View Single Post
  #1  
Old July 11th, 2005, 09:40 AM
Backis's Avatar

Backis Backis is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 72
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Backis is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US

Quote:
JaM said:
You catching my words Backis.Im from Slovakia, so i dont speak English so good.
Words actually mean stuff, so they are usually important in understanding each other.

I can't reply to what you mean, only to what you write.

Quote:
JaM said:
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...
No, the M113 really can't do everything the Stryker can, f e it can't keep up with logistics columns as escorts.

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...

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:
JaM said: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.
The problem here is that the US DoD bleed and sweat money on everything they look at. The procurement process is to be honest at least partly broken, and they pay more for equipment than they need to.

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.
__________________
"Med ett schysst järnrör slår man hela världen med häpnad!"
–Socker-Conny
Reply With Quote