Quote:
narwan said:
Are you saying that the Stryker is NOT a "better allrounder" than the M113, or turned around, that the M113 is the "better allrounder"?
'Cause to me "better allrounder" seems very close to "more versatile"... but that's just me.
|
That is a different discussion, the claim was;
"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.
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.