Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US)

[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]

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?

[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.

[JaM]

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.

[Backis]

JaM said:
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.

I'm sorry, but this was funny...

"Kim Cong" Il!


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."

[Backis]

JaM said:
So you wanna compare M113 basic version from 1960 with 2mil$ 2004 Stryker? Are you serious?

Err...

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" 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.

JaM said: 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...

This is not UNIVERSALLY true JaM, in some areas and under some circumstances tracked is better, in some wheeled is.

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.

JaM said:
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.

Decide what you are saying, are the Stryker roadbound or just more likely to get stuck?

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.

JaM said: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.

Have I stated that the Stryker is a "better allrounder" than the M113?

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...

[narwan]

Backis said:
Have I stated that the Stryker is a "better allrounder" than the M113?

No.

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.

[Backis]

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.

[JaM]

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.