U.s army strykers

[Rishon 0]

Sigma, If you make a Stryker I will hunt you down, find you, and give you 1,000 dollars..........(Disclamer: I WILL NOT ACTUALLY GIVE YOU 1,000 dollars, maybe a few guinesses... )

@Calmterror, the Stryker IAV (Interim Armored Vehicle) can take a few hits from a RPG, provided you have SLAT armor, which I BELIEVE comes standard with a new one.

[SNIPER_SKULL 0]

Heres a link to some good reference photos of the Stryker Inside and Out.

Stryker Ref

thanks man for the pics its a BIG help

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]I hope someone makes one of these soon as they are magnificent machines.

calm_terror got it right when he said the Stryker is a piece of shit. That project is a disgusting piece of $12 BILLION dollar pork. It is/was A COMPLETE WASTE OF MONEY. How come the Army can waste 12 billion dollars on a vehicle that is NO better than anything already available, when there are soldiers in Iraq right now who don't have a >$1000 ceramic insert in their body armor to stop a bullet from killing them?!?!? That is completely and utterly disgraceful.

Every American here should be OUTRAGED, because we taxpayers got pickpocketed by Generals and defense contractors, and what did we get in return? A POS that is no better than other equipment already developed. Does the stryker meet the stated goals of the army?

*A Stryker Brigade to be deployable anywhere in the world in 96 hours? No.

*C-130 deployability? No.

*Optimized for urban combat? No.

*Key direct fire support weapon, the MGS, works? No.

*All weather off road performance similar to that of a tracked

vehicle? No.

*Inexpensive to operate? No.

*Adequate defensive armor? No.

*Faster than the M113? No.

*Swim capability? No.

*Brought in on time and within budget? No.

The only way the stryker is of any worth to the army is if it stays away from serious combat and if nobody shoots at it. In that case, why did we need to waste 12 billion dollars on it?

For some good reading, check this report out:

http://www.combatreform.com/ppd43.pdf

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

about the "battlefield-taxi" argument as stated above.

The M113 was supposed to be a battlefield-taxi too. But attacks of the VC on convoys and the type of war fought made it completely useless as a battlefield taxi. The battlefield was everywhere, so you don't need a taxi to get you there; you are already there.

The conclusion was that troops inside the M113 were better of staying insde and shooting on the enemy while standing in the open top-hatch, than getting out of the vehicle and attack on foot. When attacking on foor they would loose their two largest advantages upon their enemy: firepower and mobility. The M113 ended up as the ACAV or Armored Cavalry Assault Vehicle. A completely different concept (and by that time a new concept too).

A battlefield taxe is nice and in the first stages of the Iraq war it was indeed needed (there was a front-line). But right now it's much like the war in vietnam; the entire country is a battlefield. So you don't need taxi's, you need an armored vehicle that is properly armored and armed to go head to head with enemy troops anytime and everywhere. The Stryker can do this to some extend, but is far from perfect. It's also not meant to do this job, but it is used as such.

I believe it is in this thread that sombody said the HMMWV was a bad thinarmored vehicle. Actually it's an awesome vehicle. Even the standard version is armored. Compare that to the old Mutt jeep. People inside now have a chance to surfive an attack. The newer versions have even better armor.

They will not be able to stop an RPG, but remember that it takes a direct hit in the crew area to kill someone inside. Hit the engineblock and the vehicle is destryed, but the guys inside are still alive. The HMMWV can also take the blast of a light landmine without the crew getting killed. Overall the HMMWV is my vehicle of choise if I have to choose between the HMMWV and the Mutt (or a simular unarmored jeep).

[miles teg 1]

Light land mine? You mean like an AP mine? Yeah the humvee might withstand a hit from that but any AT land mine will blow it to bits.

But yeah I agree the Humvee is a great vehicle.

The standard versions however are not armored. My old unit had many of them and they had no armor.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]I hope someone makes one of these soon as they are magnificent machines.

calm_terror got it right when he said the Stryker is a piece of shit. That project is a disgusting piece of $12 BILLION dollar pork. It is/was A COMPLETE WASTE OF MONEY. How come the Army can waste 12 billion dollars on a vehicle that is NO better than anything already available, when there are soldiers in Iraq right now who don't have a >$1000 ceramic insert in their body armor to stop a bullet from killing them?!?!? That is completely and utterly disgraceful.

Every American here should be OUTRAGED, because we taxpayers got pickpocketed by Generals and defense contractors, and what did we get in return? A POS that is no better than other equipment already developed. Does the stryker meet the stated goals of the army?

*A Stryker Brigade to be deployable anywhere in the world in 96 hours? No.

*C-130 deployability? No.

*Optimized for urban combat? No.

*Key direct fire support weapon, the MGS, works? No.

*All weather off road performance similar to that of a tracked

vehicle? No.

*Inexpensive to operate? No.

*Adequate defensive armor? No.

*Faster than the M113? No.

*Swim capability? No.

*Brought in on time and within budget? No.

The only way the stryker is of any worth to the army is if it stays away from serious combat and if nobody shoots at it. In that case, why did we need to waste 12 billion dollars on it?

For some good reading, check this report out:

http://www.combatreform.com/ppd43.pdf

Don't believe everything you read on the net.

Sigma already answered the arguements you made on an older thread.

The Stryker with slat armor works just fine in an urban enviornment.  

The .50 cal armament is odd because it suffers from the problem of over-penetration of targets. In other words the huge BMG bullets may go through a few homes and anyone inside. A MK-19 with a 7.62mm coxial would be much better as the 7.62 could be used for suppressive fire, while the MK-19 could be used in areas where the risk of collateral dammage is minimal (from the 40mm grenade shrapnel) and where an enemy positioned is pinpointed and you need some heavy fire power to kill or flush them out. The MK19 is also better for quick suppression of RPG gunners although it also will likely cause heavy civilian casualties... but that's one of the ugly aspects of war. If some idiot wants to fire an RPG next to someone's home, the reality is that the home is likely to sustain heavy dammage and those inside are likely to be killed or injured.

As for the transport issue, the US Airforce has a lot more then just C130's.  Plenty of C5's, C141's, and C-17's as well not to mention sea lift power. Rapid airlift capability is only important for rapid reaction missions around the world where you need a quick buildup of mechanized forces.

As for the speed thing...I seriously doubt that a M113 equipped with heavy applique armor is going to be faster then a Stryker APC with slat armor on roads.

You have to be careful when you see internet sources throwing out stats on speed and weight as often they are comparing a non-modified M113 to a fully up-armored Stryker.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Mountain 0]

Miles: I think you missed his point. While a few of the arguments were answered quite well by Sigma, the Stryker fails in its project requirements. The Interim Combat Vehicles deisgn was based on a Key single principle:

Quote[/b] ]The ICV shall have the capability of, (1) entering, being transportable in, and exiting a C-130 aircraft under its own power and (2) be capable to immediate combat operations (does not require a full basis load, but is desired). However, there was another ICV performance parameter that reflected an operational impact on C-130 transport, and that was the weight.

“The ICV combat capable deployment weight must not exceed 38,000 pounds gross vehicle weight to allow, requirement (3) C-130 transport of 1,000 nautical miles without requiring a USAF waiver for maximum aircraft weight on fixed runways.

This was the reason for the Stryker brigades, to be deployable in 96hrs via the USAF at a range of 1000 nautical miles to foreward air bases (i.e non C-5 capable). With the USAF only having around 120 C-17's right now, to transport a full brigade in that ammount of time, C-130's would have to be utilized.

What occured was a vehicles design that tried its best to meet the C-130 weight and height requirements in exchange for Armor and Weapon Systems, but in the end was found to need that armor to be at all useable. So now you end up not having a brigade that is C-130 deployable.

Its been the bane of the military for centuries, Manuverability vs Protection. The Army and Tax payers paid for a vehicle that was supposed to be manueverable, to get from point A to point B in 96hrs, and didn't get it. Now, with the SLAT armor, you have a system that is being rapidly changed to make it useable in todays (and yesteryears) battlefield. Eventually you will see the Mobile Gun System and other variants I beleive, and the C-130 requirement will just fall by the wayside.

In the end what needs to be asked is, "Was the 96hr Portability requirement all that important?" If yes, what do we do now since the Stryker has failed that? If no, then why wasn't this system designed more along the lines of our neighbors to the North, with heavier MEXAS armor (or comparable) and better Armament?

On a personal note, i'm in favor of what an Israeli with the Golani brigade once told me about the Zelda APCs, "What is the point in getting somewhere fast if you're just going to end up dead?" The goal isn't to see how fast you can shuttle your troops into an area to be killed. The goal is to get them there, and have them be able to fight and survive. Hopefully with the new SLAT armor, and with other changes coming, the Stryker will become a combat taxi it should have been from the begining, and the Army will just have to wait for a vehicle to someday meet its 96hr objective.

And back on topic I personally would love to see a stryker in OFP with slat armor. Is it true that the russians also deployed it on their BTRs? I came across this pic but i'm curious as to whether it was wide spread use or not,

[calm_terror 0]

eh i still think the US army on it's idea of light moblie fast light armor is kinda dumb.

I mena look at the countries that have actual fought wars and what they are doing.

Israel has uparmored everything they get. cuz light armor just is noy suited for urban warfare the russian learned that in chechnia. why they made the BTR-T..

and the whole point of the stryker WAS for it to be fast to deploy. as it stands it takes weeks to get the darn thing in place. and it is not even air dropable.

and to fit in a c-130 it can not have added armor and the turret has to be removed and tires flattened. and the whole fact that it is so damn tall and heavy it collples roads it rides on and flips over trapping everyone inside... the m1a2 doesn't even do that. the stryker needed to be lower profile with a 50cal and 7.62mm and maybe a mk19.. but there is no verision with an mk19 only the 50 cal..

don't get me wrong it could be a nice piece of machine but needs to be redeisgned. it might actual be faster then the m113 but the ride might hurt the guys inside. i watched one of those things go off road and it did not look that fun to be inside.

and one thing this vechical is only meant to be temp till something better can be invented and designed.

the whole interm kinda hints at that..

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]As for the transport issue, the US Airforce has a lot more then just C130's.

Those arguments are all BS, incidentally, the 'no's go where 'yes'es should be. . . . For one thing, the CF routinely puts LAV-IIIs on C-130s. . . I can even find you a video of it if you like, turret on (though tires deflated, but it doesn't take long to inflate them; and the vehicle can be fought and driven with the tires partially deflated; and drives ideally that way under certain conditions). . . and when was the last time you drove a 113 off a Herc into combat anyway ? . . . and remember, the LAV-III is a Stryker hull with a full-size 2 man 25mm bushmaster turret on it.

That argument is almost word-for-word a copy of the 'LAVDANGER' website, which is complete bunk. The guy has a lot of data, but his data is very sketchy, incredibly biased, and doesn't take into account the limitations (similar, if not identical) of the platforms he's advocating instead.

The *primary* disadvantage (and comparatively, in all other cases, probably the *only*) disadvantage of a LAV over a comparable tracked platform is mobility. Obviously a LAV can't crush barricades or cars, and it can't turn on its axis, and it's also top heavy (major disadvantages for urban environments), but you know, he doesn't point this out well, and where he does, he 'debunks' it (poorly, with reference to parts interchangeability; which is also bunk, because it's not even true) but LAVs aren't intended for that, they're intended to operate as a component of a force which also includes Tracked AVs. Canada is complementing ours with the MTVL, an extended, uparmoured and uparmed M113 chassis with a more powerful engine (the same one as the LAV-III, so there goes the parts argument. . .) and a fully enclosed turret.

Incidentally, M113s flip over almost as often as LAVs in the concerned conditions, (we have plenty of reports from both from overseas, including deaths, but as far as I know no deaths in LAVs yet). . .

M113s are *massively* vulnerable to AT mines (flat bottoms), and the LAV series is mine resistant (as I said, demonstrably; a number of cases, no fatalities, and I can show you pics if you like).

M113s consume almost 3 times as much fuel on roads as LAVs.

A tracked vehicle with a thrown track is less mobile than an eight wheeled LAV missing a wheel, and it's about as easy to disable either in actual practise (again, this is documented on active service, which is more than I can say for the LAVdanger guy's data).

The Piranha-III series (The Stryker and LAV-III) is optionally amphibious, in fact, all of Canada's early LAVs had propellers (as do the USMC LAV-25s), but we found that as army assets they never (ever) had the opportunity to use that capability (and the old LAVs got operationally run into the ground overseas, tot he point where the Regular force took the ones intended for the reserves and sent them to Yugoslavia). In fact, it was found that pound-for-pound, the space was better off used for stowage and fuel tanks (like the Coyote and LAV-III have).

^^^ thus, the choice made with the Stryker not being amphibious was a conscious one on the part of the US army based on trials. The Stryker can ford, and that's all it really needs to do anyway. . . (and, if it needed to be amphibious, it's an uncomplicated modification to make to the vehicle)

Again, those LAVdanger arguments are based on a fear of change, an obsession with a certain type of platform (tracked APC) and the unrealistic and *expensive* desire (it doesn't take into account the critical difference between capital expenditure and operating/maintenance costs, and where it does, the data is *speculation* and ignores the wealth of operational experience of a country (mine) using the same platform operationally) to have it do every job; even the ones it isn't suited to.

To the anti-LAV arguments, I say Bull****.

[General Barron 0]

I've never heard of the 'LAVDANGER' website you're talking about, so I can't speak to that. My main question is this:

Was it worth spending the billions of dollars to develop the Stryker? Is it worth the $3 million dollars per vehicle to build? Or are there other vehicles out there currently that can already do the job the Stryker is supposed to accomplish?

If the answer to the last question is 'yes', then I think the enormous amount of money spent on the stryker would have been much better spent on the Army 'Legacy Forces' that are currently under-equipped.

With the exception of the landmine resistance, I don't see how the Stryker has any advantages over existing vehicles. Obviously it is nowhere near as off-road capable as tracked vehicles like the MTVL. You can only distribute so much weight on a limited area (the base of the tires) before things start sinking into the mud. An MTVL has a lower profile than a Stryker, yet has the same amount of internal space under armor. It can be armored against RPGs without having bulky slat armor. It can have a hybrid engine, and be fitted with band-tracks for increased efficiency. It can carry a stabalized 25mm cannon. And it can do all this for FAR less cost than the Stryker.

I'm not 'anti LAV', mind you. An even better question to ask would be: "Is the Stryker any better than the LAV III from which it was derived?" Is it $15 BILLION dollars better? Or could the army have just used the existing LAV III for all their LAV needs?

I'm just glad the Marines don't have these BS problems that the army does...

[Bosniarat 0]

Some one was talking about the HMMV being able to take a Mine Strike, well about a Month before i got to Yugo This happened

http://www.tfeagle.army.mil/tfetalo....-21.pdf

That Hummer is the new M-1114

[miles teg 1]

Those soldiers only survived because the mine detonated over the engine compartment.  Notice the lack of an engine?  Well if the mine had detonated beneath the soldiers themselves, rather then engine parts scattered about, there would have been body parts scattered about.  

Humvees have hit land mines in Afghanistan with less favorable outcomes.  The area under the Humvee that the mine detonates makes the difference between no injuries, getting legs blown off, or death.  

Also command detonated land mines (such as road side bombs) have destroyed even the most heavily armored humvees often killing or seriously injuring the soldiers inside.

In essence it is not designed to be an APC... only to offer limited protection against small arms fire.  So in other words its not the best vehicle to be used as an APC in conditions where road side bombs are found.  The Styker in contrast has successfully protected its crew and infantry cargo from both RPG attacks and road side bombs.  As for the Styker vs. LAVIII debate... it would be interesting to see exactly how much more the Stryker costs then the LAVIII and exactly what benefits there are over the LAVIII. Heavier armor perhaps?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[calm_terror 0]

I wanna see more of the Israeli APC's.

cause man do they know how to made them and upgrade them..

USMC LAV-25 $900,000per

US Army Stryker(base) $1,877,053per

LAV-III-?

so the stryker costs 2 times as much as the LAV-25

and the LAV-25 is better.

(note base means before uparmor expriments and added armor)

[miles teg 1]

Alot of the cost is in stuff you don't see such as the electronics hardware installed in them, thermal imaging systems, and special armor.   But it would be interesting to see someone lay out exactly what the causes are for the price differences in between the USMC LAV-25 and the US Army Stryker.  (In my last post I had meant LAV-25, not LAV III.  Sorry).

I bet the Russians could make an updated BTR-90 with more anti-mine protection, a 30mm/7.62 combo turret, slat armor, and lots of other goodies for a far cheaper price. Interestingly enough, the BTR series of light wheeled APC's also can be carried in a C130.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Sgt. Stryker 0]

not to sound mean or anything, but I thought this topic was about someone wanting someone to make a stryker, not a bunch of someones fighting over the cost and abilities of all APCs known to man. So anyways...

[Bosniarat 0]

So is anyone going to make the Stryker or is this just going to be a Flame Against them?

Miles Teg:

I know the mine blew up underneath the Engine Compartment I was just saying that the newer Hummers were able to take a Mine Strike where as the older Hummers wouldnt. But I think the Stryker as a Replacement for the M-113 is much Needed, it can go in areas that the M-113 wasnt set up for. Becides They look cool

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]You can only distribute so much weight on a limited area (the base of the tires) before things start sinking into the mud.

It's really not that bad, it's not like the LAVs have been having any more trouble with mud (or their weight) than M113 Chassis'. I've heard arguments about LAVs getting stuck in mud, and then heard similar stories about M113s. Also, in conditions where the LAV-III needs more ground contact, the tires can be patially deflated. It's not that bad.

Quote[/b] ]An MTVL has a lower profile than a Stryker, yet has the same amount of internal space under armor.

It's not really *that* much bigger. I hear this argument all the time; and really, that's not much of a disadvantage for the M1A1, which is almost twice as large as the T-80 (in terms of observability) in any case. . .

Quote[/b] ]It can be armored against RPGs without having bulky slat armor.

So can the Stryker, unless there's something in particular about it that prevents this. . . I mean. . . ours are.

Quote[/b] ]It can have a hybrid engine, It can carry a stabilized 25mm cannon.

So can the Stryker. The LAV-III has that turret, and the US Army decided not to buy the Stryker with it.

Quote[/b] ]And it can do all this for FAR less cost than the Stryker.

Depends on what you want to do with it. Once again, I don't think it's reasonable to view this as a 'one or the other' type of question. These two platforms are ideal to complement each other. And I think a lot of the reasons why the Stryker doesn't exactly fit the requirement were choices made deliberately. (as to why they were made, I have no clue, some of them seem pretty bad choices).

Quote[/b] ]I'm not 'anti LAV', mind you. An even better question to ask would be: "Is the Stryker any better than the LAV III from which it was derived?" Is it $15 BILLION dollars better? Or could the army have just used the existing LAV III for all their LAV needs?

This is reasonable; and this is a question where I can express my opinion of the Stryker. No It's not 15 billion dollars better. Canada's defense budget is 12 billion per year, and we have a large fleet of superior LAV-IIIs on that budget. . .  (granted, we don't have as many, but the development didn't cost anywhere near what the Stryker's did. . .) I don't know what they did with the money, but something seems a bit incongruous there. . .

IMO, the whole thing is a bad decision. Regardless of the fact that the general arguments *against* the Stryker as a *platform* are fallacious, I personally believe that:

a: The US Army should have gone with a 25mm LAV-III APC, like Canada's, for the Stryker APC. Development time and money are irrelevant if the platform is already operational, especially if it's superior to the one you develop from it.

b: An integral part of the IAV project should have been an equal number of MTVLs (possibly with the 25mm turret and the same engine)

c: The LAV-105 (the fire support Stryker, with the 105mm cannon) is a *bad* bad bad idea. too many disadvantages, wrong platform for the weapon. [similarly, Canada has made a terrible mistake in planning to replace all our tanks with these. We've made a lot of good procurement decisions recently, but this is not one of them, I'd go as far as to say it's *stupid*]

I'd have to say that, again, despite the fact that it's a better vehicle than people give it credit for, doing it the way it was done was pretty foolish.

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]So is anyone going to make the Stryker or is this just going to be a Flame Against them?

I'm going to make a Stryker as soon as I can do the remote turret. (which is what I said)

Other people also said they were going to earlier in this thread. You can only have so many posts that say 'I'm going to make a Stryker'. The rest have been about the Stryker rather than who's making it so far. So what? The conversation is interesting and educational. That's a good thing.

Why do so many people mistake objective dialogue for fighting? If you don't want to participate, don't, and if you don't want to read it, don't. It's that simple.

[shinRaiden 0]

On-topic:

Does the proxy have to be in the turret? Or could you make it so that there is an 'invisible' ghost gunner - one that is 'out' of the turret, but also not displayed (means no turnout) of course.

What about class viewgunnerbase {}; or class viewopticsbase {};? Are they anchored off of the proxy?

Thanks.

[-BlackDeath- 0]

I have about 17 videos of Strykers being driven on and off c130's with tires inflated :-\. The c-130 is supposed to be so the AF sais the main transport for the stryker.

[General Barron 0]

@Sigma-6

You're right; there is something very fishy about the way the stryker project was approached. That is what I'm pissed about. Very obviously there is something wrong here. It looks to me like outright corruption or incompetence on behalf of the Generals and on behalf of the defense contractors involved.

The stryker MGS (the stryker with a 105mm cannon) is being pushed with just as much corruption or incompetence. First off, it does seem outright stupid to try to make an LAV take the place of a tank. Secondly, there are already tanks out there, like the M8 or the Thunderbolt, that can do the job much better than the stryker MGS ever could, even if the project ever produces a working model.

Obviously our taxpayer's money is being used not for our country's best interest, but for the personal interests of those in charge of this project. The defense contractors obviously benefit from this directly in terms of the money they are paid (even when their products don't work). And guess where the generals are likely to end up after retirement? On the boards of the very same defense contractors. Nice little scam they got going on there.

But yeah... getting back to the topic, I would like to see more LAVs in OFP. I know knothing about addon making, but I have heard many times before that you can't make a turret on a wheeled vehicle, or something like that. I don't understand that though, because I've seen some LAVs in the JSDF mod that have turrets, and there are machine gun jeeps and BRDMs with guns.... but like I said, I don't really know what I"m talking about there.

[Sigma-6 29]

We've got a whole series of LAVs with working turrets and zoomed optics at Operation Northstar. We've got the Coyote Recce vehicle (a much improved LAV-25), the LAV-25 (USMC) Cougar (6 wheeled LAV with a 76mm gun), LAV-III (Stryker hull with a 25mm bushmaster turret) and Bison (A lot like the USMC's LAV-25 mortar carrier, except it's an APC and an ambulance), and we did the ASLAV for ADF mod. These are almost all available for download.

As for the MGS, It's functionally useless. You don't fire a 105mm gun in the direct fire role without taking something comparable back, and a LAV-III chassis can't take that. On top of that, it can't fire from defilade when it's oriented 90* to the hill; it will flip over. . . there are a large number of other immediate problems with that platform, even without considering the fact that it's simply not an adequate replacement for a Leopard 1.

And my opinion about defense contractors (pretty familiar with them) is that they're quite aware that 90% of their product line can't legally be sold on the civilian market, so they have to generate their profits from taxes; which means, the more the project costs without having to deliver anything, the better off they are; and, the more defense staff they can replace with contractors (which is the trend here, and AFAIK, in the US too) and the more Defense staff they can have in their pockets, the more likely they are to be able to sign new contracts and inflate the costs of them without there being anyone wondering what's going on.

By and large, I think most of the big defense companies are essentially on welfare, and they milk the public at every step; but that's just my experience. We have that problem here, but nowhere near as badly as you guys do. . . (It seems to be epedemic in the US defense community).

[Bobcatt666 0]

"Well one of the drawbacks for the pentigon is they are fasinated with hightech gagets. Usually a weapons system comes out and simple cheap and functions very well, then ets looked at and then tons of stuff added to it till the point its an overpriced unless peice of garbage. That need collage graduated with four master to operate it.

Perfect example was the Old Sgt. York gun. When first out it was simple and effective SPAA gun system. But its low tech we need more stuff on it, slap a F16 radar system on it IR and thermo. Oh damn it too heavy now, the gunns rattle the electronics so baddly it is useless. I'm in with military maintenace units still the stryker did great here in the Us and surprizingly NTC. the ones sent to Iraq are not operating up to spec. In the bean counting area an M1A1 is still cheaper but cost a lot more to operate being a fuel guzzling pig.

A tank sucks in a urban area, you also gotta send engineers behind them to patch up the roads they trash running around on them. Face it the M113 is a 38 + year old vehicle its long over due to be replaced, Besides it actually got to see the field unlike other over priced wonders like the Commanche. Well Sigma6 is doing one be fairly sure that he'll do a good job on it.

[Crowley 0]

As for the MGS, It's functionally useless. You don't fire a 105mm gun in the direct fire role without taking something comparable back, and a LAV-III chassis can't take that. On top of that, it can't fire from defilade when it's oriented 90* to the hill; it will flip over. . . there are a large number of other immediate problems with that platform, even without considering the fact that it's simply not an adequate replacement for a Leopard 1.

If you're doing the MGS, will it fall over when shooting perpendicular to the hull?

[sputnik monroe 102]

Personally I don't really hate the striker as a vehicle. What I do hate though is the way they hype it as being the biggest evolution in warfare since gunpowder and sliced bread.

There does seem to be a large movement in Europe and the States now talking about replacing the tank with "cheaper, mobile, faster" armored cars. The argument usually made in favor of is usually, " Tanks cost too much and take too long to transport to a war zone." and, " Aircraft do the job of the tank now, besides when was the last tank battle." Both of which I consider dangerous arguments.

The argument "tank battles don't happen any more, and aircraft do the job of the tank." is based off recent history. The conflicts of the last 20 years have all been decisively one sided, we aren't always going to be that lucky. In the event of a war with China, I can guarantee the Chinese will have tanks, lots of tanks.

When was the last tank battle? Well there was the tank battle at Medina Ridge during the first Gulf War. The battle was a decisive victory for the Americans, with the loss of only one tank (and its crew survived to drive the tank out of their). I hate to imagine how Medina ridge would have played out with LAVs vs T72s.

Once again don't get me wrong, I don't hate the LAV. I think its a good vehicle. I just don't belive an armored car should be sent to do a tanks job (and vice versa).

People do keep slogging on the M113. I got to admit its an old vehicle but it's still has a place. I did read an article about two years ago talking about how the Australians started using them in East Timor after their wheeled APCs kept getting bogged down in the mud, while the M113 didn't. I'm not advocating the M113 over the LAV, I'm just saying that tracked APCs aren't obsolescent. There is a different tool for each job.