Unit told to remove armor from vehicles!!

J

jennyp

10-Year Member
5-Year Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
825
One of my daughter's high school teachers has a son in Afghanistan. With an Army "Striker" unit. (I am hoping some of you will forgive and straighten out my complete ignorance of military terminology!) Anyway, she told the students at school that her son had emailed that his unit, on the front lines mind you, had received direct orders to remove the armor from their vehicles TO MAKE THEM MORE FUEL EFFICIENT AND THEREBY MORE GREEN.

She is appalled. As am I. The last citizens of our country who should be expected to even consider fuel efficiency or being GREEN are those on the front lines of the war.

I shall post more details as I learn them. Anybody out there heard anything of the sort?
 
I certainly hope this is not true because it is ridiculous. :eek: Do you know if this unit is the one deployed out of Ft. Lewis this summer?

I too know someone in a Stryker unit currently in Afghanistan. I get regular email updates through his parents. I haven't heard anything about this (yet). I'll let you know if I do.
 
This sounds crazy enough to be true. Are the ones giving the direct orders signed up to ride in these vehicles?

Please keep us updated. I too have a friend with a son in a striker unit.
 
Removing armor for shipment to Afghanistan NOT

It doesn't ring true. It sounds like a political attack piece. There HAVE been articles in the press about removing slat armor from Strykers prior to return shipment to the US. My sense is that it is more efficient to transport the vehicles and the armor separately See this at http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1082.html
 
I will wait for a more reliable source before I pass judgement on this. Doesn't pass the 'sniff test' to me at this time.

I've never known the military to worry about being "green" and I doubt they would start with Stryker's in the AOR.
 
In the field? ...doesn't sound right.

For shipping? Sounds very right. Those cages make them WIDE. They may not fit in their designated mode of transport with extra armor attached.

My best guess.
 
At the contract price the DOD is probably paying for fuel delivery in Iraq I doubt they are worrying about the "Green" effects. Agree with Raimius. Strip down for transport probably logical. If I remember correctly, military vehicles are usualy referred to by galons to the mile not miles to the galon.
 
Last edited:
Read the mfg specs with the addition of the slat armor the stryker vehicle is no longer as air transportable as required. Remove slat armor (the cage) transport separately reinstall slat armor upon arrival at destination.
I think, but then it is the Army who knows.:eek:
 
I will check with the teacher and find out more. Better yet, I will get her on this forum!

jennyp
 
Ok, folks, here's the scoop.......This young man is with the 1-17 IN BN Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Afghanistan. They were ordered to remove armor from their vehicles. His Mom said the order came from ISAF, which she thinks is possibly part of NATO.

A couple of battalion commanders refused to go along. She has contacted Congressman and they are supposedly contacting Pentagon to find out why.

They are not shipping the vehicles anywhere. They are using them!

Will keep you updated if I learn more. I suggested she also contact O'Reilly or Limbaugh or somebody very loud!
 
Thanks, tpg. I know my military friends on here will set me straight.

Teacher reported that her mother filled in her senior citizens group in Dallas on this situation and they began calling talk shows, etc. Nothing like a little grass roots uprising!

Still, this news is appalling to me. Cause for great concern.
 
The 17th Regiment attached to the 5th brigade, 2nd Infantry Division from Ft. Lewis Washington. The 5th Brigade arrived in July to augment the Canadian force and reclaim lost territory. This unit operates in the Kandahar Region. Yesterday a soldier attached to the 17th Regiment was KIA in Arghandab district.

The info in preceding paragraph was goggled in about 5 milliseconds. From this thread one would think because of a rumor from the field that this unit had armor removed from vehicles to reduce green emissions, save gas or maybe to reduce weight, size, decreased immovability due to the restrictive add on Armor kits that were added to unit vehicles. It’s a fact that about 75% of the hundreds of different types of armor configurations are classified… add on armor, scalable armor, reactive armor, some kits weighting 100 pounds per sq. foot. Wouldn’t one think that an Islamic combatant could be sitting in a hut somewhere lurking on the internet also, looking for tidbits from rumors passed from the field and posted on the internet?
Hmm… the 1/17th satans cruising around Arhandab district in vehicles that had some restrictive add on armor removed due to missions requirements. Below are some quotes that can be found from on-line military sources that would point towards some tactical situations… yes armor may be removed from a vehicle due to the commander’s discretion (just when it is removed should be kept secret.)

“Scalable armor is one step further than bolt-on armor. You can have multiple sets of armor for a given vehicle, giving the commanders’ different options.”

“Some of the add-on armor on MRAPs in Iraq and Afghanistan has been too heavy and has restricted the vehicles’ mobility in cities, an Army official said.”

Before trying to go public with this type of info, maybe try and call the 17th infantry regiment’s public affairs office at 253-967-0152 0r after hours at 253-967-0015.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top