I know that the M113 is lightly armored and lightly armed but I've always thought of it as one of the better tracked vehicle options for a group of T2K PCs.

Spare parts wouldn't be too hard to find as several NATO armies would have been using large numbers of them during the war.

It's got a relatively roomy interior (compared to a Bradley or Marder).

Side-mounted racks can carry a lot of gear and serve as stand-off armor against HMG and RPG rounds (same with the trim vane, as B.T. mentioned). There are also a few stand-off armor packages that users might have added by the Exchange.

The roof hatches over the troop compartment allow passengers decent all-around vision. Multiple MGs can be mounted there as well, giving it decent all-around firepower. With a Mk-19 or M2HB in the gunner's turret, it can tackle threats up to heavy IFVs and MBTs. Fuel tanks can be mounted on the back for extended range (although this increases its vulnerability somewhat).

The Israelis have been doing all of these things for years. They'll be the first to admit the vulnerabilities of the M113 on the modern battlefield, but they're still using them all these years later.

Also, I like calling it the Gavin, mostly because it irritates the piss out of Legbreaker.:D

I used to be in a unit that used the M113 in the recce role. Having seen a door that was once part of the rear ramp used as a target, I would say that yes, given enough time anybody with a 7.62mm NATO machinegun will cut an M113 in half (excepting the drivetrain etc.) - because aluminium does not stop 7.62mmN, it'll stop small calibre projectiles and slow speed fragments but that's about all.

As for the Gavin name, it pisses me off as well - there's a whole bunch of dumbfuck media and civilians who are now calling it that and just adding to the confusion of identification. These same people are swallowing the crap that the M113 is the panacea to all the military's ills. The Gavin name has not been officially recognized, let alone adopted, by any military that operates the M113.

The person who gave it that name believes that the M113 should be called the Gavin because it is his notion of the perfect airborne combat vehicle (and as such should be named after a general deeply involved in airborne forces). Never mind the hard reality that all the modifications he wants to put on it will make it less and less capable as an airborne combat vehicle - try to make a single vehicle do everything and you end up with a vehicle that does none of them well.

I'm actually thinking of using the Gavin name in my campaign for the replacemet of the M113... the American lisence built version of the Weisel AWC. :)

I just can't figure out wht the 'M' number would be.

Think of a random "M" number off the top of your head, and then run it through Google and see if it actually existed in the T2K timeline. Then you can decide whether to throw it out or use it.

That's what i've been thinking of doing. :)

I have to admit that i like the Strykers.... especially what some of the guys using them in Iraq said about them, namely that they were fro the most part quiet while running when compaired to the Bradley's.

Well, how about "M-69"?

As far as vehicle numbers go, I don't see one anywhere...and I can see all the snickering going around with that number designation. :p
Just imagine if the vehicle complement was a 50/50 mix of say, female Project Athena members and male GI Joe members...okay, better drag my brain out of the gutter....

Would this be pretty much the Weisel "as is" or would there be any modifications done by the Americans? I was considering having Weisels appear in a few of my fics in use by my fictitious American military task force as well.

*twitch-twitch* ... must not get started on ... *twitch*



Ok, I will admit that the Stryker is a hell of lot quiter than any tracked vehicle - even the M1. which means I have found one good thing about it as a combat vehicle- kinda like a broken clock being right twice a day.... ;)

ROWS with 2 Axis stabilization is kind sweet. Blue Force Tracker. FBCB2.

8x8 morning commute goodness.

Coming from a former Bradley crewman, I like the Stryker. I think it fits the counterinsurgency role much better than the Bradley does. However, in a shooting war, give me heavy armor over the Stryker any day :)

Right tool for the right job, and all that :)

Thank you.. I FINALLY found the FM in there I've looked for a LONG time. FM 5-488 Forestry and Logging..

LOL!

There is another good thing about a Stryker...on a modern battlefield it will absorb rounds meant for Abrams and Bradleys!

Stab's, got that.
Blufer, got that.
FBCB2, got that too.

But yeah, those wheels do have to make the ride easier.

I am still not a fan of the Stryker as a vehicle. The concept I have nothing against at all, I just think we are going overboard in how many units we are converting over to that force structure. Strikers have a place on the battlefield: as battalion sized rapid reaction force, I think the concept is spot on. I just think the vehicle itself has it's issues.

The idea that the Stryker is better-suited for one type of operation than another goes to the heart of one of the US Army’s biggest problems: we try to do a one-size-fits-all force instead of dividing the force into specialty units that can be retrained for other missions in a pinch. I’ve pitched the idea of greater specialization before, but I’ll keep doing it for the practice.

There need to be several US Army variants. There needs to be an Old Guard that looks great in parades and worries about whether the general is getting enough fiber. This job has been filled the US Army. There needs to be an Army that kills folks and breaks things and does nothing else. Killing folks and breaking things are skills. As the destructive potential of conventional weapons continues to rise, the need for skilled and motivated small unit leaders grows ever greater. Moreover, the men who volunteer for the combat arms signed up to kill folks and break things. Using them for other things like peacekeeping is downright wasteful of their motivation and the time they need to continue to grow their ability to kill folks and break things efficiently and effectively. The initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 demonstrates that a small effective force can move the required distance and get the conventional job done. When we’re talking about fuel hogs like the M1 Abrams, numbers don’t always equal security or rapid mission accomplishment. High quality tankers, artillery crews, combat engineers, and light infantry need a lot of practice executing a relative handful of battle drills.

Then there needs to be an Army that does the bulk of the peacekeeping. These guys do things like man the checkpoints and generally police the place after the steely-eyed killers have done their bit. The peacekeepers have at least as much in common with police as they do with the throat slashers. The peacekeepers need a whole different set of skills than the war fighters. More importantly, the peacekeepers need a whole different mindset and set of expectations of their role than the war fighters. Tank crews and light infantry sign on to be in combat. Peacekeepers sign on to keep the peace. There is some common ground, but the common ground is less than the ground that is not in common.

The majority of the peacekeepers should be reservists. Reservists tend to be older than their Regular Army counterparts. My experience in Iraq indicates that older men are less eager to press the trigger. Older men are married and have children at higher rates. Perhaps those of us with wives and children have an easier time imagining what happens when undisciplined fire goes through the walls of residential areas. In any event, older reservists (who generally are less physically fit for the demands of combat) have more of the mindset needed for peacekeeping. Perhaps most importantly, peacekeeping is more forgiving than combat.

Heh... was gonna post a reply to this, but figured its best to move it to Fiddle's Green so as not to drive this thread any further off topic than it already is! ;)

Should be split off and make a Stryker thread.

I think half of Fiddle's Green is about the Stryker to be fair... so I've been using it as the semi-official Stryker thread.

Should I post the photo from the Stryker manual of the one being railloaded with Cav markings?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60779562/O...ombat-Vehicles

*laughs*


Only if you want to hear wailing and crying from us Cavalrymen who hate the things!



But, yes... please. I'll take any and all imagery of Military equipment.

what about us cavalrymen that actually like the damned things?

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...rykerFront.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...trykerBack.jpg

Thank you!


As much as I bash the thing, I have to admit it looks damned good.

Go low, like under 20. The numbers seemed to be reset during/after the Vietnam War. Or the MacNamara reign at DoD, much the same thing.

I'll use the number M13 then :)

All the love and bashing of the M113, and Stryker. Make me think about one thing. At least theirs not someone talking up the values of the M551 Sheridan.:p

Oh come on it was a great little ta-

NOT IN THE FACE! NOT IN THE FACE!!!

8x8 Goodness. Lose one, even two wheels on one side to an AT Mine you still moving at reduced speed.Lose one track link in a M113. Mobility kill. Not going anywhere for a bit. If the M113 is moving then there is the potential for a fatal roll over.

Maintenance. Far less Man hours with the machine laid up for what is routine.

Speed. The M113 has the Stryker in broken shell pocked terrain. Packed soil, sand, grass land, a road net work. The Stryker will be there faster.

Fuel consumption. Stryker will consume less fuel per mission mile. A logistics plus.

Dismounts. A full Squad. The M113 can't do that anymore. The personal gear that is worn now is substantially greater than the 1960's design specifications.

Armor. The Stryker can defeat .50cal now without add ons. The Stryker team will survive an AT mine or IED without add ons. The M113 can't..... maybe the A3.

Then their is the ROWS, Blue Force, FBCB2, Spall liners, crew area fire suppression kits. All this could be retro fitted into an M113, however it will still take more internal volume.

What to do with the M113? Sell them all to Allies, and make the Bradley chassis fill all those M113 roles including Battle Taxi. The Brad is an IFV, Cargo, and Medevac. It can take all those other roles too.

Agreed here: The Stryker does make for a good replacement for the 113. It can keep up with the M1 which the 113 can't, and as you said, use Brads for the roles 113's had in armoured formations. Strip the Turrets off, and you can easily make Mort carriers, armoured ambulances, etc... Not a bad idea at all.

As the instigator of this thread, I like the Stryker and the M113, but I'm not that crazy Sparks dude about either! :D

Who was it that used the Bradley Chasis for their Main Battle Tank? I swear i read something along those lines. But i can't remember where i had read it.

Though I have been thinking about modifiations that would make alot more Fuel effeicent vehicles... It's something that our gaming group in the Navy talked about alot around the game table when we'd play T2k and were doing the math to make sure our characters could make enough fuel to keep our vehicles on the road.

And we talked about how the Nazi Regime during the closing days of WW2 were coming up with fuel alternatives using potatoes and coal dust. Trying to come up with the things that would fuel all of the various types of vehicles and aircraft.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...patrolling.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...GSinaction.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...StrykerICV.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...StrykerAAV.jpg

How about a Stryker towing an M-113 with more troops and extra ammo and gear?:D

Are you thinking of the Black Knight?
The Black Knight prototype unmanned ground combat vehicle being developed by BAE resembles a tank and makes extensive use of components from the Bradley Combat Systems program to reduce costs and simplify maintenance. It is also designed to be remotely operated from a BFV commander's station while riding mounted, as well as being controllable by dismounted infantry

Where the hell is Chalkie??? Sheridan's were/are his pride and joy.

Are you kidding? You do that and the next thing you know, you-know-who will create a fanpage full of US ARMY CROOKS AND LIARS ADMIT STRYKER *CANNOT* CARRY REQUIRED GEAR - ONLY M113 *CAN*!

:D

One of the good things about the Sheridan was stuffing the barrel with about 20lbs of potatoes and using the air scavanger system to "fire"....saw a crew from 1-1 Cav pull that one during a REFORGER in 1978.

I have no practical experience with the Sheridan. Only what I've read. But my friends father used to work on them. He hates that machine with a passion, let me tell you.

It might be optical illusion, but that vehicle looks to be listing to starboard. Which means somebody screwed the tied down tasks and you have an unsafe load. FB

ROTFLMAO.. let me guess, they used Herman's spuds from his field??? Raw mashed potatoes.. hummmmmmmmmmmmm..

What I've heard of the Sheridan it was an arm breaker.. literally.

The M551 was better than the M56 Scorpion ;)

And, for airborne forces, a crappy tank is marginally better than no tank.

True, enough. But what about this forgotten step child, the M50 Ontos?

Oh, and you want antitank airborne capability? How about the Vespa 150 TAP?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...pamilitare.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a_img_2351.jpg