|
Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US)
I am not too sure on how this pertains to WinSPMBT (perhaps terrain movement costs), but it sure is interesting. Evidently, the author favors the M113. But it also goes into SLAT armor. There are burning vehicles on this site. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif
http://www.geocities.com/paratroop20...rykersfail.htm |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US)
Quote:
His main objective is to immortalize himself by fooling people into thinking the M113 was ever called "Gavin", a moniker he himself invented... |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
He seems a bit extreme. Is any of it true? ie: wheeled off-road becomes more likely to become stuck than tracks? I imagine that it has more to do with the weight of the vehicle. I love the picture of the 113's coming to the rescue! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I have heard that the Stryker with SLAT armor is much heavier that it was supposed to be, and that it is top-heavy, as well. But I can not imagine that an old APC would fair any better.
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
M113 will be always better than Humwee or Stryker, israelis dont want strykers at all, as they know that in urban combat, wheel is a weakpoint.Sooner US army finds it, better...
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
I've read most of Mr. "Gavins" stuff. He views the M113 as the be all, end all uber APC and the Stryker as the Ford Pinto of APCs.
A rational person would acknowledge that there are inherent tradeoffs between wheeled and tracked designs such as: Fuel Use (most accounts I've read show the Stryker getting ~3X the mileage of a M113) Noise signature (Tracks are loud) Off road ability (Tracks are inherently superior) Yada Yada Yada That said his site does have some interesting ideas for playing AFV Dr. Frankenstein with MOBHack. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
Peeling potatoes? |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
In everything, they are more versatile.Wheels are too limiting,you cant add too heavy armor without stressing suspension etc...In every aspect are tracked vehicles better in combat than wheeled.
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
Wheeled suspensions have advantages as well as drawbacks. So. Lets compare it to the Stryker in the mission causing most casualties; Convoy escort. Your "in all ways superior" M113; 1: Has a protection level that is NOT superior compared to the Stryker against the threat faced in Iraq, its is MORE vulnerable to heavy IED's and mines, as vulnerable to RPG (I'll allow for quick slat armour deployment) and small arms (some poor shmuck is always sticking their head out). 2: Is so slow that it cant keep up with logistics trucks forcing them either to be unescorted or slow down, thereby either letting insurgents strike at will or grant them more time preparing ambushes, and after striking an easier time disengaging and evading reaction forces. 3; Forces more actual logistics transports it have to, but cannot effectively, escort since it uses more fuel. 4; Hogs a lot when accelerating and decelerating, making for a jolting ride, tiring passengers and crew giving less combat effectiveness when reaching the target area. Yea, "in all ways" superior... What is needed for escort duty in Iraq are; More Strykers. More M1117 armoured cars. More trigger-pullers. Better Humint. Not 1960's era aluminium "box-on-tracks" M113's... |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
1. Spall liner protects infantry inside M113, it more RPG resistant than Stryker, with add on armor from Israelis could be RPG imune, M113 is better agains IED, antiinfantry mines cant stop it (stryker will be stopped - mobility kill)
2.72km/h is not slow,With tracks you can go offroad even in bad terain, stryker cant. 3.Fuel comsumtion s not so high as you think 4.better protection compensate this. look at thelink posted there... |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Compare stats in encykolaedia between Zelda M113 and US Stryker.I know that this is the game and not a reality, but it will give you simple view of Stryker capabilities (it is nothing more than BTR-80...)Why do you think Israelis declined Strykers for service? Sooner US Army will fight like Israel Army (urban area fighting) with Heavy APCs,360degree protection for tanks etc, better.I dont understand, why they looking for own way if there is a working solution...
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
Except that it wouldn't and it doesn't. You didn't state that you thought it "was better in the game", you stated; Quote:
Quote:
We are comparing two APC's here... one tracked, one wheeled, one designed in the 1950's, one "somewhat" later... I'd say that its most likely the BTR-80 also would be superior to the M113 in this role... Except for the rear engine and those crampy small side doors that is... Quote:
Quote:
Oh, wait a minute... I guess they US should hunker down, use the IDF methods and stay for, oh, thirty years, getting nowhere? To begin with Palestinians have nowhere near the amount of heavy weaponry that is available to Iraqi insurgents. Quote:
Quote:
Actually most vehicles, including Stryker, has thosew nowadays... And there is no "RPG immune" armour package for the M113. You shouldn't use "RPG" in that statement since it makes it meaningless. Its actually more difficult to MK a Stryker than a M113. All you need to do that to a M113 is to make it throw a track. There have been cases where a Stryker have been hit by large IED's and been able to drive home with several wheel wells blown off. In that situation the M113 would need to have been towed out... You can completely destroy several wheels on a Stryker with it retaining mobility, while knocking off one track on the M113 will completely immobilize it. Most photographs of burnt out Strykers are of vehicles that have been hit and then been abandoned because stowage discipline has been bad and extra fuel carried outside the vehicle, leading to to vehicle being set on fire. Here is whats left of an M113 that has been on fire... http://www.undermars.com/images/mars0340.jpg Lets focus on this though; Quote:
Wheeled vehicles are inherently more resistant to under body detonations due to increased standoff from the ground and better venting of the blast, that is a simple fact. The Stryker is designed with IED's and mines in mind, the M113 was not. Why is it superior in this area? Luck? Most casualties however are from unbuttoned personell. Both the Stryker and M113 will be unbuttoned with heads up in most situations (situational awareness is important enough to ensure that for a couple of more decades), so there is no real difference here except against big detonations. Practical level of protection for the M113 and M1114 are the same. Both stop all but the worst IED fragments. Both stop 7.62mm API, neither will stop PG-7M. The M113 can stop 12.7 frontally, which is a small advantage, but the mobility advantage of the M1114 definately outweighes this. Quote:
Otherwise closer to 50. M113s are unable to keep up with wheeled convoys who routinely hold 100kph throughout their routes. All other problems I mentioned with being slower remains. Strykers, M1114 and M1117 gives as equal or better protection to all relevant threats (smallarms, IED) while still being loads faster and better at responding/reacting to emerging threats. All types including MBT share vulnerabilities against large IED and various RPG rounds The whole convoy has to slow down and increase exposure time. Tracked vehicles do generally have an advantage in tactical mobility but they are disadvantage in long distance road marches. And you state that the Stryker can't drive in terrain at all? Its not a frickin school bus dude. ABSOLUTES is your enemy dude... Quote:
Quote:
"RPG immunity", whatever that means, exist only in your mind Quote:
Btw, how about retracting... Quote:
You're maiking my job EASY. I don't have to prove that the Stryker is generally superior (I wouldn't try, they are good at different jobs, but with advantages to the Stryker for being so much younger), but pushing down this bombastic claim is no hard at all... A hint, go to tanknet.org and do a search on M113. There are people there who actually served on M113 and Strykers. its not the end-all of wisdom, but its a good place to start. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Gentlemen,
This is a very interesting discussion, but let's calm down a bit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif thanks, Pyros |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Gavin is unofficial name for M113. Humwees have same protection as M113? I dont think so. Best example is Somalia 93, where US rangers convoy had big looses just becouse they drive in them.10.moutain division saved their asses in M113...
There are RPG immune vehicles, best of all is Israeli Achzarit, but they have an M113 modification that is able resist RPG-7 fire (proven many times) What is a cost of Stryker? 2 milion dolars? You can buy dozens of M113 and equip them with passive armor+SLAT array with not overloading the suspension as happends Stryker,and dont forget, that Stryker with addon armor+SLAT dont have such great mobility... With wheeled APC you must stay on the road,tracked wehicles could go offroad easilly. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Im tanknet member, i read those disscusions about Stryker. 2mil usd is too big price for light armored wheeled APC...
What do you think about this? http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/doc.../BearFacts.pdf |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
About those Convoy escorts, Insurgents will stop convoy even it goues 200mph,all they need to do is block the road... M113 can break thru, Stryker will not. I dont understand people that think that speed is better than armor.You will never be as fast as round that hit you.
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Gentlemen, remember the loads of bucks involved in this IAV business...
On both sides, both Stryker builders and M-113 promoters have huge interests in persuading the Army their project is the best one. The amount of lobbying and media spinning is unbeliavable! Just look closely at the early Stryker casualty reports! Both sides have a point. The M-113 (no official or unofficial name as yet I think, apart from 'Zippo' from the Tsahal guys who went bored of the aluminium hull and clumsy fuel tanks sending fireworks in the early versions' troop compartment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif) is a reliable design which can be improved to many ends, like many people are doing. Not only in Israel, but also in Canada (FMTV), Turkey (TIFV), Jordan, Denmark, South Korea (KIFV), Australia... Particularly in the Israeli case, where a tracked vehicle is the best for that very kind of urban warfare. There are no mines around, they have uparmoured their tin boxes to a no return point, long-range mobility is not a point, noise only add to the psychological edge, and the terrain gets so rugged that they even removed the rubber lining on the Merkava's road whells, since it was getting eaten away by both rocks and vibrations. Now the Stryker is a controversial program, certainly costly, but not as much as it could have been. The thing is mostly a Piranha III hull with a delirious electronics suite (which gives it a good edge in the right cinditions), and the Piranha III is a reliable and field-proven design which was already in use in several countries when the US fielded the Stryker. Look at the Canadian reports in UNSOM-II missions and you will see what "mine resistant" means! Right now it is also pretty young, and bound to some early problems. A bloody insurrection war thousands of miles away is not the best environment for field testing and post-development. Endlessly upgrading the 'gavin' instead of buying new hardware would be like dumping the Abrams and fitting makeshift improvements on old M60A1 tanks! So please all stop bickering about that subject, you won't change a thing to it! You are only confusing matters by bringing political arguments (already quite pointless) out of context! Now I know that trying to cool things down by sheer reasoning plus my very own twist for short explanations will get me flogged, but hey, what the hell, this IS a forum! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
I am surprised someone have the patience and, in my honest opinion, the STUPIDITY to spend so much time and "research" on such a long, idiotic, extremely subjective and biased piece of work. This qualifies for a "Most fooged up way of spending a heck lot of spare time".
As for tracked/road, there are benefits of both, depending on the scenery. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
Quote:
No. Do I have to defend or prove that it is? No. Are you trying change the subject so you don't have to fess up to your unsupported statement regarding tracked vehicles all-encompassing superiority over wheeled vehicles in any situation and at every task? Yes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif Quote:
Longer transport times=greater risk of attack. Even IF I acknowledge that the M113 is protected better in a way that is relevant for this scenario (I don't really), the HEMTT's won't be... Are you now suggesting transporting fuel, water and ammo for everyone in Iraq by M113? Quote:
[img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Cheese.gif[/img] Quote:
Amongst a small number of people who doesn't have a clue, yes it is. It started off by a guy named Sparks that is seeking immortality by naming the M113 Gavin, and in so achieving "immortality". Apparently he works for UD too... Quite sad actually... Quote:
And if you actually had read what I wrote you'd have read; Practical level of protection for the M113 and M1114 are the same. Both stop all but the worst IED fragments. Both stop 7.62mm API, neither will stop PG-7M. The M113 can stop 12.7 frontally, which is a small advantage, but the mobility advantage of the M1114 definately outweighs this. Since the HMG threat is low, the extra aluminum armour on the M113 doesn't give any more relevant PRACTICAL protection in the Iraqi theatre. But please, feel free to take snippets of text out of its context and makebelieve I wrote things I didn't. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Quote:
They didn't... They used M988's that are light trucks with no more protection than a civvie SUV... The M1114 is protected against small arms, most shrapnel and is mineprotected. Quote:
"RPG" isn't a weapon, its a TYPE of weapon. There is no vehicle existant today that is allround immune to all RPG type weapons. If you MEAN anything try to use terms that is understandable. If you load up that RPG-7 (a term not interchangeable with "RPG") with an OG-7 warhead I can show you an Austin Mini that is reasonable "proof" against it... The M1114 would be "immune", so I guess along your line of reasoning even the "humwee" is "immune to RPG"... Achzarit is based in the T-55 while the newer Namera is based on the Merkava, so I guess I'd believe the Namera being a tad better protected. The issue here is however your statement; In everything, they are more versatile. Which is still wrong. Quote:
You get a lot of equipment for the money. A TI OHWS and advanced C4I gear. thats the stuff costing money, hang it on a M113 and see the price soar to comparable levels. The worlds best protected HAPC will do no-one any good when its in the wrong place... I haven't stated that HAPC or even small tracked APC's are useless, I don't think they are, I don't have to prove that they are. You have however stated; In everything, they [tracked vehicles] are more versatile [than wheeled vehicles]. You are wrong and just refuse to admit this, you are merely trying to spin-doctor your way out of the hole you've dug for yourself to sit in. One would think I've quoted that statement of yours enough so that you'd feel obliged to either support or retract it by now... Now start to show some sense or I will happily ignore you. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
About M113 unofficial name look at this for example http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm
"The M113A1, informally known as the Gavin, is a lightly armoured full tracked air transportable personnel carrier designed to carry personnel and certain types of cargo...." So as you see, there are many people calling M113 gavin... 2mil for OHWS and C4I...Rafael makes much better and much cheaper systems,There is a M113 version with 2x7.62mm and one 12.7mm OWS. With this armor modification is M113 capable stop even MILAN ATGM http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...13/Zelda2.html About M113 vs M1114, you can easily mount SLAT armor to M113 without any big changes to a driving capabilities. (Stryker with SLAT is not so fast as you think,Its suspension is not build for such overweight.) Mayor Flaw of M1114 are front window, they are breakable with 7.62,broken glass is dangerous to driver, even if round will not penetrate.(As you maybe know M113 dont have windows...) In Mogadishu fighting there wasnt even one M998 in the convoy.Most of wounded crew of humwees were hit thru the windows or when they fired from .50cal |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif 1; If you think FAS is a good reliable source you're kidding yourself. To much crap has snuck in and noone has seriously maintained the site for years. Why don't you quote Wikipedia or something next, huh? 2; They guy claiming that the applique armour on that M113 stops Milan doesn't know what he's talking about. Exact specifications of the armour are ofcourse classified to begin with... A hint can however be taken from the fact that USMC uses a version (imported from Israel) as an applique addon on LVTP-7's (the EAAK kit). Against HEAT it is described as having following effectiveness; "(it)Substantially decreases the effectiveness of shape charge weapons by reducing the fragmentation debris cone from 110° to 35°" This is not "immunity"... In AAR's it seems to be barely sufficient vs PG-7/7M against which is has failed completely at least once resulting in a total loss. Total number of hits, or data on penetrations failing to destroy the vehicle I haven't got, but I assume the vehicle should be relatively resistant to the damage due to its sheer size (overpressure and heat causing fire is less of a problem), giving a statistical probability of several more penetrations. This all suggest even early Milan would eat it for lunch... Amazing... It was a pleasure not communicating with you. Bye bye now, and welcome to my ignore list, because to be honest you bore me and isn't worth further effort. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Gentlemen,
You both certainly make some good points and much like a moth to a flame, I feel compelled to throw my 2 cents into a heated discussion. The biggest irony of this whole arguement is that neither the M113 or the Stryker were designed for urban combat. The M113 was suppossed to be a battle taxi, delivering infantry to and from the front lines. (the concept of the Infantry Fighting Vehicle didn't come about until 1968 with the BMP-1). The Stryker was designed to "fill the gap between today's force and the Future Force by providing rapidly deployable mobile assets to the battlefield that will utilize the latest in command, control and intelligence technology to survive." The Stryker Brigades were suppossed to be used just as Bradley Brigades were during the Gulf War. (And they got hosed by hand-held ATGM's in every exercise) Tracked vehicles burn more fuel, are much more maintenance intensive (tracks need to be changed a lot more than tires) and their visibility is not very good. The Stryker is less armored, has poorer cross-country mobility and it's visibility is not very good. In Vietnam, troops hardly ever road inside the M113. The bottom could not protect against mines and Aluminum burns like a sun-of-a-gun. They lined the bottom with sandbags and built improvised little forts on top of the vehicle to travel. In Iraq, troops hardly ever ride inside their Strykers. They can't spot IED's in them. SLAT armor was added to it immediately. The Stryker's biggest asset is not the vehicle itself. The biggest asset is the IVIS battle system, which each squad leader can connect to via wireless link to the host APC. This has consistently been identified as the most useful function from returning soldiers. Look, the truth about the Stryker is that no one likes it. The Army spent billions developing a Piranha MOWAG, when they could have bought it, or copied the Marine Corp's LAV (also a copied MOWAG). $2 million is too much for a light armored wheeled APC, but not for the Stryker with IVIS. At $2 million this is a steal, given the C2I advantage IVIS provides. I'm not an expert on AFV's, but I've heard that the Bradley is too different from the M113 to transition to easily. And embedding M113's with light infantry is not practical, where would all the drivers / mechanics come from. And don't forget training. Mechanized Infantry tactics are different than light infantry tactics. Finally their is a big intangible to consider. The M113 looks more like a tank, which would imply US Forces are acting as occupiers, not liberators. The Stryker makes US forces more accessible to the Iraqi public, which fosters better international relations. (Pause for Laughter) I know how that sounds, but the Army Civil Affairs groups did this study. So, I say stay with the Stryker, but only because of the IVIS. Sources: www.globalsecurity.org (many links) www.army.mil "It doesn't take a hero" Norman Scwarzkopf's biography |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Kevin: Good points.
Backis: Addon armor for LVTP-7 is not the same as on Zelda-2, read thread on tanknet more preciselly.Your insults just indicate what the person you are. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the add-on armor for the AMTRACs (LVTP-7 and AAV-7) only to protect them against Russian 14.5mm machine guns?
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Exactly.But it offers limited HEAT protection.It is just passive array, but Rafael developed combined passive+ERA armor witch will be able to stop RPGs (at least those without tandem warhead)
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
From Wikipedia:
Approximately 80,000 units of all types have been produced worldwide making it the most widely used armored fighting vehicle of all time. The M113 is unofficially known as M113 Gavin. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I think we can indeed call it a fact that the unofficial nick for the M-113 IS Gavin, or would anyone like to sit in their holes at that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Maybe in Sweden they call them unofficially diferently... :-)
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
By the way, M113 gets name by this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Gavin |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Do you guys even know how information gets posted on Wikipedia?
People can write what the hell they want there! Its pretty funny you take FAS and Wikipedia seriously. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Against better knowledge I'll bite again... I'm just friggin dumb...
Quote:
I guess you're no better than me, being "what the person" I am. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Though you making claims you cant support then try to spin your way out of them by distraction and smokescreens say something about what kinda person you are? If you somehow missed it the thing I am debating with you is this statement of yours; "In everything, they are more versatile." You refuse to even acknowledge you made this statement, instead you employ topic drift and pretend to debate something else to cover yourself from fallout from a stupid statement. Quote:
I haven't stated, nor intend to state that wheeled vehicles are "in everything more versatile" to tracked vehicles. Both have their advantages and drawbacks. The point I make is that there are missions where a wheeled vehicle have advantages over tracked vehicles, this you meet with nonsense about M113 going "through" threats, which is another daft position considering you don't specify which threat. Even if the applique package for the Zelda 2 would be superior to the yet undeployed applique pack for the Stryker, better protection levels alone still does not equal; "In everything, they are more versatile." See? I can concede a point, but still your statement remain ludicrous. Stop squirming and fess up to that it was am unsupported unfactual statement made without really considering its meaning and you'll find that we're probably closer on this subject than you think. Sorry about being an [censored] about this, I'm usually not this bad. Must be having a bad week. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
Quote:
If you want to, I could phone the American DoD tomorrow (Sunday's sleep-day) and ask them. Or would you rather I didn't quote such hilarious sources, and rather found someone reliable (please, mention some if you'd like)? |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
As i said, Upgraded M113 will be much more potent combat vehicle than Stryker.But Stryker is quite good police vehicle .You can easily equip M113 with the same C4I suite,OWS,armor atc, without problems with ride capabilities. M113 is far better maneuverable (pivot).Internal volume of M113 is greater , soldiers will not have problems get out as they had in Stryker wearing protective vests with armor plates. With today technologies is possible make tracked vehicle fast as wheeled one.Loudness is only issue if you not using rubber reinforced tracks.
Stryker MGS is totally unadequate for a mission,it is too heavy for ac-130,105mm M68A1 gun has too big recoil, wehicle is not capable of accurate fire on the move.M8 AGS would be far better with much lower costs. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
About resistance to IOD, Israeli had problems with IOD,(maybe you know that the Palestinians used them first)there were incidents when they blow Merkava Mk3 Dor Dalet,Most powerfull Israeli tank,crew was killed.(Same thing happened to M1A2 in Irak in 2004),in second incident Israeli Zelda APC hit similar IOD,crew survived it.You are forgeting that even antipersonel mines could stop Stryker,not M113.
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
Oh please... The essays on Wikipedia are open source and can be edited at will, being stubborn and resubmitting your view is what makes articles survive there, not being "experienced" FAS is unreliable at best, and is essentially a bunch of website claims gathered into one page, some even seemingly taken from Wiki... Wikipedia is a pretty cool source, but its NOT RELIABLE! Especially when asshats with an agenda like Sparky are always loose. Trusting Wikipedia is like trusting the loudest screamer out on the street because you hear him best... Do yourself a favour and search "mike sparks gavin" and "mike sparks usmc" on whatever search engine you prefer and see if what you come up with tells you anything. This guy is a serious adherent to the "repeat it enough times and it become truth" paradigm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Oh, and please sign up on the petition "for the widow"... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif Quote:
What now? You need my permission? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif What will it tell you? 1; That its not its OFFICIAL nickname (nobody claims that...yet...). 2; wheter the individual answering subscribes to the "Gavin" mythos or not. 3; That they are busy and have better things to do? Btw, "Gavin" or not, isn't this pretty OT little troller? |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
JaM...
You don't belive your claim yourself and refuse to defend it, but try to use spin-doctoring and obfuscation to hide that fact. Rather weak, eh. You didn't say "Upgraded M113 will be much more potent combat vehicle than Stryker" Which in itself is a meaningless statement without defining "potent" and "combat", which both are relative terms. You said "In everything, they are more versatile", which is an absolute statement. Is this you being thick or just proof of a poor grasp of English? |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
A Claymore-style fragmentation mine may puncture all the wheels on one side with a lot of luck, but the Stryker use run-flats and can adjust pressure in the wheels on the other side for trim, so this will not stop it either. With luck an AP mine detonating in direct contact with the track can break it and completely immobilize a M113 until repaired. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Build a bomb sufficiently big and... Things is that the lower profile of a tracked vehicle makes the vehicle more vulnerable to blast waves, a V-bottomed high profile vehicle is generally better designed to deflect the blastwave This was perhaps more intended as one more smokescreen regarding the "In everything, they are more versatile" statment? |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Official nick? You said, I quote: His main objective is to immortalize himself by fooling people into thinking the M113 was ever called "Gavin", a moniker he himself invented...
You don't put much fact to back up your own accusations, and you ridicule arguments with a "Haha" and a "No, wrong". That's extremely easy. If you cannot lean back on such a tiny issue as an unofficial nick (and what I pointed out was never that the M113 was officially nicked Gavin, what I pointed out was that your initial statement was wrong, seeing as someone early on had in fact called the M113 Gavin), when you provide no better alternatives to what is being suggested, you are much too involved in the discussion. If you cannot remain a tad objective and admit you have some unsupported believes, there's not much more to your arguments than the typical "My father could beat your father", followed by "Nuh-uh" and "Yuh-uh". Myself, I think FAS, Wikipedia and others provide the M113 with an un/official nick of "Gavin" for a reason, be it a good one or not. However, your initial point (which was the one I was after all pointing to, but which you feel forced to defend above all and a potatoe) has been corrected: It was not the idea of the site's author to falsely make people believe the M113 was called Gavin. If you feel the need to read between lines that are not there, that is not a liberty I will take away from you, but there's little reason to defend a grain of sand. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
So you wanna compare M113 basic version from 1960 with 2mil$ 2004 Stryker? Are you serious?
I said M113 is more versatile COMBAT vehicle than Stryker.Newest versions of M113 have much greater survivability,maneuverability, greater weight reserve for additional armor upgrades, cross coutry mobility etc... With Stryker, you are limited to roads, tracks can go mostly everywhere.You will stuck in mud or sand far easily in Stryker than in M113.Soldiers in Iraq are happy to have a Stryker, not becouse it is so perfect allarounder, they are happy that they have something, and they dont ride in Trucks,or humwees becouse mostly all M113A3 stayed in USA. As i said there is not problem equip M113 with same electronics Stryker have. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
And didn't I write that nobody claimed it was official yet? You reply as if I accused you of having stated that it is, how kafkaesque can this thread get? lol Quote:
Read your own latest post again perhaps? Quote:
Quote:
How about we drop the Gavin-jousting, its irrelevant, OT and we've all stated our stands, mkay? |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
What about future? What will happends if there will be war with North Korea? With Stryker, US Army will need to convience Kim Cong Il to build better roads, becouse our APCs cant drive though the fields and mud roads.And then when whole Stryker batallion will stuck in mud, you will know that wheel is not so good idea for COMBAT vehicle.
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
I'll quote your first post in this thread; M113 will be always better than Humwee or Stryker, israelis dont want strykers at all, as they know that in urban combat, wheel is a weakpoint.Sooner US army finds it, better... My "eloquent" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif answer was; Better at what? Peeling potatoes? After which "the mother of all statements" followed; In everything, they are more versatile.Wheels are too limiting,you cant add too heavy armor without stressing suspension etc...In every aspect are tracked vehicles better in combat than wheeled. Don't blame me for starting the M113/Stryker comparison bud... its not my fault you can't keep track of the issue. Quote:
All I'm saying is that tracked isn't ALWAYS better as you have stated (GOD I have repeated this a lot now). I don't have to prove that wheeled is always better since its not my position... The Stryker will be more survivable against IED due to its design parameters, you can only upgrade the M113 so much, it will retain some vulnerabilities that its basic design have unless you rebuild it as something else than a M113. Can a tracked vehicle be made safer against mines/IED than a comparable size wheeled vehicle? Perhaps, I don't think anyone has done so yet though. To be sure the M113 isn't though. Quote:
Do tracks generally have superior tactical mobility through terrain. Yes. Have I ever denied this? No. Does a somewhat better terrain handling make tracked vehicles; "In everything, * more versatile"? No. Quote:
No. And I guess all "soldiers" riding and driving Strykers correspond with you personally and told you they were just happy with it because it was better than a Hummwee and nothing else? There is a buttload of M113A3 in theatre (and more in Kuwait)... I wonder why they aren't the vehicle of choice for escort missions, I guess its all about politics, eh... |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
"Kim Cong" Il! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif Anyway. You like making up strawmen don'tcha? You're just making up stuff accusing me of claiming that wheeled vehicles are better at everything. I'm not you know. You have however claimed; "In everything, they are more versatile." |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
'Cause to me "better allrounder" seems very close to "more versatile"... but that's just me. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
"In everything, they (M113) are more versatile (than the Stryker)." Key word is "everything". The beef is with the unsubstantiated absolute that tracked vehicles as represented by the M113 "better" or "more versatile in everything", and following squirming to avoid confessing it was a failed claim. BTT My view, not being any type of self-proclaimed expert whatever claim Jolly make, is that the M113 has more limitations than the Stryker do. It only really got a slight edge in handling especially difficult terrain and a possible edge in protection against direct attack (the Stryker applique is still "unknown", but those really expensive materials could for sure be used on a M113 as well, so I guess thats so). Against IED's its at best equally vulnerable and against mines even more vulnerable due to being a low-rider and not really designed with survivability against mine strikes from the outset. It is then slower in every terrain except really rugged and decidely inferior in strategic mobility, where it cannot keep up with logistics vehicles. Both are about equal on what can be hung on the frames, so no advantage there either way. Points weigh over for the Stryker IMO. I'm not all that enamoured with the Stryker either, its a "generation behind" in concept as a vehicle (not as a system though) as its really just a dressed up LAV III thats no spring chicken no matter what nifty gear is hung on it. Its not even the latest LAV since the LAV IV is already available. But it was never intended to be anything but an "interim" solution/testbed vehicle until the FCS system comes along anyway, so that was probably acceptable from the outset though. AMV, Boxer and in the future the SEP will all be better concept vehicles with their true modularity, although only the SEP seems to become truly "herky-transportable" if going by weight, the SEP may perhaps get the wrong dimensions to fit in the bay, but its light enough. Its supposedly not to be very protected in its standard configuration though. SEP ought to make everyone happy since it will come in both an interchangeable chassi, both as a tracked and a wheeled version. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif The Poles do have a special lightened version of the AMV that will fit a herky, but it lost a lot of protection because of this (14.5 API forward arc, 7.62x54 AP allround instead of 30mm forward, 14.5 API allround). Almost all of the Stryker's problems come from the requirement of being transportable by Hercules, not being wheeled per se. All this seem to not really be a problem for European designs who generaly seem to be heavier and better protected than the Stryker, probably because our airmobility is supposed to be provided by the A400 which would have no problem with f e the heavy Boxer. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
You catching my words Backis.Im from Slovakia, so i dont speak English so good.When i said they are versatile, i mean universal, You can do With M113 same things as with Stryker, Stryker is just faster on the road, but propability that next war willbe fought un the highway is very low... 2mil$ for light wheeled vehicle is too much even it has the best C4I suit avaiable.Those money should go to upgrades to Bradley(just example),or buy some M8 AGS or Thunderbird light tanks instead of Stryker MGS.
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
whoa, whoa, whoa, whoaaaaaaaa, whoa
This whole damn thing has been about a typo??? versatile for universal??? LMAO So all that has really happenned is that the two of you are much closer to having "corporal" under your names instead of "private"? I feel cheated. I did some searching through the Government Accounting Office, (that is an independent Federal government auditing office for the US. They are considered to be the official source of what the government spends for those of you who didn't know.) My suspicion about the Stryker cost was that it really didn't cost $2 million and I was right. It cost $2 million in accounting terms. I'll explain: Let's say the government buys 9 hammers and 1 torpedo inspection machine. (My mother worked for Gould in the 1980's, when that infamous $4,000 hammer came out and it was her company that was involved.) The total cost of this order is $40,000. In reality, the torpedo inspection machine costs $39,900 and the hammers $100. But for accounting purposes, the items are all treated as having the same cost in order to make the paperwork easier to track (pause for snort). The result to the casual observer is that you paid $4,000 for a hammer and $4,000 for an inspection machine. Okay, why am I boring you with this? That $2 mil for the Stryker includes the price of the vehicle, simulators and other training material, and the transition costs for the 1st Stryker Brigade. Source: http://searching.gao.gov/cs.html?cha...n=28&la=en Here is another interesting .pdf doc, It's the GAO's audit of the Army's Stryker / M113A3 comparison. I didn't read it, but since you guys seem to be motivated.... http://searching.gao.gov/cs.html?cha...n=13&la=en Someone mentioned that hundreds (thousands?) of M113 were deployed in Kuwait, but not being used for political reasons. Well not quite. The M113 is an integral part of US Heavy Divisions. The M113 is deployed but in it's different variants (ambulance, self-propelled mortar, etc.) It's being used as it was intended, one can't just start putting them on the road to haul cargo, mainly for the simple reason that you can't drop a pallet of MRE's or ammo into an M113 like you can a truck. The time required to load all this stuff by hand would by a nightmare. As far as how the troops feel about the Stryker: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...23-stryker.htm There are also a number of other links to information. This story was from the Baltimore Sun. There are other articles praising the Stryker but they were written by military journalists and I didn't want to get into a "bias" debate with anyone. The key thing you should pull from this article is that no one has died from an IED / RPG hit to a Stryker. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Nice links Kevin, funniest part is that they compared simple M113A3 (modification from 1987) with a new wheeled APC and find that their performace are similar with some points for Stryker and some for M113A3.
|
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Quote:
I can't reply to what you mean, only to what you write. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Quote:
OTOH the Stryker can't f e handle certain terrain types as well... Both have their advantages and disadvantages, superior versatility, utility and adaptability of each type vary with the mission. I also think you clearly underestimate terrain mobility of all terrain wheeled vehicles, they are in no way useless and completely roadbound. Well... Swedish patgb 203 comes close... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif For the role you seem to refer the M113 as better in (a well protected vehicle to take the fight to the enemy) you you should use IFV or MICV (or even better, a tank). In the role of APC I find the Stryker superior for reasons I've stated earlier. Neither are really good fighting vehicles, they are intended as protected transports, the fighting is mainly supposed to be done by the infantry complement. I would NOT suggest replacing the Bradley or any other IFV/MICV with a Stryker-class vehicle, that is a completely different ballgame. Quote:
I think that any modern/modernized APC variant fielded by the USA would end up very expensive, including upgraded M113 (not as offered by suppliers, but as they would end up when kitted as required by the DoD). What is important to remember relative to the Stryker cost is however that its a testbed vehicle for FCS C4I systems as well as an APC, and therefore carry what strictly speaking is unnecassary kit for an APC, and therefore is more expensive than can be expected. If the M113 was used in this exploratory role I expect it would also become hideously goldplated. As for what I'd do with the money? I'd have bought in to the A400 programme or another new tactical transport aircraft and built my "medium force" on the Bradley, preferably with an analog development of the CV90120 and CV90 AMOS based on the Brad chassi. I'd use either straight bare-bones LAV III or IV or buy Boxers or AMV for the APC role, equip them with a decent OHWS, and then get many more M1117 for MP and rear area forces I'd use those and the wheeled APC for rear area security and escort duty. I might consider buying an off the shelf utility vehicle and/or light truck from the outset designed for IED/mine threats and replace front line humwee's with those, somewhat like the USMC now is acquiring Alvis RG-31's. To limit the "medium force of the 21st century" by insisting it shall be transported by aircraft designed in the 1950's is putting the cart before the horse abit IMO. |
Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US
Now we understand each other... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
Teir Air lift capacity is weak, i dont understand why they dont invest money to new air transport in Ac-130 class.Instead of this they want vehicles with max weight 20t capable same things like Abrams... |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.