Am I opening a can of worms here? I think I am...M113...

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

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.

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

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.
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.

[Panther Al]

*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....

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

*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.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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

8x8 morning commute goodness.

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.

[Webstral]

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.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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!

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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.

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.

[Panther Al]

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.

[cavtroop]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

*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....

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

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

*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....

LOL!

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