Stryker Brigade lands in Kuwait

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-12 04:32pm

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=5398

PORT OF KUWAIT, Kuwait (Army News Service, Nov. 12, 2003) -- For the first time since World War I, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division has deployed overseas.

The brigade’s Stryker vehicles and other equipment arrived Nov. 12 in the port of Kuwait on board the USNS Shughart and USNS Sisler after a three-week voyage from Fort Lewis, Wash., via the Port of Tacoma.

The deployment marks the second time that Stryker vehicles have landed on foreign soil though. In August a platoon from the Army’s first Stryker Brigade Combat team conducted a capabilities demonstration in South Korea.

Also on Nov. 12 the first main-body flight of Arrowhead Brigade soldiers completed their day-and-a-half trip from Fort Lewis Kuwait. The troops got onto buses and headed for Camp Udari in northern Kuwait while some went to the Port of Kuwait to assist in ship offload operations.

Soon after docking, advance-party crews from 3rd Brigade and members of the 598th Transportation Group (Forward), a Reserve unit deployed to Kuwait, went to work unleashing the vehicles and equipment in the ships’ cargo holds to prepare them for unloading, and eventually for their convoy to Camp Udari.

The team hopes to have the approximately 2,300 pieces of cargo unloaded in less than 48 hours, according to Maj. Faris Williams, 598th Transportation Group (Fwd).

“What makes it go so fast is that equipment is all fully mission capable and can be easily transported off the ship,” said Williams.

The goal for the 3rd Brigade soldiers is to get their vehicles ready for action.

“We are trying to download the ships and get the equipment to the marshalling yard,” said Staff Sgt. Darren Rone, 367th Maintenance Company, 44th Corps Support Battalion.

In the days leading to the ships’ arrival, the advance-party crews received safety briefings and were drilled in every aspect of the operation to ensure that the offload would be as safe as possible, said Maj. Sean McKinney, 3rd Brigade S-4, the unit’s logistics’ officer. The crews also had time to rest from their trip from Fort Lewis.

“Job number one here is taking care of the soldiers doing the work,” said McKinney. “The soldiers here were given crew rest and a place to recover and rest for the next day’s operations.”

That rest included time to go to the Internet café and take in the post exchange at the port so that they would be ready to go when the ships sailed in.

Rone said two shifts are working around the clock to put the vehicles in action. The teams of drivers and safety workers come from all across the brigade. Drivers are told to get in the vehicles they are licensed for and drive them off the ship.

“My job is to drive trucks off the ship and get them lined up for the soldiers to take to the marshalling yard,” said Spc. Sean Cruz, 296th Brigade Support Battalion.

A second set of drivers take the vehicles from the port to the marshalling yard further inland and ready them for their trip to Camp Udari, said McKinney. Once enough vehicles are ready, groups of soldiers will come down to the marshalling yard from CampUdari and begin the convoy north. The vehicles will head for each company’s motor pool and each unit will make final preparations for the journey into Iraq.

The brigade has been preparing to leave Fort Lewis for about a month. It held a going away ceremony Oct. 30.

The ceremony featured leaders from 1st Corps and 3rd Bde. who furled and cased the unit’s colors, a gesture symbolizing the end to the unit's training period and the beginning of its new mission as a certified combat unit, ready for action in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Following the ceremony, Soldiers were showered with kisses from spouses and hugs from children.

"I think (the departure ceremony) was a great idea," said Maj. Mark Landes, 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Bde. "It allows a sense of closure and a sense of community getting behind the unit. It's great for the families, too."

While the departure ceremony helped prepare families for separation, everyone knew the upcoming year would be challenging.

"It's tough. But I am here to support my husband - sending letters as much as possible, sending pictures (of the children)," said Karin Markert, wife of Maj. John Markert, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Bde., and mother of three.

(Editor’s note: Sgt. Jeremy Heckler is the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Public Affairs non-commissioned officer in charge. Steven Field, a journalist with the Northwest Guardian newspaper at Fort Lewis, also contributed to this story.)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-12 04:38pm

The swarm makes ready..

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-13 01:17am

A single fiasco with a Stryker will cast extreme doubt on the vehicle and will probably result in a scandal, irrespective of whether the vehicle was to blame at all. Take for example, what happened to that M1A2SEP- conflicting reports say it was either a 155mm artillery shell or three Soviet anti-tank mines stacked on top of each other- in any respect it got wasted. A Stryker filled with infantry+huge land mine= scandal.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-11-13 01:26am

Vympel wrote:A single fiasco with a Stryker will cast extreme doubt on the vehicle and will probably result in a scandal, irrespective of whether the vehicle was to blame at all. Take for example, what happened to that M1A2SEP- conflicting reports say it was either a 155mm artillery shell or three Soviet anti-tank mines stacked on top of each other- in any respect it got wasted. A Stryker filled with infantry+huge land mine= scandal.

Im not conviced the Stryker is a good vehicle for the Army but I certainly hope if one gets destroyed by an IED they dont use that as an excuse to criticize the vehicle. As you said an M-1 can be killed by an IED. The true test of the vehicle will be under small arms and rpg fire.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-13 01:43am

TrailerParkJawa wrote: Im not conviced the Stryker is a good vehicle for the Army but I certainly hope if one gets destroyed by an IED they dont use that as an excuse to criticize the vehicle. As you said an M-1 can be killed by an IED. The true test of the vehicle will be under small arms and rpg fire.

The big problem is somebody in charge is going to have the Strykers do missions they are ill-suited for.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-11-13 01:44am

I'm assuming the stryker is some sort of new APC?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-13 01:56am

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-13 02:01am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Im not conviced the Stryker is a good vehicle for the Army but I certainly hope if one gets destroyed by an IED they dont use that as an excuse to criticize the vehicle.

Indeed, hopefully they'll use it as an excuse to canacled it. We don't need 2000 of the things. But thats not going to happen, and wheeled AFV's are gneerally highly resistant to mines, though not large command detonated bombs.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-13 05:49am

This is the same vehicle they were trying to put extra layers of armour on before shipping out because 12.7mm rounds were easy going to Swiss cheese the thing, nevermind RPGs. All I seem to hear about Stryker now is how it should've been shelved ages ago, reminds me of the film The Pentagon Wars.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-13 02:33pm

Does anyone know how much the U.S. is paying for each Stryker?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-13 02:37pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:This is the same vehicle they were trying to put extra layers of armour on before shipping out because 12.7mm rounds were easy going to Swiss cheese the thing, nevermind RPGs. All I seem to hear about Stryker now is how it should've been shelved ages ago, reminds me of the film The Pentagon Wars.

Except the Bradley wound up coming out of it as a pretty good vehicle for the job. The Stryker (what with the moronic trend to replace I's with Y's anyway?) isn't likely to turn out any where so useful and capable.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-13 10:03pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Except the Bradley wound up coming out of it as a pretty good vehicle for the job. The Stryker (what with the moronic trend to replace I's with Y's anyway?) isn't likely to turn out any where so useful and capable.

Iirc the U.S. Army really did need a replacement for the M113s and it is wasn't vastly overhyped long before it entered service.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-13 10:04pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Except the Bradley wound up coming out of it as a pretty good vehicle for the job. The Stryker (what with the moronic trend to replace I's with Y's anyway?) isn't likely to turn out any where so useful and capable.

True, but only after it was modified two times to be basically unrecognizeable from what was originally envisioned- it was a horrendously mismanaged program that cost a lot of money.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-13 10:34pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:This is the same vehicle they were trying to put extra layers of armour on before shipping out because 12.7mm rounds were easy going to Swiss cheese the thing, nevermind RPGs. All I seem to hear about Stryker now is how it should've been shelved ages ago, reminds me of the film The Pentagon Wars.

The basic armor stops 12.7mm rounds just fine, it was 14.5mm KPV rounds, a far less common weapon though one with twice the power that the appliqué was meant to stop. The defect has been corrected on all vehicles going to Iraq. In reality KPV protection probably isn't necessary, most infantry carriers can can't even take such hits on the frontal arc yet have worked out just fine.

RPG protection is a separate matter, that appliqué doesn't enter service until 2004, so they've welded on protective steel cages to detonate them away from the hull. That will actually probably prove more effective then the planned appliqué, but it also weighs more.

Except the Bradley wound up coming out of it as a pretty good vehicle for the job. The Stryker (what with the moronic trend to replace I's with Y's anyway?) isn't likely to turn out any where so useful and capable.

The Stryker is named for Pfc. Stuart S. Stryker and Spc. Robert F. Stryker, both of who posthumously received the Congressional Medal of Honor in WW2 and Vietnam respectively. The men where not however related.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-14 08:38am

My bad on the calibre protection, I probably got mixed up with an old BMP or something. Aren't these extra armour segments also adding to the weight drastically and making the thing so bulky that transporting them is getting to be a real hassle? I know they're bad enough fitting in a C-17, but most of these are going by ship anyway.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-14 08:45am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:My bad on the calibre protection, I probably got mixed up with an old BMP or something. Aren't these extra armour segments also adding to the weight drastically and making the thing so bulky that transporting them is getting to be a real hassle? I know they're bad enough fitting in a C-17, but most of these are going by ship anyway.

They barellllllllllllllyyyy fit into a C-130, partially dissassembled (and you can forget about adding applique armor), but the C-130 cannot fly them any remotely useful distance. So they're transported by C-17- in which they have no problems. The problem with this is the USAF doesn't have enough C-17s to lift a Stryker brigade in anything resembling the amount of time they want, even if there was the completely impossible situation that the USAF didn't have lots of other stuff to do with it's C-17s besides moving around armored cars.

The entire Stryker requirement was ill-concieved from the get go.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-14 09:11am

Vympel wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:My bad on the calibre protection, I probably got mixed up with an old BMP or something. Aren't these extra armour segments also adding to the weight drastically and making the thing so bulky that transporting them is getting to be a real hassle? I know they're bad enough fitting in a C-17, but most of these are going by ship anyway.
They barellllllllllllllyyyy fit into a C-130, partially dissassembled (and you can forget about adding applique armor), but the C-130 cannot fly them any remotely useful distance. So they're transported by C-17- in which they have no problems. The problem with this is the USAF doesn't have enough C-17s to lift a Stryker brigade in anything resembling the amount of time they want, even if there was the completely impossible situation that the USAF didn't have lots of other stuff to do with it's C-17s besides moving around armored cars.

The entire Stryker requirement was ill-concieved from the get go.

Now I remember, to fit in a Fat Albert they need to deflate two sets of tyres and remove the turret among other things. It would be nice with we could "acquire" some An-225s, uh, if a decent number of them existed.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-14 02:49pm

The whole air-transportability(sp) of the Stryker is little more than marketing sales pitch, as most of the Strykers will be shipped on sea transports anyway.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-11-14 02:52pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these vechiles bare an uncanny resemblance to some old Soviet APCs?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-14 03:01pm

Vympel wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Except the Bradley wound up coming out of it as a pretty good vehicle for the job. The Stryker (what with the moronic trend to replace I's with Y's anyway?) isn't likely to turn out any where so useful and capable.
True, but only after it was modified two times to be basically unrecognizeable from what was originally envisioned- it was a horrendously mismanaged program that cost a lot of money.

It was indeed a classic example of a Pentagon program that went beserk. But the fact is it returned a very useful end result, something that's very iffy about the Stryker.

SeaSkimmer wrote:The Stryker is named for Pfc. Stuart S. Stryker and Spc. Robert F. Stryker, both of who posthumously received the Congressional Medal of Honor in WW2 and Vietnam respectively. The men where not however related.

I wasn't aware of that, thank you.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-11-14 03:16pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but these vechiles bare an uncanny resemblance to some old Soviet APCs?

Yes, in the basic shape, but they also look somewhat similiar to various wheeled APCs in service, such as the German Fuchs and the Italian Puma.

*Insert joke about the Stryker being an SA-80 on wheels here*

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-14 04:15pm

For the Canadians the Stryker is hugely overpriced SA-80 on wheels at around ten million for each one.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-14 04:28pm

Rubberanvil wrote:For the Canadians the Stryker is hugely overpriced SA-80 on wheels at around ten million for each one.

Ten mill a pop? Geebus, I'd expect top notch hardware for that!

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-14 05:01pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Rubberanvil wrote:For the Canadians the Stryker is hugely overpriced SA-80 on wheels at around ten million for each one.
Ten mill a pop? Geebus, I'd expect top notch hardware for that!

Especially when Germany is selling Leo 2A4/5s for about a million each with spares, and etc. and still have monry to buy a couple of sea transports for them.

Here's the article

link

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-14 05:18pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but these vechiles bare an uncanny resemblance to some old Soviet APCs?

They resemble the Russian BTR-60/70/80/90 series in that all are 8x8 APC's. But that's about the end of the similarities and if you placed them side-by-side you could tell there significantly different.