Stryker info

[Shek]

This is over a year old, but I'm sure some of you will find it interesting.

http://blueskybroadcast.com/Client/wc/ham/

[Rifleman]

But, but.....Sparky says that can't be!

[BenRoethig]

Thank you Major.

[Bill]

What should not be lost upon Sparks critics is that- unrelated to the Stryker- the M113 really IS an excellent vehicle that DOES do the things the army claimed it couldn't do, and does some of them better than the Stryker that they said could do those things, but which, really, it doesnt.

The M113 has a ton of life left in it yet, and is a damned good vehicle, regardless of whether stryker is or isn't.

And the US Army is a better Army WITH M-113s than it is without them.

Sparks might be a total moron, but he was also largely right...and guess what, in the end, he was vindicated, because the US Army has gone ahead and upgraded a ton of M113s and deployed them to Iraq.....EXACTLY as Mike called for.

[BenRoethig]

Both have their place. The Stryker is more mobile than the M113.

[Guest]

What should not be lost upon Sparks critics is that- unrelated to the Stryker- the M113 really IS an excellent vehicle that DOES do the things the army claimed it couldn't do, and does some of them better than the Stryker that they said could do those things, but which, really, it doesnt.

The M113 has a ton of life left in it yet, and is a damned good vehicle, regardless of whether stryker is or isn't.

And the US Aryy is a better Army WITH M-113s than it is without them.

Sparks might be a total moron, but he was also largely right...and guess what, in the end, he was vindicated, because the US Army has gone ahead and upgraded a ton of M113s and deployed them to Iraq.....EXACTLY as Mike called for.

He also called for attacking Baghdad by using (nonexistent) heavy lift sea planes to deploy Super AmphiGavin (TM) in the Tigris River. What few good ideas he has are completely drowned out by the rest of the trash he spews out.

[Bill]

Both have their place. The Stryker is more mobile than the M113.

Not cross-country. Not strategically.

On roads, yes, unquestionably.

Otherwise? No...not really.

Hell, M-113s are air droppable even. You wouldnt want to do that with a Stryker.
On top of it, the M-113 is also amphibious whereas Stryker is not.

Clearly as an overall package, the M-113 is a much more "mobile" platform than the Stryker.

In MOUT or in a nation with a well developed road network, Stryker has very real advantadges over a 113. In virtually any other sort of terrain, the M113 is more mobile.

Out of curiosity, is the C-17 capable of LAPES operations?

[Bill]

He also called for attacking Baghdad by using (nonexistent) heavy lift sea planes to deploy Super AmphiGavin (TM) in the Tigris River. What few good ideas he has are completely drowned out by the rest of the trash he spews out.

Undeniably the truth.

Mr.Sparks went off the deep end quite some years ago.

But he was right about the 113.

[Shek]

Not cross-country.

Except for the LAV that didn't get stuck on the cross-country mobility challenge during platform selection while the M113 did

Not strategically.

Except when tied to the reality of logistics and supportability in theater, and in terms of making it out of the APOD or SPOD.

On roads, yes, unquestionably

True dat.

Otherwise? No...not really.

See above.

Hell, M-113s are air droppable even. You wouldnt want to do that with a Stryker...

To what strategic end? Not much of one - see the logistics comment above. Also, the Stryker has been air dropped. In fact, it was a MGS, the heaviest one out there (and it landed safely). Of course, given all the C4ISR in the Stryker, I don't see this as the best option.

Out of curiosity, is the C-17 capable of LAPES operations?

No clue. It'd be a waste of a C-17 IMO. Airland it, do some wet wing ops, and then move out!

[Bill]

Except for the LAV that didn't get stuck on the cross-country mobility challenge during platform selection while the M113 did

That was that big ole stretched abortion. Aint no 113A3 getting stuck in the mud Sir!!!

Except when tied to the reality of logistics and supportability in theater, and in terms of making it out of the APOD or SPOD.

I would certainly not term the M113 a particularly difficult vehicle to maintain in theater. It is far less log intensive than either M-1s or M-2s, and that's probably also the case WRT USMC AMTRAKs.

And c'mon sir, literally thousand of M113s(of all variants) attacked with the US Army during Operation Desert storm. Hell, it might've been ten thousand...113s grew on trees back then. They all seemed to get out of the APOD/SPOD just fine sir.

To what strategic end? Not much of one - see the logistics comment above.

If the 82nd could support Sheridans for decades i see no reasonable reason that M113s could not likewise be supported. Am i missing something?

Also, the Stryker has been air dropped. In fact, it was a MGS, the heaviest one out there (and it landed safely). Of course, given all the C4ISR in the Stryker, I don't see this as the best option.

Didnt know that. But yeah, more than anything, it was the electronics i was talking about. My Uncle was US Army Reserves in an Arty unit that "belonged" to the 82nd airborne back in the day. He loves to tell stories about how HARD large chunks of steel falling from the sky hit the earth! LOL....and they're pretty good stories, i gotta tell ya. ;)

No clue. It'd be a waste of a C-17 IMO. Airland it, do some wet wing ops, and then move out!

The only reason you'd do it is if you had an airstrip that was closed, and you were in some sort of nightmare scenario like Tet, or for instance had the raiding force of Rangers/Delta at Bagram not been able to been exfiled and had to hold the strip indefinitely without the ability to land Hercs or C17s.

LAPES is really a "Oh ****" system. ;)

[Shek]

That was that big ole stretched abortion. Aint no 113A3 getting stuck in the mud Sir!!!


I would certainly not term the M113 a particularly difficult vehicle to maintain in theater. It is far less log intensive than either M-1s or M-2s, and that's probably also the case WRT USMC AMTRAKs.

And c'mon sir, literally thousand of M113s(of all variants) attacked with the US Army during Operation Desert storm. Hell, it might've been ten thousand...113s grew on trees back then. They all seemed to get out of the APOD/SPOD just fine sir.


If the 82nd could support Sheridans for decades i see no reasonable reason that M113s could not likewise be supported. Am i missing something?


Didnt know that. But yeah, more than anything, it was the electronics i was talking about. My Uncle was US Army Reserves in an Arty unit that "belonged" to the 82nd airborne back in the day. He loves to tell stories about how HARD large chunks of steel falling from the sky hit the earth! LOL....and they're pretty good stories, i gotta tell ya. ;)


The only reason you'd do it is if you had an airstrip that was closed, and you were in some sort of nightmare scenario like Tet, or for instance had the raiding force of Rangers/Delta at Bagram not been able to been exfiled and had to hold the strip indefinitely without the ability to land Hercs or C17s.

LAPES is really a "Oh ****" system. ;)

Snipe,

Just giving you a hard time. I love the fact that the M113 did get stuck and the LAVIII didn't, even though I'll readily concede that the M113 does have better cross-country mobility (although it's not as signficant as Sparky wants us to believe).

As far as strategic mobility, I guess the question comes to a fully M113 equipped force, or a very small density package like a troop/company with a 82nd brigade. If it's a IBCT like force that has a large density of M113s, it is simply not sustainable via an airhead, unlike a Stryker equipped force. The Stryker force would strain an aerial LOC, the M113 force would break it.

Lastly, your APOD/SPOD comment is a false one. I was talking about who had the strategic advantage, and it's the Stryker.

I'm sure your uncle has some good stories - while having it coming down above you would be scarier, it was never fun drifting near the heavy drops when jumping. While the visions of racking yourself on a 105mm howitzer were tough to break as you drifted towards the cannon (feet and knees together, feet and knees together), you'd be in for a bruise no matter what, if not a concusion or broken back.

[Bill]

I kinda figured we were not as far apart as it initially appeared, and alas, we are not far apart at all. :)

[Shek]

I kinda figured we were not as far apart as it initially appeared, and alas, we are not far apart at all. :)

Got to make things exciting somehow ;)

[Rifleman]

M21,

I don't mind what Sparks says so much, to tell you the truth I've entertained myself for several hours on his website before.

It has more to do with how he says it. His constant use of capitals makes it look like he's screaming at you.

shek,

We used to have the Sheridans and the Russians have always had a heavily mechanized Airborne force, so why would having a few 113's on the airhead be unsustainable?

Would mechanizing the Delta Company in every parachute battailion be more of a burden than it's worth? If so, is there another vehicle that could do the job? The German Wiesel maybe?

I know the Wiesel wouldn't be the most survivable armor in the world but surely anything's better than an up armored hummer.

I don't know much about logistics and maintenance issues, so maybe I'm missing something. I always TABBed out of the assembly area.

Let's Go, Falcons!

(Tactical Advance By Boot)

[Bill]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN MIKE SHOUTS ALL THE TIME?

ITS ONLY BECAUSE WHEELED TRUCKS THAT CANNOT DEPLOY ACROSS MUDDY GROUND ARE REPLACING HIS GAVINS HAS HIM REALLY PISSED OFF!!!

Hehehehehehe....