Talk:Stryker

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 necessaryily 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 ^Notify_Online 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 ^Notify_Online 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)

Infantry units are not "support" units

In this article there are several instances where the word "support" is used. Infantrymen are never considered a support unit. They are the main battle unit. Artillery units are considered "support". The word support in a military context means to support another unit. Yes, IFV's mutually support the members of their unit but that is not considered "support" because they are in the same unit. Also, from personal experience to ever call an Infantryman "support" is considered an insult. Can you please edit and remove that word. Solri89 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Just change 'support' to a more fitting word then, e.g. WP:FIXIT. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

C4I

When I was in it was C3I. When did they add computers? Solri89 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

IAV

It might be self-explanatory for the military experts, but the abbreviation "IAV" is not explained anywhere in the article. For clarification it should be fully written out at least once in either the introduction or the table on the right. --89.0.161.210 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

IAV is for Interim Armored Vehicle. I've added that at the first mention. (Hohum ^@) 18:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)