But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States.

The $5 million Abrams was designed to fight a frontal war against a similarly armed enemy. But the Iraqis are killing the tanks with attacks from above, below, and behind.

The unexpected costs of unconventional warfare.

Try to comprehend the cost... 80 X 5 million....Thats a lot of money getting blown up every day id say

I think the tanks are only being heavily damaged though. If they are totaled, then why send them back? And although i agree that they are not the best way to do things in urban warfare, but i would rather be surrounded with 69 tonnes of tank then in a couple tonnes of Hummer, or simply walking on the street when in a urban warfare situation..

I hear only 17 or so are total right offs, most have to be taken back to the U.S. for repairs due to the lack of adequate repair facilities in the region. The machinery losses really mean nothing regardless as the U.S. has 1000s of unused M1s sitting in mothballs and will probably be scaling down its armored forces in the near future anyway.

Study Faults Army Stryker Vehicle

its the same old adage...

built by the lowest bidder... what do you expect??

Didn't the Canadian Army plan on buying a bunch of Strykers?

Yep, we are. The powers that be have decided in their infinite wisdom that Canada doesn't need tanks. Armoured cars will do.

I dunno but the thought of running hatches down in some of the crap we have in a place as hot as the middle east makes me feel ill.

"The LAV is experiencing many of the same problems that new weapon systems often do during their shakedown cruise in combat."

Media Report on 'Stryker' Misleading

By Andrew Teekell

On March 31, The Washington Post reported that the U.S. Army's Stryker Light Armored Vehicle (LAV), which has been operating in Iraq for a year and a half, is not faring so well in the war zone. The eight-wheeled vehicle is inadequately armored, its computers are too slow and crew accommodations provide inadequate protection during rollovers.

Deficiencies noted, but the media is a bit behind the curve.

The report cites a four-month-old Army report on the LAV's performance in Iraq that did in fact find room for improvement in the Stryker -- improvement that already has been implemented or soon will be. Since first arriving in Iraq in October 2003, the vehicles and their crews have been adapting well to the mission and the environment.

Army personnel at Fort Lewis, Wash., home to the units that deploy the Stryker, tell Stratfor the LAV is experiencing many of the same problems that new weapon systems often do during their shakedown cruise in combat.

One problem, which most likely will be addressed on the assembly line, is that the tire pressure has to be checked too frequently because of the weight of the extra armor that protects the crew from insurgent rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). The armor is a field modification installed when the vehicles arrive in Kuwait and before they cross the border into Iraq. Although the armor is saving lives, the Stryker's suspension and tires were not designed to handle the extra weight.

The Army report also cites problems with the Stryker's computer systems. The commander's display fails to function properly and the computers slow down or freeze up when processing large amounts of data. Sources at General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., the Stryker's manufacturer, say the computer issues have been addressed with software upgrades. The data processing and command and control equipment in the Strykers are completely new systems that had never been used in combat vehicles before the Strykers went to Iraq.

In addition, the vehicle's grenade launcher has proven to be difficult to operate under combat conditions. This is a problem that can be remedied with interim field modifications or improvements on the assembly line.

The Stryker is deployed with the 3rd Brigade of the Army's 2nd Infantry Division in Iraq. Since February 2004, when the "Stryker Brigade" deployed to Kirkuk and Mosul, two vehicles have been lost to RPG fire. Other vehicles have been totaled by landmines and improvised explosive devices. Casualties have been sustained in most cases, but few Stryker crewmembers have been killed.

The first version of a weapon system often requires refinement after being used operationally. During World War II, the M4 Sherman tank was plagued by inadequate firepower and thin armor and was shot full of holes by the powerful German tanks it encountered in Normandy. To give themselves a better chance of surviving encounters with the Panzers, Sherman crews took to bolting scrap armor plate to the front and sides and tying sandbags to the front.

An even more notable example of military field expediency is the rapid "up-armoring" of the Army's "Humvee" fleet in Iraq, which was introduced into a combat environment that it was not designed for. There have been dozens of modifications to the F-16 fighter and M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle since these systems were first deployed. Even the mighty F-117 Stealth fighter performed poorly when first used in combat in Panama in 1989.

These problems are not exclusive to the U.S. military. The suspensions of Soviet T-72 tanks used in Afghanistan were found to be inadequate for the country's rough terrain, so the T-72 was replaced by the older T-62. During Russia's involvement in Chechnya, the gas turbine engines on their T-80 tanks proved to be problematic and were replaced with diesel engines in later models. The British army's Challenger tank was completely redesigned to address problems noted during gunnery exercises and the 1991 Gulf War.

The Stryker was developed for the emerging doctrine of a lighter and more rapidly deployable force. It was a controversial shift from an Army based on heavy divisions meant to engage massed Soviet formations to a force more suited to low-intensity conflict and intervention.

When it was introduced, the Stryker was derided by critics of the new, lighter Army. So far, however -- despite some teething troubles -- the Stryker has proven itself in combat. Experience in Iraq has shown that the Main Battle Tank still has a place on the urban battlefield -- U.S. troops like the firepower and psychological advantage that the 70-ton M-1 gives them. And, from all accounts, they like the Stryker too.

That being said: Tanks, armored vehicles, and aircraft are being run at rates two to six times greater than in peacetime

Aww we are going to loose our good german tanks? I planned on being an armoured soldier.

Our Leopard C2 tanks are staying on Canadian soil to serve a defensive purpose. We are buying the Stryker vehicle but with a tank cannon on the top of it. It will be called the Mobile Gun System. Pretty much an LAV 3 with a tank cannon on top. Our tanks might be sent over seas when we get our new Joint Support Ships.

The Stryker is a Canadian design...it's a modified LAV III. And yes, we are purchasing a whole bunch of LAV IIIs to replace our offensive armoured force; mainly because we don't have the logistics to move the Leapords (which are old and archaic compared to all other MBTs). The LAV III is a decent combat vehilce in its own element, but its the same old story: the Stryker is being used for purposes for which it wasn't designed, and thus isn't proving as usful as it could. Also, initial reports to the media always have to hype of the vehicles in the best of light for publicity purposes.