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

[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!

[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

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.

[Panther Al]

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.

[ArmySGT.]

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

[Panther Al]

*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.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

*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?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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

Originally Posted by Panther Al

*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.

[Panther Al]

Thank you!


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

[Adm.Lee]

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.

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.

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

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

[Ronin]

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.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Ronin

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.

Oh come on it was a great little ta-

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

[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.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

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

[natehale1971]

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.

[ArmySGT.]

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

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

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

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

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.

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

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by Ronin

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.

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

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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

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*!

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Ronin

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.

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.

[Ronin]

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.

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

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.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Ronin

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.

The M551 was better than the M56 Scorpion

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

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by copeab

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?