Talk:Stryker/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Rollovers

The article states "An additional issue is that rollover is a greater risk with the Stryker and MRAPs relative to other transport vehicles, due to their higher center of gravity." I don't know about Stryker, but this is known to be false for MRAP -- MRAP rollovers are generally caused by roadbed failure, due to their weight. MRAPs have the same height-to-wheelbase ratio for center of gravity as Humvees. DMTate (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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)
None of the info in the article is OPSEC - and I doubt there is anything about the Stryker which is a secret. Not even the fact that there is no armor between the wheels, or the fact that you can easily incinerate its tires and fuel tank on the upper rear with cheap molotov cocktails, or just shoot or stab them to immobilize the Stryker. Or the fact that visibility around the vehicle is real bad, and you can sneak up to it without having the crew notice you, and place IEDs on it or attack its tires. RPG shots should also be directed at the tires or between them, btw. Interesting, isn't it ? But none of this info is classified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.141.18 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
OPSEC isn't just classified. Please read Wikipedia's page on OPSEC to give you a better idea.
Also, I have serious doubts about your descriptions on the Stryker's vulnerabilities. For example, the vehicles run flat tires keeps the vehicle running after they've been punctured. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyrDV-D1bLY. At the end they show a LAVIII running around with 4 flat tires, all on one side.24.180.69.218 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to comment some edits (still learning about it) but obviously "all-wheel-drive" was incorrect, so 4+4 was the best I think of without a whole explanation. Run-flat tires are pretty standard on all the LAV III variants but apparently US Army is getting improved tires with the armour upgrades. Pretty sad that so many soldiers died from IED and RPG incidents...Webwat (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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)
I thought their objective was to disrupt gas jets in a way that reduces the effect. Anyway, the Slat armour page says "disrupts the shaped charge warhead by either crushing it, preventing optimal detonation from occurring, or by damaging the fuzing mechanism preventing detonation." Perhaps you might be able to fill in a few more details there, because the description seems a bit brief there. Webwat (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC) comment added by Webwat (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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)
I will summarise some info on each variant based on http://www.sbct.army.mil/images/vehicles-flash/vehicles.html but if they get merged with individual pages then could need more detail and better pics for each.Webwat (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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)


Combat can also prove a vahicle to be not combat-worthy, as is the case with the Stryker. The M8 is air-drop certified, contrary to the Stryker. Its baseline protection already exceds the strykers protection level - comparing it to an up-armored Humvee is a bad joke. Btw, have you ever read something about the approving process of the stryker ? It was rigged. The Stryker failed most test miserably, although they were designed for it to win. The M113 crew was given worn-out, ill-maintained vehicles to compete, and then essentially accused of cheating when they used the cross-country edge of their Gavins to beat the strykers in various maneuvers. They were supposed to stay on the road. But your enemies in a real war don't play by such stupid rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.141.18 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My "bad joke" is backed-up by reliable sources, including Wikipedia's own web page on the M8 Armored Gun System. You can have an M8 with more armor than a Stryker, but then it would not be certified for airdrop. The armor that the airdrop certified M8 has will protect against small arms fire and artillery fragments. (This is about the same level as an up-armored HMMWV.) This is fairly typical for all airdrop capable vehicles. Please read up on the Russian BMD.
I've seen claims that the Stryker tests were rigged. All of these sources I've found insist that the M113's official name is the "Gavin", and they energetically push forward the idea that an airdrop mechanized force is the ultimate army. Example: www.combatreform.com.
My counter is that Congress has sent the GAO to review the Stryker, and their units on multiple occasions. (Go to the website at www.gao.gov, and enter "Stryker" in their keyword search.) None of these claims have panned out.
If someone can provide a reliable source showing how these tests were rigged, please provide it.Vstr (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I dont think a single IFV in the world was designed to withstand huge roadside blasts because the strongest armour is usually at the front; soldiers were even killed inside much heavier Bradleys early on. LAV III/Stryker was designed to take applique armour as required for the mission to make lighter deployments possible, and there will probably be new types of armour coming as a result of upgrade program. Medium armour always faces the challenge of getting better protection without too much weight.Webwat (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible replacement

Upgrading combat vehicles that have sufficient capability and the capacity to adapt and grow leverages our most effective platforms. Resetting combat vehicles that have sufficient capability but limited capacity to adapt to future requirements extends current capability until it must be replaced. Divesting those vehicles that do not have sufficient capability or capacity to adapt minimizes sustainment of our least effective systems.

The Abrams maintains its domination as the premier main battle tank. The Abrams can be upgraded to meet operational demands in the near to mid term.

The Bradley family of vehicles, completing its third decade of service, combines speed, mobility and firepower but is near its physical design limits and has limited capacity to adapt.

The Stryker’s on-road speed and troop carrying capacity provide a tremendous operational capability, but it has little developmental potential.

Both the Bradley and Stryker families of vehicles can be reset in the near term until they begin replacement in the midterm.

The MRAP has proven effective in protecting Soldiers from IEDs, but its lack of protection from other threats, the vehicle’s limited fighting ability and lack of mobility limits the ability to move Soldiers to positions of advantage on the battlefield. The Army continues to integrate MRAP into our brigade formations as well as our generating force to maximize the capability for troop transport, reconnaissance, convoy protection, route clearance and medical evacuation.

The M113 family of vehicles, is our least capable vehicle, and the one with least capacity for adaptation. The M113 family will be sustained only until it is replaced. Initial replacement for certain mission roles comes from a combination of MRAPs, Strykers and Bradleys as they are displaced by the Ground Combat Vehicle.

From what I can gather from the above text is that the Stryker will be replaced along with the Bradley but perhaps it's better to wait to see how this plays out. username 1 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the other sources provided stated that the M113 and the M2 would be the systems targeted for replacement, and noted that the Stryker would continue to be upgraded along with the M1 and M109. The PDF quoted above is open to some interpretation, too. "...a combination of MRAPs, Strykers and Bradleys as they are displaced by the Ground Combat Vehicle." could refer to all three systems being re-roled, or it could just be referring to the M2s being replaced by the GCV as stated by the other source provided. And yes, I think it's way too early to say too much... We really don't know what the GCV will end up looking like - it may not be able to replace the Stryker depending on what path they want to follow - and it could end up like its FCS predecessor. - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I think so. I did not see anything spelled in those 2 references about what might replace the Stryker later. It is 3rd in line for replacement per the Army GCV article and that'll be over 10 years from now. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Deployment Pics

When the Stryker is deployed it has alot of armor added on as well as blast glass around the air guard hatches. I have some pics, if you'd like to compare the two. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.232.202 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If they are images you took or are Army pics then they can be uploaded and used without trouble here. Better not to use copyrighted images, except for certain cases. There's more info at Help:Files if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Kevlar coffin" comment

Just wondering if this is really worth noting in the criticism section? Reading the article in context, the comment doesn't seem to be criticism of the vehicle, but sense of helplessness given the situation.

Sgt. Rabidou said he still gets "jittery" whenever he hears an explosion. "We train, train, train to do the right thing to stay alive. There's not a lot we can do for an IED. It's like a game of chance - sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you're not.

"It's the most dangerous ride of my life; for that matter, anyone's life. Guess that's why people started calling it the Kevlar coffin."

Earlier in the week, at Kandahar Air Field, a young soldier said he was terrified of being deployed to his Stryker unit.

"Honestly, I'm going, but I don't want to go," said the soldier, who asked not to be named to avoid problems with his superiors. "I want to at least have a fighting chance. There's no enemy when you're sitting in a box. You can't fight what you can't see when you're sitting in the Kevlar coffin."

Emphasis is mine. I don't see these comments as being directed against the vehicle, though. The only criticism comes from Col. Macgregor who makes no mention of the term "Kevlar coffin". - Jonathon A H (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I made the recent revert to re-include the phrase. I'm rereading. Another part of the article suggests that tracked, heavy armour would be a better solution (although I'm not sure how the cited expert expects a rifle squad to fit inside an MBT, or how it's proof against the 1,500-2,000 pound IED's mentioned).
The phrase currently in the article probably isn't fully supported by the reference - it tries to link a supposed vulnerability to IEDs (compared to MBTs) to nicknaming it the Kevlar Coffin - while the article only really says the Styker has been called this because of the fear of IED attack in general. I tend to think that if MBT's were used more, they'd just get the name Tin Coffins instead - but that's just my opinion.
I think it's worth noting that it's reported to be nicknamed the "Kevlar Coffin", but simply because of a general fear of IED attack. Hohum (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the nickname is worth noting, I just don't think it was intended as specific criticism of the vehicle, just the IED situation in general. So I don't think it belongs in the criticism section. And you're right, another vehicle would just get another similar nickname. It's just like any other conflict - both sides are trying to adapt to the other. The NATO troops bring in heavier armour, the insurgents make bigger IEDs. It's been that way since the beginning if you look at the Canadian situation - From open Iltis jeeps up every rung of the ladder to tanks. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A little bit of googling makes it quite clear the quote should not be included in the article. The story in question was apparently something of a hatchet job. 68.180.27.173 (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed controversy section

I decided to Be Bold and remove the controversy section - the link to the main article on the subject was moved to the "see also" section of this article. That a controversy section exists for the Stryker, a vehicle that has proven itself in combat countless times in Iraq and Afghanistan, borders on insulting and is certainly giving undue weight to critics that have been proven wrong. I don't see criticism sections for most military vehicles on their pages and as such unless there is substantive and widespread criticism from end-users (which there has been a stunning lack of with respect to the Stryker) no criticism section should exist. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a sales brochure. The criticisms of the Stryker have been many and severe - omitting them from the article would be dishonest and false; one could also think that you, sir, got a vested interest in whitening the Stryker's record. You don't work for GDLS by any chance ? I reinserted the criticisms section, several fellow wikipedians contributed to it, it is well-written and well-sourced, and it contains a lot of factual and verifiable information about the various problems of the Stryker, many of which are inherent to its very basic concept and design. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My points stand. I am removing the section and will not allow it to be reinserted into the article in the future. 68.180.27.173 (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm no wikipedian and I realise that the information contained in the series of videos I am about to link to may well be common knowledge here, but in case they're not, I thought I'd link you the first in a series of videos that appear (to me) to be well researched and professional, listing sources as they do. I hope you find new information relevant and helpful to this article in these videos and should you wish to query any point in the videos, you may of course do so with the author, who consistantly gives sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rig8cE6Z4vo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.232.192 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hahah, that's funny. Well researched. You base this on what? It cites no references, makes vague and thoroughly debunked claims (see talk here, on my talk page, and on the 'Stryker vehicle controversy' page (Internal volume is greater than an M113, it can be air dropped, a C-17 can carry up to 4 Strykers with its ramp lowered, and the GAO report cited in this article says that a C-130 can in fact travel 1000mi with a payload of up to 35,000lbs... which is the weight of a vanilla Stryker, the M113 can get stuck, too, especially in deep mud where it will belly-out sooner than the Stryker, the M113 is hardly 'fully amphibious' - the M113's freeboard was only a few inches, and subsequent weight increases with the M113A2 onward means that they can't really swim anymore, and amphibious training is prohibited - and finally, the entire premise of the 'slideshow' is faulty in that it says that a replacement vehicle must have the exact qualities of the original vehicle - which it doesn't. Things change. And the Stryker is as good or better than the M113 in most - not all, but most - categories). More garbage and misinformation made available by Mike Sparks and friends. The only reason I'm replying to this is to point out just how silly it is. To anyone reading this, please ignore it. - Jonathon A H (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a product promotion page?

The article does not even contain a section for criticism of the vehicle, and you all know that there are many when it comes to the Stryker. On the other hand, there is a section called "# 6 Appearances in popular culture" ! Who is editing this page - GDLS, the manufacturer ? Reads like an advertising brochure. The POV in this article needs to be cleaned up. I will happily contribute with in-depth knowledge of the various known issues as soon as I find the time. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit: See the section above - I reinserted the missing criticism section, which got deleted by an unregistered vandal. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The whole Criticism section needs a major rework. It now reads like an excusing statement by some GDLS or US Army spokesperson. Plus, the different issued have to be listed and addressed individually. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Kind of amusing given how much POV you've introduced. It's clear that you have a bias against the vehicle, and/or are not looking at the article in a rational manner. Lets review:
  • You introduce an unsupported paragraph claiming that any positive statements made by soldiers familiar with the vehicle are to be discounted. Furthermore you state that they 'often lack proper judgement'. What's proper judgement? In what way is your judgement superior?
Proper judgement needs a standard of comparison. Many soldiers who serve with the Stryker are either fresh recruits or previously served with vehicles of a different kind, like HMMWVs, or no vehicles at all, in foot-slogging companies. And those soldiers who do recognize the Stryker for what it is cannot speak out since their commanders forbid them to do so. You have to remember that the Stryker is General Shinseki's brainchild, and it got pushed thru because it was his pet project. Still, you can find substantiated criticism by soldiers about the Stryker, like in a fairly recent TIMES article of November 2009, which reported that US soldiers in Afghanistan called the Strykers "kevlar-coffins" due to their lack of protection and being prime targets of enemy attacks. Link to the Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/features/article7059183.ece The Washington Times also reported a very similar story, also citing the "kevlar-coffins" reputation of the Stryker amongst the troops in Afghanistan: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/05/armored-troop-carriers-unsafe-for-afghan-duty/ You see, there is a lot of substantiated criticism out there, and I'm going to work it ino the article as soon as I find the time. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
And you make the assumption that all those commenting on the vehicle are inexperienced. Likewise, those expressing negative views are just as likely to be inexperienced, yet you appear more than willing to take those comments at face value. I'll ask you to examine your own biases in this matter - it's clear that you have an agenda here. And what is your own expertise that makes it so easy to discount their testimony? Where do the claims that it's forbidden to speak on the Stryker come from? So far unsubstantiated. It's also kind of arrogant to assume that they're all inexperienced, or, conversely that their experience biases them in favour of the Stryker. I've reverted the additions because 1) the Washington Post article and the 'Kevlar Coffin' moniker are discussed just a paragraph or two above your additions, and 2) the Times article is essentially parroting the WP article, and you misrepresented the article - it does not state that the Stryker is the most dangerous ride, it states that it is the most dangerous road due to the amount of IED activity. Furthermore the article goes on to criticize the Stryker for the exact same failings of most non-purpose built mine and IED resistant vehicles, so it's merit is questionable (The Stryker has a flat bottom, yes, and so does the M113, M1, T-90, etc etc). - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I merged the two Kevlar-Coffin citations. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You didn't 'merge' them, you reinserted your own and deleted the other one. Once again, you misrepresented the Times article - nowhere did it refer to the Stryker as the most dangerous ride, it stated that it was the most dangerous road. The criticisms levelled at the Stryker in the article could be levelled at most other conventional military vehicles. The comments from the WP article also need to be presented in context. The Stryker is being compared to a tank, not another APC. - Jonathon A H (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You introduce colour commentary, bias (lacking, has to be stripped etc.), and uncited claims in what was an otherwise largely neutral statement discussing strategic mobility.
If you take offence at completely unoffensive words like "lacking" etc., that's peculiar. But feel free to rephrase it. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't taking offence, that was pointing out that the previous language used was neutral, unnecessarily using the word 'lacking' introduced unnecessary and potentially biased language into the article. The shortcomings of its tactical mobility were already discussed. - Jonathon A H (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You say that it couldn't possibly have been designed with mines and IEDs in mind - which completely discounts the fact that mines have been in use since well before the Piranha was designed. IEDs have also been in use through the various design iterations of the Piranha. You only appear to be looking at this in an Iraq and Afghanistan context.
The MOWAG Piranha, on which the Stryker and its predecessors LAV I, II, III are based, was designed as a police, riot police, border patrol and special forces vehicle back in the 1960s. It was not designed as an infantry carrier for use in a conventional army. You can rest assured that mine protection played no role in the considerations of the Swiss engineers who designed it. The high center of gravity only became a problem later, since the MOWAG Piranha only weighed just below 10 tons ! Ditto for many other typical issues of the Stryker, like its subpar offroad performance: The Piranha was not designed for heavy offroad use, either, but did well enough offroad, thanks to its low weight. A current Stryker weighs in at 26 tons, minimum - that's 260% of the Piranha's designed weight, and it's still the same platform ! -- Alexey Topol (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You're going to like this one: Source please? On both the development and weight. Right now both are completely unsupported. Right now you're just pulling your assertions out of thin air, and that doesn't cut it. Also, regardless of the development history of the Piranha one, it's undergone numerous design evolutions and changes. The Piranha III through V have little in common with earlier versions beyond a passing resemblance and are essentially of a new design. - Jonathon A H (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem take offfence at the term 'conventional tracks' - as opposed to, say, band tracks? Yes, there are different types of tracks. Conventional is used appropriately.
Acknowledged. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You remove a paragraph discussing design compromises in relation to a turret - none of which was factually incorrect. If you don't like the comparison to a BMP, then change it, or correct it, but don't delete it. Turrets do add weight, and traditional turrets do reduce the amount of room internally due to the turret basket.
Never disputed that. Fun fact: The LAV-I as used by the Marines does have a turret, and contrary to the Stryker it is still amphibious. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
As such, I'm going to go ahead and revert these edits. I will leave the criticism section for further debate. - Jonathon A H (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism is utterly baseless - section removed

I have removed the criticisms section - continuing to include it in the article is an insult to an excellent piece of hardware that tens of thousands of soldiers swear by. It is unacceptable that it remains in the article and I will not allow its inclusion. If other editors feel that poorly-informed criticism that has been debunked by battlefield experience is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia they are free to create another page and link it. 68.180.27.173 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The section has been restored. There is more than ample cited material to support its inclusion in the article. Deleting it without consensus, as well as your commentary above, demonstrates a non-neutral point of view. If you can provide references and citations to reliable, verifiable sources that demonstrate the inaccuracy of the criticisms presented, please do so, so that such material may also be included in the article. --Alan (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Retention of the criticism section is undue weight on criticisms of a battle-tested workhorse which have been proven false on the battlefield. I feel that adequate citations exist within the body of the article to demonstrate this and I do not need consensus on a simple facts-based cleanup. 68.180.27.173 (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Do not removed cited statements without consensus, nor is it your place to dictate to the other editors what may or may not exist on this page, further if you want to be taken at all seriously get an account, neither I nor any other editor will listen much to someone shooting off at the mouth while hiding behind an IP address. You have much to learn stop lecturing others while committing fairly serious violations of the rules here. Tirronan (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha funny. The citations do not match the weight given and that is quite self-evident. Drop the attitude and I may take you seriously. 68.180.27.173 (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism isn't funny and neither are your actions.Tirronan (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Cute. Last time I checked cleanup wasn't vandalism. 68.180.27.173 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll actually agree that the criticism section should probably be removed, but... (keep reading before you jump to conclusions, Alexey...) while the criticism section may have its problems, I don't think the fact that there has been criticism can or should be simply ignored. The LAV III page used to have a similar, dedicated criticism section. When I asked the MilHist project to review the page, one of the comments was that, rather than having a dedicated criticism section, any criticism or issues with the vehicle should be incorporated into the rest of the article so they can be viewed in context. It made sense. For example: the complaints that the vehicle may have a high centre of gravity should be discussed in the Design/Mobility section. Any criticism should also come from legitimate sources - reliable news publications, defense journals, government studies, etc etc, not web forums or private, or agenda-driven personal web sites, and should be cited. Look at other military vehicle pages? How many have a dedicated 'Criticism' section? Not many, if any. Every one of those vehicles has been criticized at one point or another. - Jonathon A H (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that all criticism (and I mean ALL criticism) of the Stryker comes from sources that should not be taken seriously. I find it a little hard to believe that seven years of consistently excellent performance on the modern battlefield is given equal weight to the deranged rantings of Mike Sparks. Perhaps someone should throw a blurb in the intro regarding it, but the Stryker is one of the most battle-proven vehicles on the planet by this point and it's kind of insulting that half of its Wikipedia page consists of dealing with criticisms that have been proven comically groundless. The vehicle certainly has its problems, but not any more so (and generally much less so) than anything else in the arsenal - and the platform has proven to be easily modifiable to meet the threat. 68.180.27.173 (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Consensus? Consensus? 24 hours without a negative response and the criticisms section goes down and stays down. 68.180.27.173 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Source article: Israel rejects Stryker

Here's the full text of the linked article in the Operators section, Israel.

The URL, under which it was published, is as follows: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1090208251924&p=1078027574121

But for some reason it is no longer accessible in the archive of www.jpost.com, but I found copies of it on various other websites - to maintain encyclopedic integrity I post it here in its full text:

Stryker APC deal tabled for two years Jul. 19, 2004 23:25

By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN Jerusalem Post

Citing financial pressure, the IDF has decided to put a hold on a decision to procure the controversial 8x8 Stryker light armored vehicle from the United States.

According to military sources the decision was made earlier this month in a review of expected expenditures in the multi-year procurement plan. The decision was to delay the matter for two years, but military sources said that the idea of purchasing the Stryker was effectively "buried for good." The decision is also a blow for the battered image of the Stryker since America was hoping to enhance its status with its inclusion in the IDF arsenal.

The Ground Forces Services had been pushing for a "critical mass" of Strykers to equip at least two brigades. This would involve hundreds of vehicles at a cost of $1.5 million each. But they would have likely undergone reinforcement to make them more protected, boosting their cost by up to $500,000.

OC Ground Forces Services Maj.-Gen. Yiftah Ron-Tal has been a strong proponent of the Stryker to replace the aged M-113 "Gavin" APCs. The Stryker was designed as the vehicle tailor-made for urban conflict, but it has garnered mixed reviews in action with US troops in Iraq.

Some of the criticism has been that the Stryker has many blind spots and was not as maneuverable as tracked armored personnel carriers. The 19-ton vehicles are also said to be top heavy and prone to rollovers.

After it was designed the American Army realized it wouldn't withstand RPGs so the US rushed through additional means to pre-detonate the RPGs, which made them even more top heavy.

It also needed to upgrade its protection against roadside bombs with appliqu armor developed by an Israeli–based company.

"It's a piece of junk," said one former senior IDF field commander intimately involved with the Stryker. "I don't know why Ron-tal was pushing so hard for it." There was also criticism that the IDF was never really serious about purchasing the Stryker from the beginning and it was all part of a disinformation campaign, possibly to enhance Israel's indigenous APC production.

The IDF did not even seek out any possibility of upgrading Stryker armor from manufacturers in Israel.

"Nothing. They never even contacted us," said Dr. Michael Cohen, director of Mofet Etzion Ltd. His company, based in Kfar Etzion, has been supplying General Dynamics Land Systems based in Canada with appliqu armor for its US Army Strykers in Iraq. Proponents of the 19-ton Stryker say it would have been more mobile and more responsive than heavier tanks and treaded vehicles in the digitalized, urban battlefields of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The ground forces wanted to use them to replace the Vietnam-era M113 APCs, such as the ones destroyed in the Gaza Strip last May killing 11 soldiers.

Now that the Stryker is pass , it paves the way for accelerating the alternatives to the American APC.

According to a senior defense official, the state-owned plant which produces the Merkava tank and other upgraded APCs has put together a prototype of a heavy armored vehicle that rivals the Stryker. It is called the "Namer" or Leopard, and is built on the chassis of the Merkava I tank. It too would cost between $1 million and $2m. each. The drawback was that US military grant money could not be used to pay for these since the bulk of the annual $2.2 billion in grants must be spent in the United States.

Copy found on http://www.paratrooper.net/commo/Topic132533-27-1.aspx#bm133400

Further, identical copy available at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-96606412.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexey Topol (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

According to this JPost article, the IDF was "considering purchasing several hundred Stryker armored vehicles" in 2007. So I'm not quite sure what to believe here.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Israel does have an financial incentive to consider the purchase of Strykers, since it can pay for them with the military aid it receives from the US (this money must be spent entirely on the purchase of US-made weapons - although the Stryker is mostly made in Canada, only the wheel assembly is done in the US). For the Namer, Israel has to pay with its own money. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Since I don't trust forum posts - too easily edited - and I'm not going to pay for a subscription for one article, I dug up a free, verifiable version of the article. Here you go. - Jonathon A H (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I've never encountered an altered article in a forum, but anyway thanks for teh archive link. The question is only how long this archive link will work. If it's inaccessible in a year or so, will it have to be removed from the article ? This is a general problem in wikipedia. Academic works, like a BA or MA thesis, require the original URL and the access date only. A printed copy of the article in the appendix is helpful, but not required. Which standards apply to wikipedia ? I guess there are thousands of links, on which wiki articles are substantially based, which are not accessible anymore. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms section unencyclopedic

I don't see massive criticism sections in any other page on armored vehicles - the Bradley, which suffered a difficult development to say the least, has a mere paragraph subsection. Given that the Stryker is universally loved by the soldiers that use it and is an incredibly effective armored vehicle - every single source points to that fact - I'd have to say we're looking at some pretty extreme undue weight. If someone wants to pare the section down a great deal and insert a blurb about the controversy elsewhere in the article that would be acceptable, but as it is the article is atrocious as long as it includes a massive point/counterpoint section that is basically irrelevant. I am continually amazed how difficult it is to remove sourced material, no matter how loopy or baseless, from Wikipedia and I notice my previous removal of the section some time ago stood for a month. There's a reason this article is rated at start-class. 68.180.27.173 (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a Stryker-fanboy - the Stryker is so "universally loved" by the soldiers that they call 'em "kevlar-coffins," because it's such a dangerous vehicle to ride in and so many soldiers already died in it. This is reality, not what you see in TV shows like "Future Weapons" or some internet fanboy pages. Encyclopedic articles should have a neutral or rather critical point of view. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a universally loved anything in the US Army, the M113 was despised in my day and was under terrible criticism for it's lack of mine resistance, and too thin armor. So much so that it was common to see the GIs riding on the top of the thing sitting on their flack jackets. I get really impressed with anon ip addresses demanding changes and telling the rest of us what to do.Tirronan (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I happen to be one of the "stryker fanboys" due to my experience in one while deployed in Iraq. It is the best vehicle in the Army in the environment for which it was intended to be used. Period. I deployed as the Operations Officer for a Stryker Infantry Battalion and used a Stryker Command Variant. While mounted, I stood in the Squad Leader hatch and rode in there both day and night. I apologize if this comes in as an anonymous comment as I am very unfamiliar with editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.7.16 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed ESV name in main page

FYI: I changed the ESV from "Engineer Support Vehicle" to "Engineer Squad Vehicle" in accordance with PM Stryker Brigade Combat Team nomenclature.

Jim Mason.jamesr (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait and see update

Earlier this year I discussed adding that the Ground Combat Vehicle is the planned replacement for the Stryker. Because of some ambiguity in the citation I provided, I conceded that it may be too early on to know. I have now found this timeline but its trustworthiness may be suspect. I'm going to go ahead and mention the GCV briefly in the Future section. Revert and discuss if you like. Marcus Qwertyus 22:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's still to early to say that GCV will be replacing the Stryker... the article mentions nothing of the sort, and, as far as I can see, makes no mention of the Stryker at all. The chart is also ambiguous at best (the GCV line extends slightly beyond the others?). It's still far too early to say just what the GCV will ultimately end up being, and the project has already been rebooted once. The Stryker's replacement may be the GCV, or it may be another vehicle altogether, or it may not be replaced at all (simply phased out). - Jonathon A H (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is complete shit

I see the editing wars on the Stryker page are still alive and well, and just as pissy and annoying. I also see that, conveniently, many of the supporters for removing any and all controversy comments in the article are those with anonymous IP addresses. I'm getting tired of seeing this page and all of the examples of what not a wikipage should be, and all that is currently wrong with wiki. Honestly, I'm on the verge of saying delete the article, start over, get some consensus, cite EVERYTHING, and semi-protect the page so this shit will actually stop for once. You guys getting into pissing matches are like fucking children, I swear. 66.153.199.150 (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sparky? Alright, I'm going to reply to this one just for fun... I find it ironic that someone with an anonymous IP complains about the article being edited by people with anonymous IPs... However, to address some of your concerns... None of the cited criticism has been removed (and weren't you just asking that everything be cited?), and most of the significant edits have been done by registered users. The criticism section itself has been removed, but the content was just folded into the relevant subsections of the article - it's all still there (again, assuming it was properly cited). If you have issues with the way the article is constructed, you're as welcome to contribute to it as any other editor so long as you follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm afraid, however, that it's not up to one editor alone, especially an anonymous one, to have the article deleted. If you've actually been paying attention to the edits, rather than the talk page, you'll see that the page has been quite stable of late. - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
@ Anonymous: No, this article is not shit at all ! It's a formidable product promotion page brought to you by GDLS Inc. ! Just remember: The Stryker is the best ! It is worth every one of the six million dollars it costs apiece ! -- Alexey Topol (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how it's ironic to you that someone on a TALK page is complaining about anonymous edits to the ARTICLE. You yourself stated the difference between the two in your very comment. Why you decide to make the distinction once and not the other (and when it suited you... nice) is beyond me. Feel free to do a socks check on me or look for my IP range in the edits of the article. Hint: you won't find them. I haven't done any editing on the page and don't intend to. Why? Because what's the point?! Half of the edits done, even those with sources cited, are REVERTED! Some by you yourself! It'd be an exercise in futility since this is one of the most biased god damn pages in wikipedia with edit wars constantly happening and pissing matches going back and forth between editors. And as for your "significant edits were done by registered users"... Bullshit. And I'll have to call bullshit on your other claim that "all past criticisms are contained within the article". This is false. And, exactly, what do you consider criteria for sourcing criticism? And what separates valid criticism from anti-Stryker sentiment? Or, even, is any of the criticism not from the anti-Stryker crowd as many here editing this article would like to contend? As for your last comment, I'm afraid you have no pull in what happens to this article, either, since you're not an administrator or someone else that could weigh the matter. But, again, that just goes to show what exactly is wrong with this fucking article. Thank you for your time, you thoroughly wasted both it and mine. 66.153.199.150 (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is nice to see that the level of civility has done nothing but gone up. The reason IP addresses get so little respect is exactly the behavior that you are displaying. I guess the idea of being hidden allows you the freedom to use these talk pages as a venting source without a language filter or even showing that you were raised correctly. That isn't what this page is for. I don't appreciate your lack of civility nor your choice of words. Go find a bathroom wall to go write your four letter words in please. I am not at all impressed and if this is all that you have to bring to the project I would suggest going to a blog site where it would be more appropriate. Any more of this behavior and we can see about getting your IP addressed banned from editing. These talk pages are for improving the article, not expressing your opinion, either be constructive or leave.Tirronan (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Why would you expect the civility to be improving? No one here has expressed a desire to do anything about the page, and you and the other editors remain quite content with the status quo - which includes plenty of editing wars and petty bickering about bias while attempting to push ones' own agenda. All of which have *nothing* to do with what I've been doing, and consequently, are false attributed by you. Go figure. Also, as for my choice of words, I can say the same about you (and, seriously, for someone that's so interested in naval history haven't you heard the idiom "cusses like a sailor"?). What's ridiculous is you somehow draw clues from how I was raised by a mere few paragraphs on a wiki talk page, which I think is more telling about your personality than what you're claiming against me. I gave plenty of constructive insight - you were just unwilling to listen. Deleting the majority of the article, getting consensus on what needs to be in the article to begin with (you know, instead of deleting shit left and right after it's been there for months), and citing everything would make the page not only look and read better but would ALSO CUT DOWN ON THE PISSING MATCHES. It's funny, yet sad, that whenever I check on the Stryker page every few months that it looks completely different and much of the content is changed from when I last saw it. Consistency would be nice. It's not like this is breaking news we're dealing with. As for your "opinions are verboten on talk pages" - not only is that not true one damn bit (constructive criticism, which you asked for, is just that), but it also makes you guilty of breaking the rules as well as evidenced by your comments. Overall, the talk page is proving much of what I suspected about the wiki editors circling this article like the vultures they are: attack one another, but keep the status quo of the pissing matches and ignore that we have a problem. Yet, strangely, I'm the bad guy for having the audacity to point out that we have a glaring problem. Oh well. I can lead a horse to water but I'm not going to try and make one drink. Even if it is keeling over from dehydration. Have fun with your editing wars, kids. 66.153.199.150 (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just sure there is a blog site out there waiting for you... use it.Tirronan (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Armour

I read the supplied links supplied with the fact sheet about the armour. If you read the article, you will understand that the thickness of the armour all-around is >14.5mm, NOT meaning it can withstand 14.5x114mm munition. In the second link, there is clearly stated that the armour is up to 7.62mm (probably referring to the 7.62x51 and 7.62x53 cartridges used in most machineguns). --Tervan (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was in fact referring to 14.5mm rounds. The base steel armour is capable of stopping 7.62mm rounds, but with the additional ceramic armour, the Stryker is supposed to be capable of defeating 14.5mm rounds - there are a number of articles linked that clarify this. For example, much of the 'controversy' (and I use that term lightly since it was a tempest in a teacup) surrounding the Stryker involved the initial batch of ceramic armour failing in tests vs 14.5mm rounds, which is why it was replaced by armour supplied by a new manufacturer. Edits reverted. - Jonathon A H (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Vehicle comparison chart

In the chart comparing other such vehicles, the vehicle used for Canada seems inappropriate. Instead of the LAV-25, should the comparator not be the LAV-III? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Who deleted the vehicle comparison chart? You can hardly say that is criticism! It's censorship and sleight of hand! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.94 (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Double-V variants rollouts

Is it worth noting when the various variants switch over to the double-V hull?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/07/mil-120716-arnews03.htm APMI will be fired from the Army's new Stryker Double-V Hull Mortar Carrier Vehicle, or MCVV.

etc. Hcobb (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations to GDLS and their paid wiki-editors

You succeeded in banning all criticism from the article. It now is basically a sales promotion brochure, not an encyclopedic article. You even deleted most, if not all of my posts from the discussion section. Good job - GDLS gets real value for their investment in you. And I won't even bother trying to contribute here ... just a hint: You might want to include some minor, irrelevant criticism, which can easily be refuted (i.e. strawman arguments), just to make it look "fair and balanced" to the unsuspecting reader. Regards, ... -- Alexey Topol (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You have made 22 edits to this talk page in the last few years. As far as I can see, they are all still here. Sarcastic invective will certainly get you nowhere. (Hohum @) 23:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this the primary topic?

Is this vehicle really the primary topic for "Stryker"? I was surprised when I landed here while looking for the Fortune 500 company -- I expected to land either at the article about the company (which I thought might have been the primary topic) or at Stryker (disambiguation). When I google "Stryker", the topmost search result and most of the first-page results concern the company, which lends weight to the hypothesis that the company is the primary topic. Perhaps this article should be renamed something like Stryker (vehicle) and Stryker should become a redirect to the dab? Lambtron (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I was looking for Stryker as a vehicle, not the company that made it, which is General Dynamics Land Systems. If I wanted to look up GDLS, I'd search for DGLS, not one of their products. They do make other products besides this single system. But then, I was looking up a vehicle I operated and rode in, as the occasion demanded. I only happened to come here after finding a chunk of the ceramic armor in my things when I was going through them today and was curious about what the article looks like today.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I think Lambtron's statement confused you, Wzrd1. "The Fortune 500 company" Lambtron is talking about is Stryker Corporation, not GDLS. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a case to be made that neither is primary. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I always think of the Stryker Corporation as just that. I've also used Stryker products in the military. Interestingly though, never in a Stryker vehicle, as Stryker corporation products don't lend themselves as well to military tactical usage.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. bd2412 T 22:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Stryker → Stryker (vehicle) – Not the primary topic. Stryker should be a disambiguation page. Google Alerts: Stryker Corp, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]; Stryker vehicle [9] [10]. Though to be fair, those last two were only about Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree. Per discussion immediately above this section. A redirect as proposed and Stryker alone going to a disambiguation page would be appropriate for the reasons discussed previously.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MALPLACED, a title can not redirect to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title. I would support moving the disambiguation page to Stryker based on the lack of a clear primary topic. bd2412 T 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The company is at Stryker Corporation and doesn't require this lemma. 64.129.10.105 (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, that prevents many misdirected clicks for those looking for the vehicle and not the company, but not for people looking for the company. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think almost anyone typing "Stryker" expects to get to the vehicle. Page view stats show about 1,000 hits per day to the current Stryker page and 20-30 per day to the disambig page. (Hohum @) 14:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That illustrates the problem of accessibility I perceive with hatnotes but nothing else. If you were to make Stryker a dab page, eliminate all incoming misdirected wikilinks and pipe both links to [[FOOStryker (vehicle)]] and [[BARStryker Corporation]], you would see that both FOO and BAR would get a comparable amount of views. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:16, 2- September 2013 (UTC)
Marcus, on what evidential basis are you suggesting that FOO and BAR would get comparable amounts of views? The company page only averages to about 140 hits per day, which is far below the 1000 average for this page. Perhaps we could put a direct hatnote link to the company page on this article to see if that would improve traffic over a 90-day period? - BilCat (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The Stryker Corp. page isn't as high quality so it isn't currently getting a ton of hits from search. Also, for some additional context the program cost for the Stryker program over the last decade has been something like $7.5 billion. Stryker Corporation's annual revenue alone is $8.657 billion. Take want you want from that. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't take much from that, to be honest. As far as WP readers go, they seem to be more interested in the vehicle than a company most seem to have never heard of nor care about, no matter its annual revenue. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The vehicle got 90,000 page views in the last 90 days. The company got 16,000. If you think it's because the article is poorly written, you can improve it. That has nothing to do with this discussion. If the company gets significantly fewer page views, it's not primary. Period. Revenue figures have nothing to do with it. 64.129.10.105 (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Page views are often the worst determiner of primary topic. If that was the say-all, end-all, the comic book character would be primary to Magneto. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support to move this article to Stryker (vehicle) (or Stryker vehicle). The vehicle seems to be more well known, but internet searches for Stryker with 4 different search engines show slightly more hits for the corporation. Based on the searches, the Stryker vehicle is probably not the clear-cut primary topic. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose to move this article at this point. I've seen no evidence from the page traffic numbers that WP readers are searching for the company to any sigbificant degree. At this point, I'd say to close this as No consensus to move, and come back in 4-6 months. In the meantime, I'll add a specific hatnote to this article to see if the traffic numbers to the company imprve to a significant degree over that period. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Stryker should be a disambiguation page. I know of Stryker as a medical equipment supplier. They're not a small company; they're in the S&P 500. I'm not going to analyze pageviews or Google, just going on personal knowledge. I'd never heard of the armored fighting vehicle until I saw this RM. Honest. We also may have something of a minor case of WP:Recentism. The company's been around since 1941, the military hardware just over a decade. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Versus tanks

"The Stryker was designed to be deployable for light infantry units, not made to handle heavy armored combat. In a defensive action, vehicles moved to high ground where soldiers and vehicles with anti-tank missiles managed to defeat two-thirds of an enemy force of 90 vehicles while suffering losses of less than one-third of brigade vehicles. In an offensive action, the brigade lost a cavalry squadron when attacking fortified enemy positions, but still won the battle exercise"

Apart from being completely biased and pro American, the counterpoint is the tanks versus infantry debate is still going on, and this section seems to imply it's completely decided; all by some military exercise. It doesn't even say anything about the capabilities or details of the vehicle, just summarizes the results of an exercise, the details of which are unknown. It doesn't add anything to the article, just tries to influence the reader's opinion.

I don't know if this is propaganda or advertising for General Dynamics, but regardless it doesn't belong in a place which is supposed to contain information as accurate as can be attained. Ancholm (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The text was not biased or pro-American, it was just telling of what happened in a military exercise where Strykers went up against conventional opposing forces. It does not say the tanks versus infantry debate is decided by an exercise, just that this one showed infantry from Strykers were capable of defeating armored forces under certain circumstances. It talked about the capabilities of the Stryker, that it was not made for this type of combat, and other details concerning that point can be found in the other parts of this page. Also, just because the source article is Stars and Stripes does not mean it is "America biased," that was just where the story was written. It was about an American combat vehicle in a training exercise, so I don't see how else other information could have been added, or would even be relevant. America789 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
None of it is relevant. The article speaks of it like a historical event, like you would find on the article concerning cannons and their use at Waterloo. However this was not a historical event of any note, just a standard training exercise. If you had used the term "Under certain circumstances," I probably wouldn't be raising this kind of fuss. It doesn't include any details of the Stryker specifically, if anything it would be more appropriate under the article for mechanized infantry. I shall reinclude the information, but as a sentence recognizing the event and it's implications, and not as an equally verbose and uninformative paragraph.
On the other point, would you expect a paper called "Red Star" to be fair and impartial? No, it would be biased and pandering; just like stripes, just like military.com. I wouldn't even mind you using pro-American sources purely for information, but the bias carries over. Ancholm (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It is relevant because it talks of the vehicle's mission. It's mission is to be a lightly armored air-mobile APC, and this showed it was capable of being useful in situations it was not originally made to be in. The article does talk about the Stryker specifically, in fact the entire article is based on it. You could rewrite it shorter and just say "A training exercise showed the Stryker could be used in conventional warfare situations and this was the result" or something, but I think a mention of some kind is needed. Also, if you don't like the site, the story can be found here. America789 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for posting that last link it was very informative, and a much better telling of the story than the first article in terms of writing quality and depth. However reading the comments; American military officers are calling the article propaganda. If they're calling the entire story unreliable, would you agree it probably is? Ancholm (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
In every military-related article there are always some commenters that try to denounce or discredit whatever is written; that is not the way to judge quality. I'm not understanding how the story can be called propaganda or biased. It is about an American combat vehicle in an exercise. It doesn't say the opposing force was supposed to be another specific country's army or what specific vehicles the opposition were trying to seem like. The story is obviously going to about the U.S., because there is no one else to talk about; it can't be slanted if there is not another side being neglected. All it is saying is that in an exercise the Stryker proved somewhat successful in a role it was not initially intended to be in. Surely that can be stated plainly in this page. America789 (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Unit cost

The unit cost still says 4 odd mil. That's more than a T90. It's also more than a LAV III, which the stryker is a stripped down version of. Either that figure is inaccurate or the corruption in the American military-industrial complex has reached impressive proportions. There's strong evidence for both, but I believe the number is off. Ancholm (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually, it in the standard price range for the US. MRAPs were $0.5 million before any electronics or computers, and GCV was supposed to be over $10 million. Also, I not sure, but the vehicles bought in 2012 could have been NBCRVs. Those are probably one of the more expensive variants. In addition, be careful with the T90 costs. Which T90? How much electronics? Are you buying new or upgrading a T-72? There are many ways to hide costs.Vstr (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Fighting Vehicle

The stryker is not a fighting vehicle. It lacks the armor and staying power. It is designed to only provide support by fire. DocHellfish (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

armored fighting vehicle is a generous term that includes many vehicles including armored personel carriers, and engineering vehicles without any significant form of offense/defence beyond a machine gun. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, perhaps it is an Americanism. Fighting Vehicles, such as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, are called such because they are designed to engage in the fight directly. Strykers are only rated to provide fire support due to their lack of staying power. In a conventional war, they would be sliced to ribbons in the field thus are for urban warfare. DocHellfish (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stryker/Archive_2&oldid=1142778918"