Talk:Stryker Vehicle Controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on August 30, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 O'Reilly Report Criticisms 1.1 Validity 1.2 The soldier testing and acquisition process 1.3 Rebuttals 1.4 Soldier Testimony 2 NPOV statements

[edit] O'Reilly Report Criticisms

For history, see the Main Page's talk page.

[edit] Validity

For older replies, see Talk:Stryker#Validity.

”Since the source is valid”, ie it’s on a website, is a weak argument especially if not up front about it's origins. It's intellectually dishonest not to include it imho. Virgil61 03:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. You are probably aware that there are also many accusations made by the pro-Stryker side about the political and corruption factors involved in the Stryker's choice. Besides, all the guys in the Army probably don't point out that their ultimate boss is Shinseki (which created the Stryker program). If there is any semi-possible way at all to pass your boss' pet program, you probably would. Nevertheless, I chose to let the facts and arguments about the vehicle, for both sides, speak for themselves. Kazuaki Shimazaki 06:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The soldier testing and acquisition process

Note: For older replies, see Talk:Stryker#Experience

Use it as a source, fine, but don’t fool yourself. You’re not aware of the Army’s AAR process or CALL reports in general; NCOs and officers write after-action reports on, among other things, newly fielded equipment where they openly express their views. The CALL criticisms are exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about and contradict your assumption that official honest feedback isn’t given since it depends on end user input. CALL is quite valid, it criticizes the lack of vehicle refinements in response to the conditions present in Iraq and the approach to training. Virgil61 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You aren’t acquainted with the Army’s acquisition process and you’re making assumptions. The decision wasn't made 'far elsewhere'. It was made by the same command body that took our combat developer input and had us cross-check requirements and whom we worked with to improve after fielding. The Stryker combat developers did the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stryker_Vehicle_Controversy&action=edit&section=3same thing since the procurement system is standardized. You don’t know that, I guess it’s understandable. As with the Stryker even post-testing and selection refinements were carried after fielding as soldiers continued to use the systems on deployments, ie something unforeseen always pop up, it’s the nature of the business.Virgil61 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The base point, which you are not listening to, is that you cannot refute an argument about the Army's latest purchase being sucky by saying that the Acquisition Process is supposed to prevent it. That's like saying the Germans can't be in France because the Maignot Line is supposed to prevent it. Kazuaki Shimazaki 06:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sucky, real NPOV. For what it was designed for, the Styker serves it's purpose. It as meant to be a field transportable armor vechile to supplant the HMMWV in combat areas that the HMMWV simply wasn't designed for. Also the RPG HEAT rounds that take out the Stryker would destroy a M113 just as well because both have realtively thin armor, heck even the advanced armor of the Abrams can't stop some of the newer RPGs. PPGMD 12:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not quite in the correct section, methinks. This sounds like a response more for rebuttals. Here I only criticize Virgil's apparent emphasis on how the acquisition process is supposed to prevent lemons, which is rather less important in this article than whether the Stryker did wind up to be a lemon. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Field transportable? I suppose you mean air transportable to field strips. Only problem is, it apparently isn't, at least not in a serious sense Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• There were actually much bigger dreams for the Stryker program than to have it "supplant HMMVVs". They are more meant to be this uber vehicle that would be able to do every role in a sort of medium brigade with fancy electronics. Remember the Stryker-MGS? Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttals

You want me to do a point by point rebuttal right here? You're distracting the issue of source validity by making that sniping accusation. I've given you a fact about a source used to criticize the Stryker that you were unaware of; he was hired to do the report by a biased congressman. It’s an important element in measuring the validity of a source. His conclusions are drastically different than the CALL report and dramatically more vast in scope, not the ‘similar conclusion’ you claim. The CALL does not call into question the core validity of the Stryker. What it does is mention it’s shortcomings and the process for improvement. Nothing dramatic to anyone who’s dealt with fielded new military equipment. Between the CALL report and O’Reilly’s tome there’s an very obvious qualitative difference. You also missed POGO considering reassessing it’s position: http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2005/06/tell_all_the_tr.html.

• You don't have to do a point-by-point, that will take a long time, but at least try and find a few real core points and debate them. Ultimately, validity is not determined by political interests (or lack of them), but on whether the facts are substantially true. So before you can say that someone's stupidity was politically motivated, the first step is to do something to prove the stupidity. Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• When I mentioned the "similar conclusions", I meant the problem list, which both agree is extensive and have many similarities (the effectiveness of bird cage, the RWS, the CTIS being overpressurized because of the new overweight ... etc). Things like the Core validity of the Stryker or other program would likely be outside the scope of the report. Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• As for POGO, its reassessment is based on soldiers testimony, which I'd handle below. Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Many if not a majority of O’Reilly’s questions' are loaded. He makes wrong assumptions about how the Marines used the nearest equivalent, LAVs, in Iraq. They often went without close support. He misquotes that the Stryker can’t defeat RPG rounds. He makes factually mistaken comments about negative criticism not being available to Army leadership while quoting criticisms from the CALL report used by that same leadership. He states the Stryker isn’t C-130 deployable when it is. And further the requirement for the C-130 is intra-theater deployment not global deployments. He makes a claim that Marine LAVs were sent to Afghanistan via C-130 as a criticism of the Stryker but doesn’t mention that where the Marines flew in from and their distances or conditions.

• LAV: I'd guess you are doing P.17 on the report. He didn't say "Iraq". He is making a general mention. The section is also a 2-parter including the mention of a powerful 25mm autocannon. Or how about P.31, where he discusses the virtues of a stabilized A/C as opposed to unstabilized RWS MG. Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Birdcage and RPG: Are you reffing P.11? I'd say it is pretty obvious that the top and the wheels (lower hull) are not protected in that picture. The relatively ineffectiveness of the birdcage is also backed by CALL. Even the pro soldiers weren't all that warm at its chances (even though supposedly it worked better than planned). Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• C-130 deployability: NO one said it isn't "C-130 deployable". It is. Just for 100 miles instead of the 1000 demanded (P.63) by the Army's own requirements. IN fact, your fellow Armymen actually agree (see your own POGO blog link), that's why they are brushing it off as unimportant. IIRC, in another article they said something like "It does fit". Yeah, we can see the pictures and can form our own conclusions as to how well it is actually fitting. As for global deployment, don't know where you got that - even 1000 miles is no global deployment. Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Marines on C-130s: The point is that they presumably can fly a much bigger distance because their vehicle is 10000 pounds lighter. Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Worst of all, you are still attacking the fringes. Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A simple google would’ve led you to the GAO’s addressing many of his accusations of impropriety in testing: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03671.pdf , which occured months before the date of O’Reilly’s paper which is odd. Further research would’ve revealed the GAO’s criticisms of Stryker, which are more valid and thoughtful and would form the better basis for ‘sources’ than an angry website and a paid political tome. Virgil61 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Having now read it, it actually makes for a very good study of how any evaluation process can be subtly corrupted using a combination of test conditions and good diction. The costs (GAO, 24/35) are disputed (O' Reilly, 72-83/108). Ignoring that, one can still see that the GAO (22/35) uncritically accepted Army "projections" for Stryker, while criticizing projections for adding a RWS onto a M113A3 on the grounds it may not work (24/35) - in other words, Stryker is a certainty and its alternatives are treated as murky. Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Performance testing: the test was rated as fair on the grounds both vehicles were tested in the same way (17/35). A more careful observer, however, will note that this criteria makes for a great way to tilt the test by setting conditions advantageous to one or the other. It is up to the integrity and wisdom of the person(s) who makes the final decision on test parameters. In the case of the mobility test, this was done by emphasizing on roads and trials - prepared surfaces which obviously favor a wheeled vehicle (17/35). So what can honest testers do but sign off saying that the Stryker was more comfortable (22/35) and offered better mobility on the tested profile (prepared surfaces).
• Initial Condition: Remember how your first post said: ...Saxton, happens to have a division of UDLP in his district. They manufactured a variant of the 113 that was the Stryker's main competitor, which lost out. This is all fine, except that both GAO (1/35) and Reilly (9/108) seem to agree that did not take place. Instead, the test was between a M113A3 and Stryker. In other words, their "variant" was never even given a chance, and more importantly this biases the test. Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Diction: You complained about O'Reilly's writing skills tilting the tables. Which is fine, but IMO some nice diction went into this GAO report as well. The report makes no attempt to differentiate between the small (as per CEAC calcs) difference in maintenance cost ($200,000 over 20 years) versus the massive (about $1 mil) difference in acquisition cost (1/35). You will notice how any M113 advantages listed are subtly minimized (18,22/35) while Stryker advantages are subtly emphasized (like that half paragraph used to say "Soldiers found Stryker more comfortable). Am I reading too much into it? Maybe, but that's how diction works - little, almost invisible advantages that tilt an article - that's why Wiki is so big on NPOV. Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Read my posts above on the ‘truly critical flaws’, although you're changing the focus of the my original commentary on this section, the intent of my statement was to criticize the source's motivations (a paycheck from a politician with a vested interest.Virgil61 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soldier Testimony

NOTE: For previous posts, see Talk:Stryker#Rail deployment, Rhetorical Style

I seriously doubt you’ve read negatives by soldiers in anywhere near same number as positives. I’d wish you’d bring that same amount of critical ‘parsing’ to the use of the geocities site or the uncritical acceptance of a paid political tome as sources. For some reason you’ve got something against the Stryker that seems to move you to throw impartiality to the wind. You accept O’Reilly criticisms without hesitation but admittedly don’t have the faintest idea of how the acquisition process or the AAR process works, nor seem aware that at least one of your sources has had second thoughts on the matter. Criticism is fine and should be presented, CALL, the GAO reports and POGO are fine examples. In the final analysis I’m not opposed to criticism in fact it should be addressed, but using valid sources, not some random idiot’s outburst on a geocities webpage, or a politically motivated report by O’Reilly without giving full disclosure is amateurish.Virgil61 03:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Truth is, I only seen a few of each - the cons from you know where and the guys writing Countercriticisms bring me my pros. I've also had been to some BBSs where people in the Army write about the Stryker, and their evals wasn't very positive either, so overall, I'd say my testimonials in my library are at best evenly matched, if not on the side of the cons. Kazuaki Shimazaki 08:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• More importantly, I am aware that the total number of publicly-available testimonials on both sides put together still is only a tiny fraction of the total Stryker-using population Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, I was aware of that POGO blog, but all it says is that it is interesting and they are trying to "reconcile" the two, which is only prudent and shows their open-mindedness. I'm actually happy you mentioned POGO's blog, because I can use it as a chance to tell you what I think of testimonials. For lack of space, I'd do just one:

We also were surprised that Stryker brigade officers seemed to care less whether the Stryker could be transported in a C-130 propeller aircraft. Debate in Congress has centered around whether the Stryker can fit in a C-130, which would allow it to be transported to forward battle areas near short, dirt runways. The Army leadership has said that the Stryker must be C-130 transportable so it can get to any battlefield very quickly. But brigade officers said that this Army doctrine is essentially irrelevant because the Stryker can travel at speeds of up to 60 miles per hour, getting them to the action quicker by road than via C-130 transport.

• Lack of perspective: A very common problem with testimonials. This analysis is entirely on the tactical. Even if they are correct, and air deployability is not important, Stryker is still a massive engineering failure because it failed its KPP requirement which it ostensibly was designed for. Kazuaki Shimazaki 08:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Having cake, eating cake: As the POGO blog notes, these brigade officers have defied the Army's story (or at least the original one). More critically, this means someone was an idiot. Either the Army was an idiot for not realizing it didn't need to have a KPP for intra-theater transportability, or the brigade officers are. Surely a staff study must have revealed whether 60 MPH capability can compensate for not being airliftable before they wrote the KPPs! Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV statements

I understand that this article is supposed to be about criticism towards the Stryker project, but I was just wondering if qualifiers should be added to make it sound less like rhetoric from Sparks and company. The following sentences in particular started out with reference to the so-called SuperGavin, which I've removed.

Since Stryker is barely airmobile and unit cost is high, funds could be more effectively spent on more versatile systems instead of a narrow-focus armored car. Israeli M113 Zeldas are successful in urban combat yet can cope with conditions that would strand armored cars.

The paragraphs fail to note that much of the costs associated with the Stryker have to do with communications and surveillance systems. Also, it's worth noting that the Israelis use their M113s in the rear areas and opt to use heavy APCs and engineering vehicles based off of MBTs during urban ops. --Edward Sandstig 08:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially now that this page has been split off from the main Stryker article, it is written on the attack/counter scheme. Therefore, the Critics are given more or less free reign in their section and the proponents in theirs. The standard here for existing in a Controversy page is that less that it is even true (even though I personally currently favor the Critics version) than a Critic says it. A similar scheme is used in other Controversies as far as I can tell, and this is in accordance to our NPOV policy. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, the critics say that Stryker can only fly 100 miles on a C-130. The supporters say 600. I know the reference for the 100 mile claim, and I've even read an detailed explanation of the dynamics involved that suggests the Critics are closer to being right, and to today the guy who said 600 (he originally said that it will somehow be extended to 1000 eventually) never came up with any source. In any case, it is certainly quite impossible for both to be true, but since this is a Controversy page, both can stay - only that I, after a very long delay, added a request for citations for the claim. I don't even demand that the guy prove that he is right. He just needs to link to someone (not himself) who made the claim and that would suffice. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case, therefore, I'd suggest you revert the deleted paragraph, but note your counter in Countercriticism. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I will also note, answering your point, that even the CEACs own analysis (which is still criticized as misleadingly high by critics) suggests that while a lot of the cost may have been due to the electronics, the M113s will still cost a whole lot less to modify. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the Israelis have introduced dedicated city fighting vehicles, it makes perfect sense to use them because they understandably are even better than the M113. You will note that they aren't buying Strykers. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just another point, you'll note the Israelis aren't buying much of anything brand new in the AFV department. They didn't contract anyone to churn out the new heavy APCs from scratch (all of the major types being based on first generation MBTs), and the M113s are also quite old at heart. The United States has a defense budget far in excess of Israels, and can afford to purchase new vehicles without having cannibalize old ones. -- Thatguy96 15:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The only deletion I made was about the M113 being called the "Gavin" or "Super Gavin" because the vehicle has never been called that except by people who've been to one of Mike Sparks' sites and have automatically assumed that they know better than people who have actually used the vehicles in question. Come on, the Tracks vs Wheels link on one of his sites went so far as to claim that the M113 was roomier than a Stryker but the pictures of the M113 had it empty and with the seats folded up. The site even claims that the Stryker always has to make use of a transporter, when that's more often the case with tracked vehicles because you want to preserve the tracks. There are many good sources on the advantages of tracks over wheels that I feel it would be more effective to use those rather than the rhetoric of sites whose credibility is rather questionable. --Edward Sandstig 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has survived AFD but as I noted there has problems. There are far too many opinionated statements made in the "Wikipedia voice" rather than sourced and attributed. It's not a matter of too few outside links or references, but their being tied to specific claims and statements and given a speaker who isn't "us". There are ridiculously arrogant statements like "to properly understand ..." (so show the facts, and the reader will have the best opportunity to make a proper judgement). The section style is POV-pushing and non-standard, e.g. why not a section simply titled "Background" instead of that mouthful which just screams "agenda"? I really hope these can be resolved and the article improved, because this is an important debate and there are some good resources for it both available and included. Our Wikipedia article shouldn't look like it was put together by one side or trying to force the reader into having one opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 18:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)