NOT SO HOT? American defence analyst PHIL WEST argues the American LAV 3 does not live up to its hype
T
he adoption of the General Dynamics/ General Motors LAV Stryker must qualify as one of the US Army’s most controversial vehicle acquisitions. Since adoption by the US has caused many other nations to become interested in this or similar vehicles it is probably useful to examine this topic in some depth. Tactical Finding credible data on the performance of the Stryker in the field is problematic. The Army is very keen that its new acquisition should only be seen in the best of lights. Testimonies of users must be taken in context. Some Soldiers will not criticize the vehicle for career reasons. All of the units converted to Strykers so far were formerly light infantry so their basis of comparison is with the HMMWV, not other armoured vehicles. Also Stryker-equipped troops know they are stuck with the vehicle for some time so psychologically some won’t want to harbour doubts about what they must trust their lives to. Military vehicles are generally judged by the levels of Firepower, Protection and Mobility that they offer so we will start by looking at these aspects for the Stryker.
48, INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM, May 2007
Firepower Compared to many of its peers the Stryker is lightly armed. Most Strykers have a Kongsberg Protech XM151 Remote Weapon Station (RWS) mounting either a .50 Machine gun or a 40mm Automatic Grenade launcher. Unlike some other designs of RWS there is no provision for reloading or feeding ammo to the weapon from within the vehicle. Once the ammo is expended a crewman must expose themselves to enemy fire to reload the weapon. The .50 version holds 200rds of ammo while the 40mm holds only 32 (there are proposals to increase this to 48). The Stryker does not have any firing ports but there are two hatches over the infantry compartment from each of which one man can fire. The Squad leader also has a hatch beside the RWS. The firepower of Stryker companies was supposed to be increased by a Fire Support variant known as the Mobile Protected Gun system. This is essentially a wheeled tank destroyer mounting a 105mm gun in an unmanned turret. This variant has still not been fielded and the development of the system has been beset by numerous delays and technical problems. Critics voiced concerns as to whether such a vehicle could handle the recoil of such a weapon if fired to the side. The manufacturers released a photo of a prototype firing to the side but still visible in the photo was a metal bracket bracing the vehicle! GD claim these are control and monitoring cables, but judge for yourself and make your own mind up about what this appears to be. Whether the MGS will ever enter service is doubtful. Protection Advocates of the Stryker point out that its basic level of protection (against 14.5mm bullets) is higher than that of the basic M113, the vehicle to which the Stryker is most often compared. This is of little interest, however, since the main threat to vehicles is the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). Interestingly in Vietnam an RPG penetration of an M113 was estimated to have only a 0.8 chance of causing a single casualty. Only one in seven hits managed to penetrate, so the chances of each hit causing a single casualty was less than 12%. RPG rounds have been improved since then but so too has the armour designed to counter them. Strykers deployed to Iraq have been fitted with “Slat armour” to give them greater protection against RPGs. This is the same sort of bird cage armour that has been used with some success in Northern Ireland and Grozny. One of the first RPG attacks against a Stryker was in Mosul on the 28th March 2004 with the vehicle being written off by two hits. At least partially to blame was the equipment stored under the cage which ignited and the cage held the burning items, forming an efficient brazier. Since the Stryker needs Appliqué armour it is worth noting that such systems exist for other vehicles such as the M113 (although the US Army refuses to buy and field them. Some troops have improvised their own). Purposedesigned Appliqué armour can be seen on many Israeli M113s and not only protect against RPGs but increase ballistic protection up to a level to stop 23mm cannon rounds. Critics of the Stryker point to its large exposed wheels as being vulnerable to even relatively light weapons. The metal backing of the wheels behind the tires is not armoured. While these tires are “Run-flats” damage to one or more will still require