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
Linear Mode
