Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT.
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.