MacGregor said. "It has much lower ground pressure. It is a stable platform that allows you to mount an automatic cannon and drive and shoot simultaneously because the tracks provide a stable platform. And finally, the track chassis distributes the weight more effectively, providing for greater survivability."

Supporters assert that the Stryker is just one part of the Army as a whole and that the speed provides by its design has proven valuable in certain situations.

"We [at General Dynamics] bleed military," Pease said. "We're not going to give our Soldiers a vehicle we don't believe in."

An Army spokesperson did not respond to repeated inquiries on the matter. The vehicle has support of key military commanders in the field, such as Col. Robert B. Brown, commander of the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Stryker Brigade Combat team. In press reports, Brown said the Stryker saved the lives of at least 100 Soldiers.

MacGregor dismissed such praise.

"Unfortunately, there are too many light infantrymen with little experience in armored vehicles who think that the Stryker is the answer for them," he said. "They just don't have the background and the experience to know that there are better alternatives out there."

www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22289#

The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers by Charlie Cray, AlterNet

Tuesday 05 September 2006

#6 in the Corporate Greed-O-Meter: General Dynamics

EXCERPT:

No. 6: General Dynamics

Most of the big defense contractors have done well as a result of the war on terror. The five-year chart for Lockheed Martin, for instance, reveals that the company's stock has doubled in value since 2001.

Yet The Washington Post reported in July that industry analysts agree that of the large defense contractors, the one that has received the most direct benefit from the war in Iraq is General Dynamics. Much of that has to do with the fact that the company has focused its large combat systems business on supplying the Army with everything from bullets to tank shells to Stryker vehicles, which made their debut during the 2003 invasion.

In July, the Post reported that the company's profits have tripled since 9/11. That should make some people happy, including David K Heebner, a former top aide to Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who was hired by General Dynamics in 1999, a year before the Stryker contract was sealed. According to Defense watchdogs at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), General Dynamics formally announced it was hiring Heebner on November 20, 1999, just one month after Shinseki announced a new "vision" to transform the Army by moving away from tracked armored vehicles toward wheeled light-armored vehicles, and more than a month prior to Heebner's official retirement date of Dec. 31, 1999.

Less than a year and a half later, Heebner was present for the rollout of the first Stryker in Alabama, where he was recognized by Shinseki for his work in the Army on the Stryker project.

Although the Pentagon's inspector general concluded from a preliminary investigation that Heebner had properly recused himself from any involvement in projects involving his prospective employer once he had been offered the job, critics say the current ethics rules are too weak.

"It's clear that the Army was leaning toward handing a multibillion-dollar contract to General Dynamics at the very time Heebner may have been in negotiations with the company for a high-paying executive position," says Jeffrey St. Clair, author of Grand Theft Pentagon, a sweeping review of war-profiteering during the "war on terror."

Heebner's case is similar to Boeing's infamous courtship of Darlene Druyan, the Air Force acquisition officer who was eventually sentenced to nine months in prison and seven months in a halfway house for arranging a $250,000 a year job for herself on the other side of the revolving door while negotiating contracts for the Air Force that were favorable to Boeing.

This March, Heebner reported owning 33,500 shares in the company, worth over $ 4 million, along with 21,050 options.

Not everyone has been happy with the outcome of the Stryker contract. Tom Christie, the Pentagon's director of operational testing and evaluation, sent a classified letter to Donald Rumsfeld before it was deployed in Iraq, warning that the $3 million vehicle was not ready for heavy fire. Meanwhile, the GAO warned of serious deficiencies in vehicle training provided, a concern that turned serious when soldiers accidentally drove the Stryker into the Tigris rivers. Despite public praise from top Army officials, an internal Army report leaked to the Post in March 2005 revealed that the vehicles deployed in Iraq have been plagued with inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better."

Perhaps as insurance against any flap, General Dynamics has added former Attorney General John Ashcroft to its stable of high-powered lobbyists. Working the account are Juleanna Glover Weiss, Vice President Dick Cheney's former press secretary, Lori Day Sharp, Ashcroft's former assistant, and Willie Gaynor, a former Commerce Department official who also worked for the 2004 Bush-Cheney reelection campaign.

May 13, 4:39 PM EDT

Stryker Losses in Iraq Raise Questions

By ROBERT H. REID and ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writers

Sunday , May 13, 2007 from foxnews.com BAGHDAD -

A string of heavy losses from powerful roadside bombs has raised new questions about the vulnerability of the Stryker, the Army's troop-carrying vehicle hailed by supporters as the key to a "leaner, more mobile" force.

Since the Strykers went into action in violent Diyala province north of Baghdad two months ago, losses of the vehicles have been rising steadily, U.S. officials said.

A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month in less than a week, according to Soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost recently is classified.

In one of the biggest hits, six American Soldiers and a journalist were killed when a huge bomb exploded beneath their Stryker on May 6. It was the biggest one-day loss for the battalion in more than two years.

"We went for several months with no losses and were very proud of that," a senior Army official said in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly. "Since then, there have been quite a few Stryker losses."

"They are learning how to defeat them," the Army official said of Iraqi insurgents.

The Army introduced the $11 billion, eight-wheeled Stryker in 1999 as the cornerstone of a ground force of the future - hoping to create "faster, more agile" armored units than tank-equipped units, but with more firepower and protection than light-infantry units.

But the Army and the marines are already looking for something different that can survive big roadside bombs - the main threat to Soldiers in Iraq - meaning the Stryker's high-profile status as the Army's "next generation" vehicle may be short-lived.

"It is indeed an open question if the Stryker is right for this type of warfare," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior analyst with the Brookings Institution. "I am inclined to think that the concept works better for peacekeeping. But based on data the Army has made available to date, it's hard to be sure."

Supporters of the Strykers, which have been used in Iraq since late 2003, say the vehicles that carry two crew members and 11 infantrymen offer mobility, firepower and comfort.

Lighter and "faster" than tracked vehicles like tanks, each Stryker can rush Soldiers quickly to a fight, enabling commanders to maintain security over a wide area with relatively fewer troops. Humvees can carry only four Soldiers - and are more vulnerable to bombs even when their armor is upgraded.

"I love Strykers," said Spc. Christopher Hagen, based in Baqouba. "With Strykers, you're mobile, you're fast. You can get anywhere anytime. They bring a lot of troops to the fight."

But some analysts have long questioned the wisdom of moving away from more heavily armored tracked vehicles like tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to wheeled transports, like the Stryker.

They say that is especially true in Iraq, where powerful bombs - not rocket-propelled grenades or small arms fire - are the main threat.

"The Stryker vehicle was conceived at a time when the Army was more concerned about mobility and agility than it was about protection," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst from the Lexington Institute. "Stryker was the answer to that need."

The Stryker's vulnerabilities have become increasingly apparent since a battalion of about 700 soldiers and nearly 100 Stryker vehicles from the Army's 2nd Infantry Division was sent to Diyala province in March to bolster an infantry brigade struggling to restore order there.

Trouble started as soon as the Strykers arrived in Baqouba, the provincial capital of Diyala.

U.S. commanders ordered the vehicles into Baqouba's streets at dawn the day after they arrived. The hope was that the large, menacing vehicles - armed with a heavy machine gun and a 105mm cannon - would intimidate insurgents and reassure local residents.

Instead, insurgents hammered the Strykers with automatic weapons fire, rocket-propelled grenades and a network of roadside bombs. By the end of that first day, one American Soldier was dead, 12 were wounded and two Strykers were destroyed.

Losses have since mounted. The May 6 attack that killed six Soldiers and a Russian journalist was followed a few days later by another blast. Soldiers scrambled out of the Stryker and took cover in a house while they watched the vehicle burn. Several of them were injured but none seriously.

Lt. Col. Bruce Antonio, who commands a Stryker battalion in Diyala, said he and Soldiers "still have confidence" in the Strykers and noted they had survived many bombs, which the military calls improvised explosive device or IEDs. But Antonio said some insurgents had found "the right mix of explosives and IED positioning to inflict severe damage on the vehicle." He also noted that tanks had also proved vulnerable too.

The insurgents also apparently are becoming better at hiding the devices - the IED that killed the six Soldiers and the journalist was believed hidden in a sewer line. To add potency, insurgents surrounded the device with cement to channel the blast force up into the tank, according to Soldiers familiar with the investigation.

Supporters of the Strykers say all that proves that it's the lethality of bombs in Iraq - not the Strykers themselves - that are the problem: The bombs are now so powerful that even Abrams main battle tanks are vulnerable to some of them.

"I'm not sure if it's any reflection on the (Stryker) but rather on how things are getting worse" in Iraq, according to a senior Democratic congressional staffer who tracks Army programs, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

Stryker Soldiers said that when they were based in Mosul in the north, roadside bombs weren't so big - often, little more than pipe bombs. In Baqouba, the bombs are bigger and buried deeper, making them difficult to detect.

"With what we got hit with the other day, it wouldn't have mattered what we were in," said Spc. John Pearce, speaking of the May 6 bomb. "We were going to take casualties, regardless."

Either way, the Army and marine corps already are pushing for new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPS, whose V-shaped hulls are designed to deflect bomb blasts outward, rather than through the vehicle.

The Pentagon has requested nearly 7,800 of the new vehicles at a cost of $8.4 billion and is considering ordering thousands more to give Soldiers better protection.

Such moves, however, serve only to reinforce the views of critics, who believe the Army opted for a vehicle that was useful in Balkan peacekeeping or other "low threat" missions but is inadequate in so-called "asymmetric warfare," where a weaker opponent devises simple tools to exploit a strong opponent's weak points.

"As long as the Stryker-equipped light infantry was used ... against lightly armed insurgents, there was no problem," said retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, who writes on defense issues.

"Now, they are being tossed into the urban battle where only tracked armor can survive."

--

Reid reported from Baghdad and Flaherty from Washington. Associated Press reporters Todd Pitman in Diyala in Iraq and Pauline Jelinek in Washington also contributed to this report.

AP Wire - Washington | kgw.com | News for Oregon and SW Washington

Two more Fort Lewis Soldiers killed in Iraq
05/12/2007 Associated Press

Soldiers from Mississippi and Idaho are the latest Fort Lewis service members to die in Iraq, the Department of Defense said Friday.

The department also identified a second Idaho Soldier killed in an attack earlier this week.

Army Sgt. Jason W. Vaughn, 29, of Iuka, Miss., died Thursday in Baqouba when an explosive detonated near his [EDITOR: Strykerrrr truck deathtrap] vehicle. He was assigned to the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, the department said Friday in a news release.

Sgt. Maj. Bradly D. Conner, 41, of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, died Wednesday near Al-Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad. He was killed when a homemade bomb detonated near his vehicle.

Conner was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group at Fort Lewis.

A Fort Lewis spokeswoman on Friday directed inquiries on Conner to U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C. Public affairs officials there did not immediately return a message by The Associated Press.

On Sunday, six members of the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division were killed along with a Russian freelance photojournalist when a bomb exploded beneath their Stryker vehicle in Baqubah, northwest of Baghdad.

Sgt. Blake C. Stephens, 25, of Pocatello, Idaho, was also identified by the Defense Department on Friday as one of two Soldiers who died Tuesday in Salman Pak, about 18 miles south of Baghdad, when a roadside bomb exploded near their vehicle.

Stephens and Spc. Kyle A. Little, 20, of West Boylston, Mass., were assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga.

Conner and Stephens are the 26th and 27th Idaho Soldiers killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

LAV-3/Strykerrrrs fail in Afghanistan and the Canadians ditch their own wheeled trucks they make for more mobile and better armored tracks!

Enter the Leopards and M113 MTVL Gavins!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrATZkFUhaI

The Dutch are using M113 Gavin tracks, too and are being VERY successful in counter-insurgency operations!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKa3tK3zi4c

What caused the turn-around?

COMBAT.

REALITY.

AFGHANISTAN.

A DESIRE TO WIN, NOT CONTINUE TO LOSE IN WHEELED TRUCKS...

EXPERIENCE ONE FAILURE DAY IN THE LIFE OF A FUBAR LAV-III/Strykerrr UNIT....

Strykers fail: VIDEO of Canadian LAV-IIIs hopelessly stuck in mud, breaks main bearing, mission aborted

American Stryker versions of the LAV-III are even more bloated and weighted down with bird cage and electronics inside....why are we wasting $4M on each of these flat-bottom, road-bound trucks?

From the recent PBS documentary, "Afghanistan: the Other War"

Go to 2:58 and see why the Canadians have gone to tracks in Afghanistan like other smart armies, Brits, Dutch etc.

Canadian LAV-IIIs hopelessly stuck in mud, breaks main bearing, mission aborted

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZandbBaUw_U

We need to stop wasting billions on fatally flawed break-down-prone wheeled Stryker trucks that fail to get the job done and put our men into constant road/trail ambushes and put our money into M113 Gavin light for cross-country mobility but medium-weight in armor protection tracks that don't get stuck and break down in a mere light rain and minor mud.

STILL PHOTOS OF THE LAV-III DEBACLE IN AFGHANISTAN (AMERICANS EXPERIENCE THIS DAILY, TOO)

1: UHO. Its raining in Afghanistan. 20-ton wheeled trucks + muddy roads don't mix. Too bad wars don't take place where its comfortable and dry.

2: "We are going to make contact with a new village and reach out to them and win over their hearts and minds in our low-maintenance, all-terrain, high-speed SASO wheeled vehicles. Our LAV-IIIs are used by the Americans who call them 'Strykers'".

3: "WAHOO! Look at Me! I'm going 60 miles per hour on the road!!" (Not for long!)

LAV-III stuck a 1st time; Road Speed: 0 MPH

4: "Ohhh....sh$%^&! I drove into a rut....."

5: "Can we get it out?"

6: "We had technical difficulties and had to cancel the mission to the village"

7: "What's that dangling underneath the LAV-III?"

8: "Oh No. Its the main bearing. Its broke, man. This thing won't run its trashed."

9: "What a Piece-of-Shit (POS)."

10: "Careful! Don't get the 'recovery' LAV-III stuck, too!"

11: "Oh Boy. The 'recovery' LAV-III is spinning in the mud, too."

12: "Please...please grip...grip....we don't want to be stuck here outside the wire when the sun goes down..."

LAV-III stuck a 2d time

13: "Gun it!!! Get through the dip!"

14: "Damn! We are Stuck Again! Dude! It's Getting Dark!"

15: "We Got to get Back to the FOB before the Taliban come out!"

16: "Go Easy! Easy! Let the Wheels Catch!"

17: "Damn. Forget it. Cut the Engine!"

18: "Mission Aborted! Maybe an officer will figure this out."

"We REALLY showed our Afghan allies today why they should trust their very lives to us.

Yeah, Right. We need to turn these pieces-of-shit in and get tracks so we can win"

---

American LAV-III "Strykerrrrrsssss" Stuck in Iraq: Same POS, different Place, Dishonest Spin Artists

The pic DoD doesn't want you to see lest it spoil their wheeled truck racket

In contrast to the Canadians that at least internally can accept realities that wheels are fatally flawed and then actually do something about it by using more tracks, Americans think that by taking down proof that their "Strykerrrr" wheeled trucks are crap that they will somehow NOT be crap? Since when does shooting the MESSENGER change the MESSAGE when its about REALITY? Covering up the REALITY of Strykerrrr trucks constantly being struck and blown up doesn't change the REALITY that these thin metal boxes on air-filled rubber tires are getting mired into the sand, mud and ground when not being exploded open and set on fire with men inside.

****CENSORED****

Stryker stuck in mud

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/JCCC/2006/Air_Force/060630-F-1644L-051.JPEG

****CENSORED****

PIC CENSORED BY CORRUPT RACKETEERS

---

Paul Hornback's Wheels vs. Tracks Article in the March-April 1998 issue of U.S. Army Armor magazine (before it became politicized) Warned Us Against the Wheeled SASO "Nation-Building" Racket EuroFad

1st TSG (A) EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wheels/Tracks NRMM Study

---

Steel Tracked M113 Gavin went 75+ mph in 1979! There's NO justification for wheeled trucks on the non-linear battlefield!

According to Hunnicutt Bradley: A History of American Fighting and Support Vehicles on page 109, the "Hot Rod" averaged 75.76 mph over a 500 foot gravel test track at Fort Knox in 1979. Power was 2 x 440 cubic inch Chrysler gas engines driving two modified 727 transmissions.

Imagine what M113 Gavins would do today on band tracks with hybrid-electric drive!

www.combatreform2.com/bandtracks.htm
www.combatreform2.com/hybridelectricdrive.htm

...thanks be to retired LTC Dave Tooker for finding these pictures!!

We are the Champions: New Strykerrrr video!

www.combatreform2.com/whatsitreallyliketobeinastryker.wmv

Billy Don't Ride in a STRYKER
The marchin' band came down along Main Street The SBCT fell in behind I looked across and there I saw Billy Waiting to go and join the line And with her head upon his shoulder His young and lovely fiancee From where I stood I saw she was cryin' And through her tears I heard her say "Billy, don't be a rambo, don't drive a Stryker to the fight Billy, don't be a rambo, Strykers can't protect your life And as he started to go, she said, Billy, keep your head low.... Billy, don't be a rambo, Strykers will fail" The Stryker tires were deflated on a roadside The insurgents had hidden a bomb The sergeant cried,'We've got to hang on, boys!" We can't leave these damaged cars I need a volunteer to ride up And bring us back some '113s And Billy's hand was up in a moment Forgettin' all the words she said She said "Billy, don't be a rambo, don't drive a Stryker to the fight Billy, don't be a rambo, Strykers can't protect your life And as he started to go, she said, Billy, keep your head low.... Billy, don't be a rambo, Strykers will fail"  I heard his fiancee got a letter That told how Billy died that day The letter said that Strykers were failures He would've survived in a Gavin '113 She sent it to congress demanding a better way

THE PHOTOS KEEP COMING IN OF STRYKERRRSS AND LAVSSSS AFLAMEEEEBE' AND IN CRUMPLED WRECKAGE...

The common lie is that LAVs can somehow afford to lose some of its 4 front air-filled rubber tires and rims which are used for steering and keep rolling; as the attached photo of a LAV-25 1:35 scale model shows, the fragile steering and suspension linkages will be mangled and the LAV1, 2, 3/Stryker will be rolling nowhere "fast" at 0 mph--look what just a little mud did to the Canadian LAV3/Bison/Stryker/POS from the PBS video above.

The LAV's vulnerable suspension and drive train do not run into the hull as torsion bars on tracks do which isolates some land mine shock wave but it makes the entire hull box 28% larger and thus a bigger target with less weight for armor proterction, firepower and supplies than a tracked AFV.

The answer is obviously, to v-hull the tracked AFV and use DTI external road arm suspension and ditch torsion bars. If land mine is powerful enough to destroy a spot of the track, short-track and keep going.

Pampered and shielded from heavy combat by Corrupt Generals who want to foist the motorized infantry lie and post-retirement employment from GDLS, Strykerrrr truck narcissists get asses kicked in Diyala, Iraq long to die on foot to preserve ego/make excuses

What about that "never losing a battle" American triumphalist crap the generals and their PAOs are always pontificating about?

The Stryker truck is flat-bottomed and restricted to roads/trails where land mines await them. Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) are nothing more than super large shaped-charges to create molten copper to burn through anyone stupid enough to drive in their path.

The answer as we have been saying all along is to use M113 Gavin TRACKED armored fighting vehicles that can go cross-country to AVOID being in the kill zone of a landmine in the first place. The latest fad to buy sexy V-Hull trucks will not provide cross-country mobility to avoid landmines nor will they defeat shaped charge land mines (molten metal jet set off from a distance doesn't care what its burning through). There are ways to v-shape Gavins to deflect blast shrapnel/concussion and provide them anti-shaped charge landmine protection, too but monies are being wasted on yet more rubber-tired wheeled trucks to prop up light infantry vanity. The Army and marine foot infantry narcissists running the show in Iraq do not get it: IRAQ IS A COMBAT ENGINEERING WAR against CAR BOMBS and LAND MINES, not a gunslinger shoot-out to go kill/capture and barge into people's houses which makes them into more rebels. We need to build a SEPARATION WALL bewteen Sunni/Shia areas and screen all cars/persons for weapons/explosives and build a SECURITY FENCE on the border to keep the Iranians and Islamic fanatics out. A troop REDUCTION would free the funds for a separation wall and border fence. As the man who created the tank said---Winston Churchill; "Americans always do the right thing. After they have exhausted all other possibilities".

Let's hope we don't lose yet another 3, 300+ dead and 24, 000 wounded before we start doing the right things.

The tracked armored fighting vehicle (tank) that can go cross-country is actually a COMBAT ENGINEERING vehicle. After WW1, Detroit and coporate greed took over tank design resulting in a systemic lack of understanding of high explosive attacks (why our vehicles are flat-bottomed) and a MOTORIZED Army that makes people rich from flimsy truck sales but kills our Soldiers when they should be MECHANIZED in at the very least light tracked tanks (Gavins).

www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/15/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Under-Fire.php

Strykers face barrage of enemy fire, lose 2 vehicles on first day in Diyala The Associated PressPublished: March 15, 2007

BAQOUBA, Iraq: Dozens of U.S. Stryker combat vehicles roared into Baqouba at sunrise. The enemy was ready. As the dawn call-to-prayer fell silent, the streets blazed with insurgent fire.

Within minutes of the start of their first mission in volatile Diyala province Wednesday a voice crackled across the radio: "Catastrophic kill, with casualties."

Inside the rear of one Stryker, Soldiers shushed one another and leaned closer to the radio. They all knew what it meant. A U.S. vehicle had been lost to enemy fire.

Nearly 100 Strykers were called north from Baghdad into the province and its capital to try - yet again - to rout Sunni insurgents, many who recently fled the month-old Baghdad security operation.

The fighters have renewed their campaign of bombings and killings just 60 kilometers (35 miles) northeast of the capital as the war enters its fifth year. Diyala province is quickly becoming as dangerous as Anbar province, the Sunni insurgent bastion west of Baghdad.

Rocket-propelled grenades pounded buildings Wednesday where U.S. Soldiers sought cover. Mortars soared overhead and crashed to earth spewing clouds of deadly shrapnel. Gunfire rattled ceaselessly - the hollow pop of insurgent AK-47s and whoosh of grenade launchers nearly drowned out by shuddering blasts from U.S. 50-caliber machine guns.

Soldiers screamed into their radios for backup. Apache attack helicopters swooped in, firing Hellfire missiles.

By day's end, one Soldier was dead, 12 wounded and two Strykers destroyed. The Americans said dozens of insurgents were killed but gave no specific number.

It was a brutal, bloody first-day for the 2nd Infantry Division's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment - the "crack" Stryker battalion dispatched from Baghdad's northern suburbs.

"They threw everything at us - RPGs, mortars - and a guy even tossed a grenade just in front of my vehicle," said Capt. Huber Parsons, the 28-year-old commander of the 5-20's Attack company. "But the most devastating was the 'IEDs'," the Coral Gables, Florida, native said. He was talking about improvised explosive devices - roadside bombs.

One Stryker was lost in a particularly sophisticated ambush.

Struck head-on by an IED, the rubber-tired armored vehicle was swallowed up in the bomb crater. Insurgents emerged from hiding, firing RPGs in unison.

The Stryker crew was trapped. One U.S. Soldier was killed. All nine other crew members were wounded, though six later returned to duty.

The other Stryker was destroyed when a roadside bomb exploded as the armored fighting vehicle drove over it. The nine-man squad got out alive, three with injuries.

"It was quite an introduction to Diyala," said Sgt. William Rose of the 5-20's 3rd platoon, Alpha company.

"That was the most contact we've had in weeks, maybe months," said Rose, a 26-year-old Arlington, Massachusetts, native.

"They always say the next place we're going is the worst - the most violent - and it never turns out to be the case," Rose said. "They really meant it this time."

Violence has risen dramatically in Diyala since the launch of the Baghdad security operation on Feb. 14. Insurgents have slowly been taking control for months, however. Attacks on American forces in the province have shot up 70 percent since last July, according to military figures.

The Stryker group sent to fight the insurgents was hand-picked by Gen. Ray Odierno, the second in command of all U.S. forces in Iraq. It marked the opening of a new front in the Baghdad security operation, a broadening of the operation for which U.S. President George W. Bush has promised more than 20,000 additional Soldiers.

The Stryker group arrived in Baqouba on Tuesday full of optimism about pacifying Diyala, as they had done earlier in parts of Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul.

Confidence faded Wednesday in the hail of insurgent fire and news of casualties among comrades.

"Our first day and we lost one already," said 22-year-old Spc. Jose Charriez of Hermiston, Oregon. "You realize how quickly your life can go."

He and his comrades went through names - Jones, Rubenstein, could it be them? - trying to figure out who had been killed. A young private bowed his head in prayer.

"One killed in action and nine casualties. That's basically all of us right here," said Spc. Anthony Bradshaw, a 21-year-old from San Antonio, pointing to the nine men around him.

Hunkered down in their vehicles, the 3rd platoon were itching to get out and into the fight. They are infantrymen trained for foot patrols, not to ride in armored vehicles, they said. And the news of the two lost vehicles fueled their determination.

Then the order came: dismount, clear houses to the north.

At the back of the Stryker, the hatch dropped open, and nine Soldiers piled out. They took cover on the front porch of an abandoned house and plotted their path. Explosions rang out to the east, source unknown.

They crouched behind a crumbling cement wall separating overgrown lawns where rusted garbage trucks lay.

With large red wire cutters, Spc. Jeremiah Westerfeld, 22, ripped through concertina wire to allow Soldiers to scramble over the wall.

The Batesville, Indiana, native bent over and offered a visiting reporter his shoulder as a step to break her fall.

They dropped down into a scruffy yard, thick with foliage and muddy ruts. A dog barked wildly. Smoke grenades were thrown for cover.

Someone shot the dog.

Doors were kicked in, residents questioned. One vacant house was booby-trapped with a trip wire connected to a homemade bomb made from a propane tank.

Throughout the day, Soldiers took aim but seldom got a clear shot on the elusive enemy that hid behind rooftop water tanks and vanished in lush palm groves. Gunfire seemed to come from nowhere and from everywhere.

Insurgent fire kicked up pebbles at the Americans' feet as they ran between buildings. Enemy bullets were getting more accurate.

In Baghdad, the 5-20 had found little resistance as the unit scoured suspected insurgent dens in neighborhoods around Sadr City. They often drank tea with locals.

Things were different in Diyala, which could prove far more difficult to tame than Baghdad.

"I think the chai (tea) days - the quiet days - are over," said 24-year-old Pfc. Allen Groth of Winona, Minnesota.

GDLS cheats and has metal bracket to keep Stryker-MGS from tipping over; claims side stability problem "solved"

PROBLEM: Strykerrrr-MGS doesn't work despite millions of tax $ dollars...could threaten corporate profits...Congress could stop their gravy train...

The picture below GDLS sends out claiming it proves Strykerrrr-MGS can fire 105mm gun to side and not tip-over:

(Click on picture for full-size version)

SOLUTION TO FOIST A LIE: Now look more closely at the cropped and captioned version of GDLS picture which shows a METAL TEST STAND/BRACKET COMING OUT OF THE GROUND TO PREVENT IT FROM TIPPING OVER.

Too bad we can't in combat dig a hole and place a huge metal bracket in to lean the Strykerrrr-MGS up against it so it will not tip over whenever we need to fire the 105mm gun? (that is when it fires and doesn't jam).

PLAN B: So now GDLS is pushing to provide M1 HEAVY tanks to Stryker truck brigades and to emasculate our heavy brigades with yet more wheeled deathtraps (more corporate $$$ profits for them).

Have you noticed every Vice Chief of Staff of the Army in the past several years has retired and gone to work for GDLS? I guess they didn't learn how to spell the words "conflict", "of" and "interest" in high school?

Absurd.

That completely destroys the original intent of the Strykerrrr truck units as briefed to the Hill. Anything but admit the Strykerrrr is a huge failure and to do the RIGHT THING and supply our LIGHT troops with LIGHT M113 Gavin and M8 Buford/Thunderbolt TRACKS that can actually fly by C-130 aircraft for 3D maneuvers, go cross-country at will, fire large 105-120mm guns and fully protect our men in non-linear combats.

Someone needs to step in and put an end to this before the Army wastes all of its remaining cash on a bad solution.

REVELATION: Canadian Army Officer warns that Canadian-made Stryker-type trucks are dismal failures and M113 Gavin tracks are getting the job done, but corrupt politics prevent their troops from discarding their cash cows

ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE CANADIAN ARMY OFFICER

Sent: Saturday, 3, September, 2005 11:52 AM

To: xxxxxxxxx@forces.gc.ca

Subject: Stryker-MGS failings

Sir,

GDLS is a corrupt company that is not going to reveal its failings. What we hear is that when the Strykerrrr-MGS 105mm gun is fired forward in alignment with its wheel base, it sheared off the axles - when turned 90 degrees and fired, the vehicle turned over.

If I were you, I'd put a 105mm gun on M113 Gavin or M8 Buford tracks and stop sacrificing 28% of your armor protection possibilities and limiting yourselves to roads/trails where you are easily ambushed by trying to make wheeled trucks into combat vehicles when they are clearly obsolete on the non-linear battlefield (NLB) where the enemy can attack in any direction at any time.

The days of a "Jessica Lynch" underclass driving around in rubber-tired trucks is over. Everyone has to fight and everyone has to work to prevail on the NLB.

Airborne!

Mike Sparks

*****************************************

THE CANADIAN OFFICER REPLIES:

"Hi Mike,

Thanks for your opinions, I thought I'd reply from my home e-mail as opposed to my Army address. Most in the Canadian army share the basic view that the Stryker family is not the ideal platform for anything (let alone a 105mm gun). We are an all weather army and a good portion of our training is in severe snow conditions and the wheeled vehicles in our regiment (LAV 25's and LAV3's) simply get stuck where our venerable Leopards just plough right through, we had 2 LAV3 rollovers during a winter combat team ex last year. We have recently received our upgraded M113s and are very impressed with the performance (see link). They are very fast, roomy and the mobility is far superior to anything wheeled. Canada is a country that requires almost 100% Canadian content in procurement, often at the sacrifice of mission requrements and soldier safety. Therefore we are using the LAV3 chassis for nearly all new platforms. At the junior officer and Company Commander level in an armoured regiment the consenus is to stay with M113A3-A4 and replace our Leopards with something like the M8 AGS, a reasonable balance of weight, mobility and firepower and most importantly crew safety.

As we get rid of our tanks and await the MGS the Canadian army is developing a new 'Direct Fire Doctrine' where the MGS, Tow Under Armour and ADATS work together to provide long range direct fire support. A cumbersome and costly nightmare, operationally and logistically. This will all be based on the LAV3 platform and two of these vehicles will have little or no defensive capability. As a tanker we are used to using terrain to find the best firing positions from a hull down position, after laying on to a target with our sights we only expose ourselves enough for the gun to clear, we then fire and haul ass in reverse, jockey and take up another postion. The MGS with it's gun mounted so far back, with very little depression on the hull will require total exposure of the hull to fire. So here we are, crested in a thin skinned vehicle, a sitting duck. One of the things that our politically appointed Defence Minister stated with purchasing the MGS is that 'Hey, it's deployable in a Herc where our tanks are not' well that's B.S. as you know and with that mentality a Ford Escort is deployable but I wouldn't want to be caught dead in such a piece of crap. Situational awareness on the move is also a serious issue. As a crew commander do you expect me to poke my head way up over that monstrous gun-thing to check what is on the flanks?

I can rant for hours but you can be assured that Soldiers in the Canadian Forces agree with you. It saddens me because in our Liberalized, Velvet Totalitarian country we do not have citizens that even think about defence matters let alone fight for the good of the troops like your organization does. I salute you for your efforts.

Feel free to use my commentary but not my name,

Thanks,

xxxxxxx"

NEW CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT IN CANADA CANCELS THEIR OWN CANADIAN BUT DEFECTIVE PRODUCT LAV-III MOBILE GUN SYSTEM: FAILURES IN AFGHANISTAN WAKE THEM UP

(Americans lack such integrity, BS themselves that they are "Stryker-MGSes" perverting the name of two actual American Soldier Heroes)

VIDEO PROOF:

www.combatreform2.com/lav25getstuckinthemudandtiresspinandcantmove.mpeg

Here's a video of a LAV-1 with a small 25mm turret getting stuck; imagine a bloated LAV-III with a heavy 105mm external gun on top, how immobile it is!

"As soon you get off the highway and into the wadis (dry river beds) -- it's the suspension, the tires, the heat, the strain of driving up and down the hills all day at slow speeds and high idle. It just seems to murder the vehicles."

11 x LAV-IIIs knocked out by the EARTH...1/5 of the Canadian force. The Taliban/al Queda types must be laughing their heads off.

2 x LAV-IIIs blown up because they were too heavy to tow back, MOTHER EARTH again KOs the stupid arrogant "Modern", "Futuristic" humans.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

By a knock-out, MOTHER EARTH!

www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=d2ace8bb-b41f-4b8c-afce-f6dbfef1d7e5&k=60414

Climate, terrain take toll on military gear

John Cotter, Canadian Press

Published: Friday, July 07, 2006

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- A Canadian convoy screeches to a halt in a remote mountain valley as a Bison armoured personnel carrier overheats, bleeding its vital engine coolant onto the hot, dusty road.

As nervous Soldiers dismount to form a protective cordon around the vulnerable vehicles, weapons facing out toward the unknown, a team of mechanics jumps on the Bison, fix the problem and get the convoy moving again.

Afghanistan's horrible climate and brutal landscape are giving Canada's military mechanics major headaches as they struggle to keep equipment working in the war against the Taliban.

"There probably isn't a more difficult or harsh environment than Afghanistan," said Capt. Chris Wood of the Edmonton-based 1 Service Battalion, the unit tasked with fixing most of the wear and tear.

"Afghanistan is the measure. The extreme test of our equipment."

Blistering 60-degree temperatures cause engines to boil like tea kettles and suck the cold from air-conditioning systems needed to keep Soldiers and delicate electronic equipment in fighting trim.

Jagged terrain shreds heavy tires and mashes shock absorbers into twisted coils of useless metal.

Thick clouds of fine, powdery dust (the troops call it "moon dust") clog weapons and force vehicle crews to stop every 50 to 100 kilometres to clean their air filters.

Since military operations began in February, battle and environmental damage have knocked at least 11 LAV III armoured vehicles out of commission -- about one-fifth of Canada's force in Afghanistan, military sources say.

Some of the remaining LAVs and other vehicles are so worn down they must be rotated back to Canada for major refits before they can be used again. They'll be replaced by "new" vehicles.

The heavy LAVs are so difficult to recover in the field that two had to be written off and destroyed.

In the meantime, the mobile repair crews that go on patrol with the Canadian battle group rely on sweat and ingenuity to keep the motors and systems running.

"For the most part it is putting stuff back together again with bubble-gum and tape, whatever you can think of at the time," said Cpl. Kirk Lewis of Salisbury, N.B.

"As soon you get off the highway and into the wadis (dry river beds) -- it's the suspension, the tires, the heat, the strain of driving up and down the hills all day at slow speeds and high idle. It just seems to murder the vehicles."

Repeated requests were made to the Department of Defence in Ottawa for information on how much has been budgeted for equipment wear and tear in Afghanistan. The information was not provided.

The U.S. military expects the cost of replacing, maintaining and upgrading army equipment in Afghanistan and Iraq to more than triple next year, according to documents obtained by the Associated Press.

The documents say the budget for repairs alone will be about $6.5 billion -- three times higher than the amount to replace battle losses.

Canadian vehicles and equipment that can't be fixed in the field are brought to the coalition base in Kandahar.

The maintenance centre looks like a giant metallic dinosaur boneyard. Damaged armoured vehicles sit in the dust as mechanics crawl over the carcasses, making repairs.

Some gear is dragged into a warren of dark tents that are lit up by the sparks and arcs of welding torches.

"When vehicles get blown up we can reuse the parts that aren't blown up," said Master Cpl. Bill Coles of Newfoundland. "We cannibalize a little."

The mechanics, who sometimes have to work through the night on priority jobs, use humour and camaraderie to make it through their shifts.

One repair bay has been decorated to look like a gas station garage you would find in any small community in Canada.

Girlie pictures and motorcycle posters cover a white refrigerator next to a grimy coffee pot as the mechanics hum along to a CD player garbling Top 40 songs.

The atmosphere is almost like home until a sunburned corporal rolls up to the bay in his battered 20-tonne LAV, one of its eight wheels mangled and in need of service.

The weary corporal pulls himself out of the turret, jumps to the ground and makes a query familiar to any mechanic who has every held a wrench.

"Hey, do you know how long it will take to get my vehicle ready?"

www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=95b4c9e5-de13-4425-bc87-218c10 31583c&k=94676&p=1

Saturday » July 8 » 2006

The return of the Leopard

Three years ago, Canada announced the demise of its fleet of tanks, saying that "lighter, faster and more manoeuverable" Stryker mobile gun systems were required if we were to be a viable, battlefield-ready force. But now, our experiences in Afghanistan suggest otherwise, and the army is asking the government to reconsider.

David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen

Saturday, July 08, 2006

On Oct. 29, 2003, Liberal Defence Minister John McCallum and Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier assembled the Ottawa news media to announce the demise of the country's tank force. Canada was taking its fleet of Leopard tanks out of service and was going "high-tech".

Mr. McCallum said the army had requested the government purchase the U.S. "Stryker" Mobile Gun System, better known as the MGS. That wheeled vehicle, also being bought by the American army, had less armour than a tank but could move "faster" and was "more manoeuverable" on the battlefield.

According to Lt.-Gen. Hillier, the army's Leopards had served their purpose and, despite recently undergoing a $145-million upgrade, were now of limited use. The vehicle of the "future" was instead the MGS, which the general, an armoured officer, dubbed state-of-the art and a "war-winner."

"A mobile gun system is the right vehicle for Canada's army and will provide an excellent capability on Canadian Forces operations," Lt.-Gen. Hillier said. "We are losing a millstone that has hamstrung our thinking for years," he added, referring to the Leopard.

The general dismissed concerns from some opposition politicians who warned the decision would put the lives of Canadian military personnel at risk and placed the country on par with Luxembourg and Iceland, two nations which also saw no need for heavier armoured vehicles.

The army's plan would instead see the MGS working in conjunction with another "high-tech" weapon, the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle or MMEV. Based on the army's existing air defence missile system called ADATS, the MMEV would be designed and built by the Quebec-based aerospace firm Oerlikon and be capable of shooting down aircraft or destroying ground targets.

But less than three years later, and in a major reversal of its plans, the army is now asking the Conservative government to cancel both the MGS and MMEV programs. The MGS is no longer the right vehicle for the army and the Leopard is no longer seen as a millstone. A study is under way to determine how to keep the tank in service until at least 2015.

Army officials refuse to say why they want to cut the two programs which just a few years ago were heralded as evidence that Canada would be fielding a high-tech military.

The decision to buy the MGS and MMEV was at the heart of the army's decision to "transform" itself into a force that could be quickly sent overseas and, once there, rapidly move around the battlefield. Tanks took too long to get to a war zone, Canada's military leadership maintained, and the tracked behemoths were difficult to manoeuvre, particularly in places like Kabul. In fact, Canada wasn't sending its Leopards overseas all that much; the last time they had been used on an international mission was in Kosovo in 1999.

The army's plan, instead, called for using the MGS, the MMEV and another anti-tank missile system to form a "direct fire system" that would replace the Leopard. The MMEV, according to the Canadian Forces, would be capable of shooting down aircraft as well as drones, knocking out armoured vehicles and destroying enemy forces hidden in hills and buildings.

Unlike the Leopard, the MGS would "quickly drive" into battle. Any needed additional firepower would come from other sources. "We now have a very different kind of battle space," Lt.-Col. Paul Fleury, then director of land strategic planning, told the Canadian Forces newspaper the Maple Leaf in 2004. "And in any major conflict now we'll have contact with aircraft up to and including B-52s that can drop ordnance wherever we need it." [EDITOR: typical RMA bombard & occupy BS from wheeled narcissists]

But the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to new questions about how future conflicts will be fought. Insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades and using roadside bombs have proven to be a formidable enemy, knocking out lightly armoured vehicles and even tanks. Fielding vehicles with better protection, argue some commanders, is now the way of the future.

At the same time, other equipment is more urgently needed by the Canadian army for its future operations, particularly those in Afghanistan. The $3 billion to be spent on the MGS and MMEV, a price tag which included long-term maintenance contracts for the vehicles, could be put to better use elsewhere.

The MGS, in particular, has faced widespread criticism, particularly from Soldiers in the U.S. Some American officers have argued that the move towards such lighter forces is dangerous. Wheeled vehicles, such as the Stryker, while good on roadways, lack the mobility for cross-country warfare, they maintain.

The other main argument against the MGS centres on the vehicle's light armour and its vulnerability to rocket-propelled grenades. "The Stryker was not ordered with the RPG in mind," noted a report written by U.S.-based analyst Victor O'Reilly, who described the vehicle as suited for light peacekeeping duties, but not combat. Other critics in the U.S. pointed to tests by the U.S. military which revealed a series of problems with the main armament on the MGS. The blast from the gun was so powerful it damaged parts on the armoured vehicle. In addition, there have been problems with the weapon's loading system, and Soldiers who tested the vehicle complained it was too cramped. Others noted that the MGS had just 18 rounds of ammunition compared to the 50 or 55 usually carried in many tanks.

Officials with General Dynamics, the U.S. defence firm building the Stryker family of vehicles, countered that such criticisms were no longer valid since improvements had taken care of any problems. The vehicle, they noted, was more than capable of surviving on the battlefield. [EDITOR: LYING MOTHERFUCKERS. Can LAV-III-MGS carry more than 18 ready rounds? NO. Can it go cross-country without getting stuck? NO. Can it fire the 105mm gun without tipping over? NO. There should be a law for lying about defense products in public and the liars at GDLS should be thrown in prison, starting the the lying retired Army generals getting fat off the deaths/maimings of our Soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan].

A similar but more limited debate in Canada's military took place largely behind closed doors. [EDITOR: no such integrity in U.S. Army/marines, they believe the BS they feed to the public and Congress]. Those in the armoured corps were not happy with the MGS purchase, but they stayed loyal to the service [EDITOR: is "loyalty" going along with institutional suicide? We think not. We know not. Loyalty would blow-the-whistle on the BS in any way it takes to get it stopped.] and said nothing publicly. Studies done by the Canadian Forces in the late 1990s had already called into question replacing the Leopard tank with a lighter armoured vehicle, similar to the MGS. The outcome of one of those war game simulations warned that using such a vehicle would not only cost Canadian lives but would be "morally and ethically wrong."

Despite such concerns, there was a widespread acknowledgement in the Canadian army that the MGS purchase was a done deal. A few officers, however, stepped forward to question the purchases in internal memos and professional publications. [EDITOR: these are the ones who were being "loyal" to Canada and her Soldiers] On Sept. 15, 2003, Major T.W. Melnyk wrote a report noting that while the MGS and MMEV improved the army's capability, that didn't mean they were needed for the future transformation of the force. "Given the public commitment to MGS by senior leadership, any difference of opinion at the staff level is largely academic," the major wrote. "While the MGS is not considered to be required for transformation, the project must also be taken as a given."

The MMEV was another matter, though. "It is not clear that providing a wheeled 8 kilometre direct-fire capability to the Army will contribute in a major way to transformation," his report pointed out. "The logic and value of spending $300-$400 million on an orphan fleet of 34 vehicles for which there is a minimal industrial support base must also be questioned."

That purchase should be re-evaluated, the report concluded. Maj. Melnyk added that the army disagreed with his assessment of the MGS and MMEV.

The report was controversial enough that the Defence department's Access to Information branch withheld its release to the Citizen for 16 months. When it was made public last year, the Defence department dismissed the document as an informal analysis by a "planning officer" [EDITOR always defecate on the messenger] that did not reflect the military's official view.

In late 2003, an even more pointed criticism of the MGS purchase emerged in the army's professional journal. In an article in The Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin, Lt.-Col. J.A. Summerfield warned that the MGS purchase wouldn't provide the Canadian Forces with any new capabilities, and instead could saddle it with a soon-to-be outdated vehicle.

He noted that the Stryker represented only a stop-gap measure for the U.S. before it started fielding a more futuristic family of armoured vehicles around 2015. Once that happened, the American military, with its large budget, could either continue using the Strykers in other roles or simply get rid of them.

But the budget-conscious Canadian Forces wouldn't have that option, according to Lt.-Col. Summerfield. It would have to operate the Strykers for more than 20 years and, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the vehicles, it would not likely have the funds to then purchase the futuristic system the Americans planned to field, he warned.

"This is especially disturbing when the (mobile gun) system in question does not provide a marked improvement over existing systems, including the Leopard tank," the lieutenant colonel wrote. But the army countered that the MGS did represent an "improvement in technology". It intended to install "more modern equipment" on board the MGS, improving its ability to "transmit and receive information" well beyond what was capable with the Leopards. [EDITOR: put the BS "information" mental gadgets into the Leopard then. Don't confuse mental "icing" with physical "cake".]

In addition, the low-profile turret of the MGS allowed the vehicle's crew to position themselves "more safely inside" the main body of the chassis. [EDITOR: ABSOLUTE FUCKING LIE: placing crew behind a mere 1/2 inch of steel in the hull is no improvement over the crew in a turret that is several inches thick. A dishonest statement to deceive.] "That is new technology and it's a significant improvement in the protection of the crew," Col. Mike Kampman, the army's director of strategic planning, said in an interview at the time. [EDITOR: he's full of shit. The high silhouette LAV-III/MGS will not be able to duck under any earth cover any better than a Leopard tank with a more compact tracked hull with a turret can.]

But it was a comment by a retired general that set off the most extensive and dogged defence of the MGS yet offered by the army leadership. Responding to a Canadian Forces report that showed tanks played a key role in the Iraq war, retired brigadier general Jim Hanson ridiculed the MGS purchase.

"The Americans drove their tanks into downtown Baghdad where RPGs bounced off their armour," said Brig.-Gen. Hanson. "Buying the Stryker -- that's insanity."

He also argued that Canada's Leopards could be upgraded at a lower cost than the MGS price tag and still provide the army with armour protection and firepower for years to come. He also questioned Gen. Hillier's claims that the army can't get its Leopards to war zones, noting that if the military had really wanted to use tanks on missions, it would not be a problem. The MGS would initially have to be transported to a war zone by ship, the same way that Leopards would be moved, added Brig.-Gen. Hanson.

Then-army commander Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier responded with a 1,000-word rebuttal in the Citizen. He called such comments "a distortion" and characterized critics of the MGS as "armchair strategists" [EDITOR: defecate on messenger when you can't defeat his message] who "preferred it the old way."

Warfare had changed. No longer was the Canadian Forces facing the Russians, Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote. Instead, it was up against "snakes," a reference to terrorists and insurgents.

"Tanks are a perfect example of extremely expensive systems that sit in Canada because they are inappropriate to the operations we conduct daily around the world," Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote. "The MGS, in conjunction with other combat systems, will give us a much greater capability on operations such as those being conducted in Kabul, and still give us options for high-intensity combat."

In addition, MGS armour would be improved to defend against rocket-propelled grenades. [EDITOR: BS. LAV-III chassis is maxed out and cannot take ANY extra armor.]

Canada's Leopard tanks, noted Lt.-Gen. Hillier, could not be compared to main battle tanks in other western armies since they lacked the protection and firepower of those vehicles. [EDITOR: beats the protection of the LAV-III, Hillier you liar]

The general also directly linked the purchase of the MGS to the future transformation of Canada's army. "This transformational process to counter the Snakes that are prevalent around the world is unsettling to some," he wrote. "They would appear to prefer that we stop the process of change irrespective of the dramatically different threat."

That, argued the general, would be illogical.

It will now be up to Gen. Hillier as the country's top Soldier to recommend whether Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor accepts the army's wish to shutdown the MGS and MMEV programs. The decision to cut at least the MGS could be quickly embraced by Mr. O'Connor, a former armoured corps officer. In the past, the Conservatives have been critical of the MGS purchase, and in June 2004, the party's defence policy called for the purchase of a more survivable main battle tank such as the U.S. M1A2 or the German Leopard 2.

As well, Mr. O'Connor's equipment adviser, retired Colonel Howie Marsh, has questioned the MGS purchase. Aaron Gairdner, Mr. O'Connor's chief of staff, is well versed with the ongoing concerns about the MGS and in his previous job as the Conservatives' defence researcher was instrumental in obtaining much of the information the party used to criticize the purchase.

Defence analyst David Rudd says he doesn't believe the decision to cancel the MGS and continue to keep the Leopards in service means Canada will go out and purchase a fleet of new tanks. "I think the army is looking at keeping a capability they can experiment with and maintain skills on," said Mr. Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. "It means a reprieve for the tank, but that is not the same as a new life."

What will happen with the MMEV is another matter. The military's original plans called for using the weapon system to provide protection at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. In that job it would be used in its air defence role to shoot down any aircraft operated by terrorists.

Cancelling a contract potentially worth $1.5 billion for a Quebec-based firm might also not sit well with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, which is hoping to win a substantial number of seats in that province in the next election.

Army spokesman Maj. Daryl Morrell noted that the existing ADATS system, which forms the basis of the MMEV, has never been upgraded. "You've got certain things you have to have," he added. "I would find it unlikely for us to go without some sort of ground-based air defence."

A decision on the two multibillion dollar programs is expected to be made by the fall.

Whatever the outcome, at stake could be the lives of Canadian troops on future battlefields.

A Brief History of the Leopard

The Defence department has blown up or sold off almost half of the army's fleet of 114 Leopard tanks. But further disposal of the tanks has been put on hold after the army requested the cancellation of the Mobile Gun System and the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle programs.

Army spokesman Maj. Daryl Morrell said the service is keeping 66 of its Leopards in service. Twenty-one are now being used on military firing ranges as targets and 23 were sold to companies in North America. An American firm bought some of the stripped-down tanks for use in forest fire-fighting.

Four other Leopards have been given to museums or earmarked for use as monuments.

CNN VIDEO REPORT EXPOSES STRYKERRRRR TRUCKS AS FAILURES IN COMBAT!

www.douglasmacgregor.com/cnnstrykertruckflawed032902005.wmv

Even though the Army tries to hide Stryker trucks from direct combat by having troops get out and walk all around it (which gets them killed but creates illusion it doesn't fail; but explains why there is a Stryker Brigade Soldier dying nearly every week in Iraq), an internal Army report www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050304-stryker.html details their many flaws which have resulted in calls for millions of dollars of repairs/alterations/fixes...retired Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor is interviewed...

MAGAZINE ARTICLE: "Tracks" for Iraq

SoldierOfFortuneArticleTRACKSsparksardilloJULY2004.pdf (PDF file)

1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne) Director Mike Sparks and S2 Intelligence Chief Roy Ardillo take apart the Iraq Humvee/Stryker truck vehicle protection debacle and offer feasible, low-cost M113 Gavin tracked vehicle solutions!

Non-Linear Battlefields Require FULL armor protection: tracks are 28% more capable of armor protection--and can go cross-country to avoid ambushes in the first place!

SO WHY ARE WE TRAVELING IN VULNERABLE TRUCKS DOWN ROADS INTO PREDICTABLE AMBUSHES?

Tracks can easily traverse the vast terrain off to the left and right of paved roads like these...if we were not lazy, impatient Americans who want to ride around in comfy wheeled trucks instead of tactically-sound tracked tanks...and live in tents, former dictator palaces and eventually Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) with all the comforts and absurd parade-ground garrison home life using flimsy wooden buildings.

MOBILE: M113 GAVIN TRACKS

Can a Stryker/Humvee wheeled truck go through this kind of mud? Hardly. Only Light tracks with low ground pressures like the M113 Gavin (8.63 PSI) can!

Falklands War decision: what would U.S. light infantry do if in same soft terrain situation?

Brigadier Julian Thompson in his book, "No Picnic" on page 11 writes:

"I was decided at an early stage in planning to take the minimum number of wheeled vehicles. The going anywhere in the Falklands away from the settlements was so bad that even a lightly loaded Landrover would be lucky to cover four miles an hour. Vehicles loaded with ammunition and stores would be lucky to move at all. The Brigade did have seventy-six of its BV202 oversnow vehicles in England, the remainder being stockpiled in Norway. Although designed to operate over snow there was a good chance that these vehicles with a ground pressure of only 1 1/2 lbs per square inch, about that of a man on skis, would be able to motor across the peat bog. Events were to prove they could."

The U.S. Army used M113 Gavin light tracked armor to be mobile in Southeast Asia: don't try this in a Stryker truck!

VIDEO: Air/Ground Cavalry M113 Gavins in jungle

www.combatreform2.com/airgroundcavalryincombat.wmv

The light infantry combat vehicle that can go anywhere a lightfighter can walk--to include breaking brush in closed terrain after 3D aircraft insertions is still the TRACKED M113 Gavin, the "Green Dragon" feared by the VC/NVA and enemies today that can spit out firepower in all directions behind gunshields...you can't do this in a Stryker or any other wheeled truck. We also have the armor to go on the outside of Gavins to make them RPG and landmine resistant as well as stabilized, shoot-on-the-move autocannons to smother all enemies with explosive shell fire. Band tracks and hybrid-electric drive can make extended hull MTVL, regular size or reduced size "Mini-Gavins" that fit into CH-47 Chinook helicopters stealthy and go 60 mph on smooth terrain...

NOT MOBILE: STRYKER TRUCKS

Their 30+ PSI ground pressure is so high, Stryker trucks CANNOT EVEN AVOID GETTING STUCK WHEN OPERATING ON PAVEMENT!!

Stryker trucks stuck when they STAY ON PAVEMENT...

Where did we get this embarrasing stuck-Stryker-truck picture? From the web site of a brain-washed Stryker truck egotist who even has to admit Stryker trucks get stuck often!

www.ronhorton.com/ 7-12-04_ryan_p3.htm

"Stuck Stryker. Happens more often that we'd like to admit. Down in Balad, which is a very rural area, during the winter/rainy season we'd get stuck all the time. Up here in urban Mosul it doesn't happen as much but you always have to look out for the local sewage. Iraqis know nothing about sanitation. Trash goes in any vacant lot nearby and human waste gets dumped in the street and washed downhill. When gravity can do no more a large puddle of undetermined depth is formed and when a 22 ton Stryker drives into that puddle this can happen."

[EDITOR: all it takes to immobilize a Stryker truck is "shit happens"--literally]

Stryker trucks get stuck as soon as they try to LEAVE roads/trails...

Stryker trucks gets stuck when they try to stay ON the TRAILS...

Stryker trucks get stuck when they try to cut across an open field...

Stryker trucks get stuck when they are steered to the supposedly firm, dry desert...

Stryker trucks get stuck as soon as the TURN OFF or VEER OFF the road shoulder...

Or worse yet, Stryker trucks TURN-OVER when the ground isn't perfectly flat....killing and injuring all those inside...

If a Stryker truck gets hit by a landmine, it doesn't "continue on its other good tires" as the liars at General Dynamics and their future employees after-they-retire-from-the-Army say; IT JUST GETS STUCK.

In fact, the air-filled rubber tire situation is so bleak in Iraq, 309 Stryker trucks in just 1 Army Brigade are forcing entire USAF C-130s fly in with 60 of the $1, 000 each tires; of course the Air Force charges $64, 000 and hour for the delivery service on top of this....a constant paying out for $60K of tires by-the-planeload just to keep a road-bound, thin metal box rolling towards enemy landmines....surrounded by fleshy bodies on foot...not very economical....or tactical....makes you wonder who is there for who? The vehicle for the Soldiers or the Soldiers for the vehicle (and post-retirement employment of the brass in cahoots with GDLS)?

Jock-sniffer and wannabe embed reporter Michael Yon writes:

www.michaelyon-online.com/images/angelsamongTH.jpg

Saturday, July 16th, 2005

Angels Among Us

Mosul

Sixty Stryker tires were strapped five-high into the belly of a C-130 cargo plane heading for Mosul. After weeks of riding in a Humvee with CSM Mellinger and crew, at times sharing a dusty but air-conditioned tent in Baghdad with bold mice, it was time to go "home."

Each day Stryker tires get blown off, sometimes sailing hundreds of feet before landing smoldering on a rooftop, or a car, or the ground. So the belly of the airplane was filled with replacement tires, and three passengers: an Australian Naval officer, a U.S. Army officer, and me.

While away from Mosul, I had assiduously tracked the news, but the news just doesn't do it, not even over here. Email was little help unless answers like, "When you come back you'll find out" and "You know damn well I can't tell you what's happening unless you are here," count as informative. Even as the airplane lofted into the sky, Deuce Four was conducting a raid, hauling in explosives, mortars and other deadly devices.

The C-130 landed in Mosul and the Stryker tires and stowaways tumbled out onto the blistering runaway, as scorching exhaust blasts from the still-running engines added to the haze. Inside the airfield shack, military phones were not working, so I could not call the 1-24th Infantry for a ride, leaving me stuck at the airfield. But Soldiers are usually quick to give someone a ride, so when I spotted a sergeant who looked like he was going somewhere, I asked for a lift. Strangely, he had never heard of 1-24 Infantry.

"You never heard of Deuce Four?" I said. How could someone in Mosul not know Deuce Four?

"Of course I've heard of Deuce Four," the sergeant replied.

"Well Deuce Four is the 1-24th Infantry Regiment. That's my unit."

"You're a civilian?"

"It's sort of my unit."

"I'm not going that way, but hop in and I'll give you a lift."

We rumbled down the dusty road to FOB Marez, and when I jumped off the big truck, Soldiers in the back handed down my gear, waved goodbye and rumbled away. I walked past the guards at Deuce Four and they welcomed me back.

I dropped off the bags in my trailer and headed to the TOC (HQ), and found everyone smiling-they had just hauled in a major weapons cache. When they welcomed me back, too, I thought: it's good to be home, even when home is at war."

Tires, Tires and more Liars....

So No matter what they do or where they go; Stryker-trucks-get-stuck.

STRYKER-TRUCKS-GET-STUCK--and are built to get stuck.

So then, how many tracked armored vehicles do U.S. Army light infantry units have?

ZERO.

Unfortunately, the Army's light units with Delta Anti-Tank (AT) Companies use unarmored, High-Mobility, Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV or "Humvees"); mere 4x4 trucks without the cross-country mobility, armor protection or space in the back to carry A, B, C Company infantry Soldiers as required to conduct real world missions such as rapidly fanning out from Drop Zones (DZs) or Landing Zones (LZs) into enemy territory to engage fleeting asymmetrical enemies as depicted in the scenario above. The Humvee, as a wheeled sport utility not combat vehicle or the heavy, bloated Stryker truck, simply cannot go cross-country at will through vegetation, soft soils, or up and down slopes. It is often road or trail bound, and thus easily ambushed and destroyed at Combat Training Centers (CTCs) like the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) and sadly in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wheeled vehicle are 28% less capable of armor protection than more weight/space efficient tracks. When you slap all kinds of armor on it, Humvee mobility degrades further and mechanically it starts breaking down. This is vividly described by Brigadier General Dan Bolger in The Battle for Hunger Hill and more ominously by real casualty reports in recent combat actions in Iraq, not to mention the 1993 Somalia raid described in the book and film; "Blackhawk Down!" The HMMWV and Stryker are trucks, and not a combat vehicle, with air-filled rubber tires easily punctured and set on fire in a firefight resulting in a mobility kill, and potentially a total kill if the men inside do not get out of the vehicle. Delta Companies, as the main organic anti-tank and mobile security force for foot-mobile light infantry, must not be easily attrited or else the entire main body will be placed in a position of having to fight for its life. The Airborne must land and take the fight aggressively to the enemy without having a "glass jaw;" it must be able to fire and maneuver at will anywhere on the terrain and shrug off enemy fires encountered to attain important objectives - not be damaged and immobilized.

The Army wheeled narcissist lie exposed: Video Proof that steel tracks can go 60+ mph on paved roads

...but when wheeled trucks get STUCK their speed is 0 MPH

This should end the "Stryker and Humvee 60 mph on roads" non-sense forever. Take the governors off our tracks and they can go as fast as you want them. There is NO reason to have or use rubber-tired trucks on the non-linear battlefields of today...they need to go the way of the horse cavalry.

Edited Clip

www.combatreform2.com/steeltrackscango60mphonpavedroads.wmv

Full Clip with an excellent short History of Tanks

www.pioneertv.com/video/tanks900.wmv

Recent Productions

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:FFlc_wMMrHAJ:www.pioneertv.com/recent.asp+tycoon+toys+national+geographic&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Tycoon Toys

(2 x 60' for National Geographic Channel/Freemantle International Distribution) are what the super-rich choose to spend their hard-won zillions on. We meet the few individuals who have a particular penchant for owning, driving and firing huge pieces of ex-military hardware, from field guns to tanks to fighter jets. Tycoon Toys goes on a journey to watch them at play. 2004 - Distributed by: Freemantle International Distribution

NOT HONEST: ARMY MISLABELS LAV-III TRUCK AFTER A HERO IN A M113 GAVIN UNIT

If Specialist Stryker had been in a M113 Gavin he'd be alive (not a typo)

You didn't read the message header wrong!

Here's a picture of the deceased U.S. Army Soldier, Specialist Robert F. Stryker who the LAV-III truck was mislabelled after.

www.virtualwall.org/ds/StrykerRF01c.jpg

Notice the distinctive sharp sloped front on the tracked armored vehicle... he's standing in front of a M113 Gavin!!

1. We know his unit the 1st Infantry Division, had M113 Gavins in Vietnam, but according to his Medal of Honor account, he was ON FOOT when he threw himself on a directional Claymore landmine:

The President of the United States in the name of the Congress of the United States takes pride in presenting the MEDAL OF HONOR posthumously to ROBERT FRANCIS STRYKER, Specialist Four, Army of the United States for service as set forth in the following

CITATION:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. SP4 Stryker, U.S. Army, distinguished himself while serving with Company C. SP4 Stryker was serving as a grenadier in a multicompany reconnaissance in force near Loc Ninh. As his unit moved through the dense underbrush, it was suddenly met with a hail of rocket, automatic weapons and small arms fire from enemy forces concealed in fortified bunkers and in the surrounding trees. Reacting quickly, SP4 Stryker fired into the enemy positions with his grenade launcher. During the devastating exchange of fire, SP4 Stryker detected enemy elements attempting to encircle his company and isolate it from the main body of the friendly force. Undaunted by the enemy machinegun and small-arms fire, SP4 Stryker repeatedly fired grenades into the trees, killing enemy snipers and enabling his comrades to sever the attempted encirclement. As the battle continued, SP4 Stryker observed several wounded members of his squad in the killing zone of an enemy claymore mine. With complete disregard for his safety, he threw himself upon the mine as it was detonated. He was mortally wounded as his body absorbed the blast and shielded his comrades from the explosion. His unselfish actions were responsible for saving the lives of at least 6 of his fellow Soldiers. SP4 Stryker's great personal bravery was in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the U.S. Army.

We also know had Stryker and his buddies been INSIDE a M113 Gavin with 1.5 inch thick armored hull full of gear strapped outside and inside, a Claymore mine's 700 metal balls wouldn't have done much damage; its why we refer to it as an ANTI-PERSONNEL mine not an anti-tank mine.

2. We also know, the LAV-III is a very overloaded thin box rolling on 8 air-filled tires that gets constantly stuck in desert and river marshy Iraq and could not even go anywhere near where SPC Stryker's infantry unit went in M113 Gavin tracks in the rice paddies and jungles of Southeast Asia Vietnam. SPC Stryker died because he was not in an armored track, yet we "kill him" again by naming him after an inferior wheeled vehicle that can't even stay close to the walking infantry that has doomed a generation of young Soldiers to death/maiming. This is no honor, its an outrage.

3. So what does the Army do about it? Lie about it of course!

Take a look at the Stryker banner on the Army web site where they conveniently white-out the M113 Gavin behind Specialist Robert Stryker...compare to the original picture of Robert above...(scroll up)

www.army.mil/features/stryker/default.htm

THE COVER-UP:

WHAT'S MISSING: (THE TRUTH)

---

www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/29/wbr.01.html

The Stryker is a new armored to vehicle which is getting a trial by fire in Iraq. Soldiers who depend on it say it's a success. I heard that and saw it in action when I was in Mosul last week, but critics also call it a costly failure. CNN has obtained an internal Army report which lists a number of Stryker shortcomings.

Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Move it. Hurry.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): The Army's newest armored personnel carrier, the Stryker, is under fire, not just from the insurgents in Iraq, but also from the critics at home, who argue the 19-ton wheeled fighting vehicle is too heavy to be flown anywhere quickly, too vulnerable to heavy attack, and, at almost $2 million a copy, too expensive compared to alternatives like the old M-113 Gavin track vehicle.

RET. COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR, PRESIDENT, GLENSIDE ANALYSIS: It's enormous in side, which is unavoidable with wheeled chassis, and it doesn't bring significant power, armored protection or mobility to the fight.

MCINTYRE: But the Stryker remains the linchpin of U.S. Army plans to convert to a lighter, more agile force, and the Soldiers who serve in them swear by them.

STAFF SGT. BENJAMIN HANNER, U.S. ARMY: Well, after spending 12 months in Iraq, there's no other vehicle in the inventory I'd rather go to Iraq in. Well, I was actually wounded in Mosul from an IED incident while in a Stryker. And I walked away from the incident with routine injuries.

MCINTYRE: For Iraq, the Strykers had to be outfitted with a birdcage of slat armor, designed to cause rocket-propelled grenades to detonate prematurely. An internal report from the Center for Army Lessons Learned obtained by CNN concludes that, while Soldiers were told the "slat armor would protect them against eight out of 11 strikes," in fact, Soldiers say it's only "effective against half of the RPG attacks."

Meanwhile, the extra armor adds three feet in width and three tons of weight to the Stryker, which critics argue makes it anything but nimble.

MACGREGOR: Initially, people billed the Stryker as this wonder weapon of the 21st century that would allow you to drive up and down the roads at 60 miles per hour. If you do that, you risk turning over and killing risking everybody in it.

MCINTYRE: The Lessons Learned report also details dozens of needed modifications, everything from reengineering the tire inflation system to handle the extra weight to adding air conditioning for the high-tech electronics. The commander of one Stryker battalion insists the changes will simply make a great vehicle better.

LT. COL. KARL REED, U.S. ARMY: I'm confident that these are not flaws. In fact, they're improvements.

MCINTYRE (on camera): The Stryker may not be the death trap its critics claim, but it's not a magic bullet either. Iraq has many in the Army rethinking the idea that lighter armor is better suited to urban combat. In fact, the commander of the 1st Cavalry Division, which lost 28 main battle tanks in Iraq, says the lesson he learned is, the heavier the armor, the better.

Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

EXCLUSIVE! CNN BLOWS WHISTLE ON ARMY'S STRYKER TRUCK "SPIN" CAMPAIGN

CNN Stryker video clip:

www.combatreform2.com/CNNexposesarmystrykerpropagandascam.wmv

Notice that at least 15 dead Stryker Soldiers does not wash with boasts of narcissists like Kurilla--as men are dying in Stryker trucks all around him. Also notice the other silly Army LTC can only complain that M113 Gavin light tracks are "20 year old technology" proving what we have been saying all along---that the weak "mother may I?" Soldiers in our Army do not look at the FUNCTIONAL VALIDITY OF A WEAPON--they look at everything like spoiled children who only want "new" store-bought ie; they look at everything thru the glasses of a "newness" timeline.

Planet earth doesn't care about when humans decided to do something, the laws of physics apply to only what WORKS or doesn't work. The silly LTC also does not know that the M113 Gavin was built in the '60s and the Stryker the '70s, no difference.

That's the platform "cake".

The "icing