Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US)

[SCAJolly]

Backis said:
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.

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?

It has struck me that someone experienced, and who might have some insight on the topic in question, could write their articles on Wikipedia, yeah. At least more insight than one who denies a possibility without really supporting that denial with facts.
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)?

[JaM]

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.

[JaM]

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.

[Backis]

SCAJolly said:

It has struck me that someone experienced, and who might have some insight on the topic in question, could write their articles on Wikipedia, yeah. At least more insight than one who denies a possibility without really supporting that denial with facts.

Experienced in readmitting faulty articles to Wikipedia ad nauseum?

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.

Oh, and please sign up on the petition "for the widow"...

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)?

What now? You need my permission?

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?

[Backis]

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?

[Backis]

JaM said:
You are forgeting that even antipersonel mines could stop Stryker,not M113.

Directly running over an AP mine can trash a single wheel which will not stop a Stryker.

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.

[Backis]

JaM said:
About resistance to IOD, Israeli had problems with IOD,

So did South Africa and they are generally acknowledged to build the best vehicles in the world regarding IED protection. Weirdly enough they are all wheeled... they must be stupid or something, right?

JaM said:(maybe you know that the Palestinians used them first)

Eh, ok, except that I'd think that "improvised explosive devices" came along with the invention of gunpowder sorta predates the reconstituton of the state of Israel by a couple of centuries...

JaM said: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.

Have I stated anything contrary to this? I even mentioned the Abrams getting its turret popped earlier...

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?

[SCAJolly]

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.

[JaM]

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.

[Backis]

SCAJolly said:
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...

Have I denied this?

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

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".

Yeah, thats what I'm doing...

Read your own latest post again perhaps?

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.

Wikipedia doens't "provide" anything except a place for users to write whatever they wish, which some people abuse for kicks.

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.

Do as adviced and achieve enlightenment is advice ALL should take to heart.

How about we drop the Gavin-jousting, its irrelevant, OT and we've all stated our stands, mkay?