Talk:Stryker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stryker article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] ERROR!!!

The stryker can run in 8x8 in high range, someone put down that it is only 8x8 in low range, also all-wheel drive is not true. All wheel driver vehicles are full time and cannot be swtched in and out of all-wheel drive. We also need to be careful what is in this article

OPSEC Some of these systems are classified and some of the stuff I have read in here can only be know by a operator or a mechanic. Please limit this to what is readily available on the internet about the Strykers wo we dont give valuable information to the enemy, for free no less!!

PlumbTN, I don't see anything in the article that's not readily available on the internet. It may not all be gathered in the same place (except here), but I didn't learn anything completely new from the article. The Dark 12:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing, Citing, and Rewrite

I've started all the above. Please feel free to do the same Tirronan 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protective Features section incomplete

The protective features section needs to be completed, especially the CTIS bullet.

Kiwinanday 22:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Then proceed and make sure you source and footnote it Tirronan 22:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Simple observatin: In the begining of the article it correctly notes the purpose of slat armor is to prevent the detonation of RPG's not to be confused with spaced armor that detonates the round away from the vehicle, but in the protection section it mistates the purpose as pre-detonating the round. 20:15 05 May 2007

Ah! Nice catch! I've corrected this. Tirronan 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article states: Catchers' mask"-style deflectors known as slat armor are designed to disable the high-explosive anti-tank warhead of a rocket-propelled grenade by squeezing the angled sides of the metal nose cone and shorting the conductors between the detonator at the tip and the explosive charge at the back. This type of armor was first used in WW2 and is cheaper and lighter than spaced appliqué-plate or reactive armor.[7][8] I'm not aware of any usage of slat armor in WW2. Both German and Soviet tanks used mesh armor, but it was solely to provide standoff on HEAT warheads, not to prevent the formation of the gas jet (detonation) of the warhead. Unless someone provides a citation for WW2 usgae I'll delete the ref to WW2 in that sentence. DMorpheus (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Nor I, There were light standoff plates and mesh armors used but that would be in the end of it that I am aware. Go ahead and pull that sentence. Tirronan (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

"However, Canadians have had quite a bit of trouble with the LAV IIIs (which the Stryker is based on) getting stuck in the mud in Afghanistan and rolling over. [9]. This is not in fact accurate, the vehicle has performed exemplary service, and any vehicle at high speeds, on narrow roads, dodging civilian traffic with weak shoulders unable to support a 16+ ton vehicle will have rollover issues. Especially when civilian vehicles run into it. There has only been a handful in six years of service in Afghanistan; as for mud, Afghanistan has very trying terrain for any vehicle, and all vehicles get stuck in mud as any experienced armoured personnel can attest to."

Does anyone else think that the uncited information here seems rather biased?

I am working on the article to get it less POV among other things. However the LAV III has had roll over problems. The tone of this seems defensive where the vehicle is concerned and the tone should be neutral.

Now I have responded to an IP address which I normally will not. If you wish to contribute please create an account on Wikipedia its free. Tirronan 13:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

At one point in the past the criticisms section included early production errors. The armor plating of many of the units was manufactured incorrectly, resulting in Strykers being deployed which were not bullet proof. I think that this is an interesting bit of hostory worthy of being in the article. I'm hoping someone can find this and put it back in. (Alleyward (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] The price

I think it would have been nice if someone could dig up the price for this item, and on some index. (or just compared to average wage or something). Ie, so the price of items (vehicles etc) could be comparable over space and time. Greswik 13:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No one would object if you did so. Just cite your source when you insert it. Tirronan 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

According to a May 13, 2007 AP article which appeared in the NY Times, the army has ordered 7,800 more strikers at a cost of 8.4 billion dollars, which would put the cost at slightly over $1,076,000,000 per vehicle.

-dialectric —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.73.90.213 (talk • contribs) 22:17 May 13, 2007 (UTC).

Three too many zeros. 8.4 billion dollars is 8,400,000,000 so price in above-mentioned article would be US$ 1,076,923.08 per vehicle (1.077 million dollars) --Edward Sandstig 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vehicle named for Medal of Honor Winners, not for John Wayne Character

I would like to point out that the Stryker vehicle is named for PFC Stuart S. Stryker and Specialist Fourth Class Robert F. Stryker, recipients of the Medal of Honor 214.13.162.2 16:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)TPVMI04

  • Thanks. That's been fixed and a reference added for it. -Fnlayson 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Individual articles are terrible

The individual vehicle articles are all repetitive cut-and-paste jobs from http://www.sbct.army.mil/, which reads like promotional material. These should be gutted, and possibly merged back into this article. —Michael Z. 2007-09-18 00:59 Z

I suggest starting by adding info on the variants here. I added a couple sentence on the ICV. If there's enough detail on each, change from bullets to subsections. -Fnlayson 01:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
id sopport a merge ForeverDEAD 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Michael, I started fixing this page last year when someone asked me to look at it. I never looked at the supporting pages. They probably need to be merged back into this one as they are all just one offs on the main LAV spin off. Tirronan (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Wording

I re-worded the Criticism article to properly address the M113 / M8 complaint. First, it was added to a paragraph originally comparing a Stryker to an M2 Bradley. The basic M113 has some of the same issues when it is compared to a Brad. Granted, you can upgrade a M113 to be similar to an M2, but then it would no longer be cheaper or lighter than a Stryker. Therefore, I moved the M113 to Styrker comparison to a separate paragraph.

Next, the M8 Buford is not entirely "airmobile". The M8 has three different levels of protection. When the M8 is in its configuration for airborne operations, its about as well protected as an uparmored HMMWV. The other levels can equal or even be better than a Stryker, but then the M8 is heavier, and cannot be parachuted in.

Also, the M8 isn't exactly what I would call "proven". It is "approved", as it has gone through the required US Army testing. However, it has never seen combat. Calling a vehicle "proven" suggests that it has. Vstr (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I brought this up in the Stryker vehicle controversy talk page.[[1]] Can the same be applied to the criticism section of the article? This user seems to be making some valid points. Tsurugi (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, do not bring up those videos on this page. See my response to your talk on the Stryker vehicle contorversy Talk Page. Vstr (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Tsurugi (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verification Requested

This is in response to the entry requesting verification about a fact that I entered. That fact was that there was only one rollover incident mentioned in the book "My War" by Colby Buzzell. Granted, he did spend quite a few pages regarding it, but that was due to this incident causing the first deaths in his unit while it was in Iraq.

My problem is how do I verify this? The only way to do that is to have any doubters read the book. Since it is copyrighted, it is not freely available on the internet. However, copies of the book are available at some public libraries. The copy that I read was obtained through a library that my local public library was on a network with.

The solution that I could come up with is to post a link to a third party source that shows the book. I didn't want to point to Amazon, because its a store. I tried the Library of Congress, but it has a time limit. So, the link quickly became unusable. I ended up using Google Books.

If you do not think that this is enough, please specify exactly what you would want to see as a source.Vstr (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

if you have a copy of the book then just cite the work on the pages WP:CITE this is your proof. Its used all over wikipedia. Tirronan (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It just needed a proper inline reference, maybe state the pages involved. Thanks. I added the book info to the reference. That's fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)