Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US)

[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:
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...

[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."

[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.

[kevin]

whoa, whoa, whoa, whoaaaaaaaa, whoa

This whole damn thing has been about a typo??? versatile for universal???

LMAO

So all that has really happenned is that the two of you are much closer to having "corporal" under your names instead of "private"? I feel cheated.

I did some searching through the Government Accounting Office, (that is an independent Federal government auditing office for the US. They are considered to be the official source of what the government spends for those of you who didn't know.) My suspicion about the Stryker cost was that it really didn't cost $2 million and I was right. It cost $2 million in accounting terms. I'll explain:

Let's say the government buys 9 hammers and 1 torpedo inspection machine. (My mother worked for Gould in the 1980's, when that infamous $4,000 hammer came out and it was her company that was involved.) The total cost of this order is $40,000. In reality, the torpedo inspection machine costs $39,900 and the hammers $100. But for accounting purposes, the items are all treated as having the same cost in order to make the paperwork easier to track (pause for snort). The result to the casual observer is that you paid $4,000 for a hammer and $4,000 for an inspection machine.

Okay, why am I boring you with this? That $2 mil for the Stryker includes the price of the vehicle, simulators and other training material, and the transition costs for the 1st Stryker Brigade.

Source:
http://searching.gao.gov/cs.html?cha...ext&n=28&la=en

Here is another interesting .pdf doc, It's the GAO's audit of the Army's Stryker / M113A3 comparison. I didn't read it, but since you guys seem to be motivated....
http://searching.gao.gov/cs.html?cha...ol=&n=13&la=en

Someone mentioned that hundreds (thousands?) of M113 were deployed in Kuwait, but not being used for political reasons. Well not quite. The M113 is an integral part of US Heavy Divisions. The M113 is deployed but in it's different variants (ambulance, self-propelled mortar, etc.) It's being used as it was intended, one can't just start putting them on the road to haul cargo, mainly for the simple reason that you can't drop a pallet of MRE's or ammo into an M113 like you can a truck. The time required to load all this stuff by hand would by a nightmare.

As far as how the troops feel about the Stryker:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...23-stryker.htm

There are also a number of other links to information. This story was from the Baltimore Sun. There are other articles praising the Stryker but they were written by military journalists and I didn't want to get into a "bias" debate with anyone. The key thing you should pull from this article is that no one has died from an IED / RPG hit to a Stryker.

[JaM]

Nice links Kevin, funniest part is that they compared simple M113A3 (modification from 1987) with a new wheeled APC and find that their performace are similar with some points for Stryker and some for M113A3.

[Backis]

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.

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.

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.

[JaM]

Now we understand each other...
Teir Air lift capacity is weak, i dont understand why they dont invest money to new air transport in Ac-130 class.Instead of this they want vehicles with max weight 20t capable same things like Abrams...