Anon

M-21: 1. A tracked vehicle is never going to run
with a road wheel blown off like a stryker/LAV will.

MS: a. What blows off road wheel in Stryker mangles it and the otherwheels alongside it.

b. WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT ITS WHEELED IT GOT YOU
BLOWN UP IN THE FIRST PLACE?

M-21: 2. A tracked vehicle is never going to match the
on-road performance of a wheeled vehicle.

MS: WRONG. With band tracks M113 Gavins are faster than
Stryker trucks on roads, too.

WHY DO WE WANT TO BE ON ROADS ANYWAY?

M-21: No one in power seems to care about a robust air
deployable mechanized force, for whatever reason(i
suspect it's probably due to the USAF more than
anything).

MS: they are corrupt they must be removed from power
so we can get the Bin Ladens/Saddams of this world.

M-21: My old unit had M-113A3's as our mechanized component,
and we were expected to stand toe to toe with the
Russians with no hi-tech gadgetry or automated gun
mounts. No FLIRS, no high-speed low-drag comms, or
situational awareness aids. We were fully prepared to
do just that. I have no doubt whatsoever that if you took my old Bn and put them in strykers(or Heavy Hummers for that matter) that we'd be every bit as effective.
The man makes the warrior, not the machine.

MS: WRONG.

Combat history is full of examples of men in
vulnerable rubber tired trucks restricted to
roads/trails being beaten easily regardless of how
courageous/skilled.

You are buying into BS narcissism here.

M-21: The Stryker(just like the M-113) is not made to fight toe to toe with the enemy, it is designed to
rapidly move it's large payload of infantrymen in
close proximity to the fight and drop them off fresh and
rested while providing all-around .50BMG protection, a
high level of RPG protection, and mounted HMG/AGL
overwatch support.

MS: WRONG.

Stryker is not like M113 Gavin. Vietnam war proved
that you can fight effectively MOUNTED in M113 Gavin
ACAVs. IDF has proven up-armored M113 Gavins can also
fight to and through objectives. Stop making excuses
for BS Stryker trucks by ASS U MING they are equal to
M113 Gavin tracks when they are not.

M-21: It's fine for that role IMO.

MS: You are wong IMHO.

M-21: Do i agree the money would've been spent better on
an enhanced M-113"A4"?

Absolutely.

Is there any chance that's going to happen?

No.

MS: WRONG.

Already happening.

M-21: For better or worse, Stryker is here to stay,
there's simply no point *****ing about it anymore.(I
felt exactly the same way about the F-14D vs F-18E
debate, but what's done is done).

MS: Says who?

M561 Gamma Goat went bye bye, so will Stryker trucks
that are self-destructing on their own (too much
weight on too little drivetrains etc.)

M-21: What i highly reccomend is that you focus your
efforts on quashing the FCS system NOW, while
something CAN be done about that.

MS: I AM BILL. YOU JUST DO NOT GET IT.

FCS WILL BNE CANCELLED AND STRYKER WILL BECOME THE
BOOBY CONSOLATION PRIZE FOR ARMY.

**** THAT.

We allow this we're finished as an Army, we're
finished as a nation.

That's what is at stake here.

M-21: We lost the Stryker fight.

MS: Says who?

M-21: Let's make sure we don't lose the FCS fight next.
If you must keep fixating on stryker, i highly suggest
you instead shift your efforts into lobbying to have
it's deficiencies corrected, rather than beating your
head against the wall over a weapons system that is
already in service.

MS: THE STRYKER CANNOT BE FIXED.

READ THE CALL REPORT.

M-21: One(Stryker) that quite frankly, is going to be with us for
quite a long time.

MS: Nope, its dying already. Its not maintainable.

M-21: And as far as getting troops killed, more troops
have died in M-113s(B-40's in vietnam) than are likely
to ever be killed in Strykers.

MS: WRONG AGAIN.

Go back and do some research.

We have 1, 775 vanilla M113 Gavins in IRAQ NOW and
less Soldiers have died in them than in 311 (now 283)
Stryker trucks.

At the rate Soldiers are dying in Strykers it will not
be long before their death count exceeds the 45 year
combat history of the M113 Gavin in U.S. Army service.


M-21: It doesn't mean the M-113 was no good...just that
it can be overmatched with certain weapons.

MS: THATS WHY WE NEED TO NOT BE LAZY AND UP-ARMOR THEM.

This is already happening.

M-21: You know as well as i that an uparmored M-113
will not survive a TOW II, IED, or tank main gun hit any
better than a Stryker will.

MS: YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

First, don't lump these threats different destructive
effects together.

Next face reality---M113 Gavin is 1.5 to 1.75 inch
think aluminum alloy hull at 10.5 tons with up to 500
hp propulsion potential compared to a 17 ton LAV-III
which is 28% bigger.

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO SQUANDER 28% of our armor
potential with a Stryker truck.

Go back and do some research:

www.geocities.com/armorhistory/infantrytanks.htm

M-21: The Stryker has proven it can withstand RPG hits even with interim armor, and at this point i just
don't see any major glaring weakness with the system
that will prevent it's dismounts from doing their job.

MS: You are not thinking very deep on this. WE ARE GETTING CREAMED ON ROADS IN TRUCKS. We are rounding up Iraqis and brutalizing them. The rebellion is growing. We are not securing anything. We are having our asses kicked and we are losing.

M-21: BTW, in over a year of combat operations the
Stryker Company CO i told you about never lost a
single man to enemy fire. Not one.

MS: You are a fool to listen to someone who is full of
**** and a liar. The Army placed Strykers in the
quietest part of Northern Iraq. I have confirmation of
this from OSD. We have M113 Gavin units that didn't
lose ANYONE during NATION-STATE COMBAT for example.

"Upgraded M113 Gavin tracks in brigade combat teams
backed by M8 Buford AGS light tanks are far superior
to Strykers who can't survive even in a COIN
environment."

My question for you, Bill is do you THINK or just take
the prevailing BS you are surrounded by and adopt it
here and there? I am not trying to be mean but you
seriously disappoint me with your politically correct
views on some of the above. Weak co-dependants go
along with BS and die. I lost two friends last year to
the wheeled BS and I owe it to them and the many
others to blow the whistle on this.

Mike
-----------------------------------------------

There you have it. That's what a debate with a crazed insane person looks like....lol.

TopHatter

As Shaggy would say: "Like wow man"

Didn't mommy and daddy give him enough attention when he was a child?

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

troung

"You are not thinking very deep on this. WE ARE GETTING CREAMED ON ROADS IN TRUCKS. We are rounding up Iraqis and brutalizing them. The rebellion is growing. We are not securing anything. We are having our asses kicked and we are losing."

I'm no Stryker fan but a supply truck is different from the Stryker. At least the Styrker has armor.

" You are a fool to listen to someone who is full of **** and a liar. The Army placed Strykers in the quietest part of Northern Iraq. I have confirmation of
this from OSD. We have M113 Gavin units that didn't lose ANYONE during NATION-STATE COMBAT for example."

No idea Shek was a liar and full of **** at the same time

And the guy that got the CMOH got hit in a M-113...

"Combat history is full of examples of men in vulnerable rubber tired trucks restricted to roads/trails being beaten easily regardless of how courageous/skilled."

M-113s can be just as road bound... Lam Son 719....

"I am not trying to be mean but you seriously disappoint me with your politically correct views on some of the above. Weak co-dependants go along with BS and die."



". IDF has proven up-armored M113 Gavins can also fight to and through objectives."

Ah the IDF. In Lebanon they seemed to lose scores of M-113s whenever there was a fight. Captian Harnick the Israeli hero of the war flipped his M-113 over. Syrian commandos shot the M-113s up with RPG-7/18s, MILANs and AT-4s. During combat IDF troopers dismounted to not get killed inside the vehicles. Read the book Israeli's Lebanon War which was written soon after the 1982 invasion and it shows the losses their M-113s suffered, sadly it does not give a number total at the end.

IDF uparmored M-113s were pulled out of South Lebanon during the 1990s because they became easy targets for IEDs, ATGMs and RPG-7s. They had to use T-55 and Centurion based APCs to keep the guys save. They even lost M-113s in the territories which is why they are going for a Merkava based APC.

"You are buying into BS narcissism here."

I will use that term from now on...

Officer of Engineers

Bill,

Are you bucking for sainthood cause you've got the patience of one.

__________________
Chimo

dalem

Wow. I thought only mildly-informed laymen like myself got that nutty on mil topics.

-dale

TopHatter

He must be
Saint William...has a certain ring to it I suppose

Julie

LOL....a candidate for the next Pope?

Anon

You don't want me as pope.

It would look something like this:

lwarmonger

LOL

TopHatter

I just showed that to our resident Good Catholic Boys here at work, they thought it was hilarious lol

Julie

Ah, but Sniper, your faith in the Stryker is "unwavering."

Bluesman

I'm at work right now, and showed that picture around the Ops Center.

It's going up on our wall right now. The guys LOVE it.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Shek

Sniper,
If you feel like continuing the debate (I’m sure the responses I would get would be less cordial), I have some questions that you can ask. Many of these first ones are actually just questions for information since there’s no information that I can find through Google on the MTVL with hybrid engine and rubber band track technology. There are several word of mouth articles on pro-M113 websites, but even they are vague for the most part. Bottomline, there are hints as to its potential, but no hard facts or easy to find official releases. BTW, have you ever be accused of being PC before?


What is the weight with the bolt-on armor that brings it to 14.5mm protection? What is the width?

What is the width of the vehicle with ERA?

What is the range? What is the fuel mileage?

How does the ASL/PLL load requirements compare to the Stryker? Commonality of parts?

How long does it take to configure a short track? What is the max recommended speed in a short track scenario?

How often does the band track have to be changed? With bolt-on armor and ERA, how often would they have to be changed? What were the test conditions (surface conditions, surface temperature)?

Is this design approved for airdrop (with armor kit, the M113A3, which isn’t stretched like the MTLV, is 31,000 1bs, whereas the listed air drop weight is only 22,128 lbs)? What do you do with all the glass screens from the C4ISR? Are these approved for airdrop? What is the expected time to reconfigure the vehicle for combat if it were airdropped?

Can a MTLV equipped platoon chase down a suspected insurgent car by traveling 75mph for nearly 5km on a paved road?

Why are tracked vehicle speed governed? Is this because of the rollover risks from throwing track at high speeds (my NCOIC while I was in the Engineer Cell spoke of this happening to him in ODS)?

How soon would MTLVs with hybrid engines and rubber band track technology be fielded? Can older M113s be coverted? How long is the process?

I also have many questions that call into question his conclusions on the website and in his response to you. While I’m sure the responses will be structured like below, I’m still curious.

1) admit nothing
2) deny everything
3) make counteraccusations


How do you explain that the M113A3 got stuck on the cross-country mobility course, but the Stryker didn’t (once again, I don’t claim that the Stryker’s cross-country mobility is better, but I find this fact ironically funny and would claim that this does demonstrates that the cross-country mobility difference is not as much as the M113 enthusiasts would like you to believe)?

Please use the following map of Mosul (http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...cib_100_01.jpg
) and highlight the cross-country corridors to maneuver across Mosul? How about maneuvering through cemeteries, does this endear the local population? Should we maneuver through the ancient ruins of Ninevah where Jonah is buried? When in the countryside, does maneuvering through farmers’ fields win “hearts and minds” in the COIN battle? Should we avoid areas where we cannot maneuver cross-country?

Is it easier to dig in IEDs into concrete, asphalt, or dirt? Is it easier to discover surface laid IEDs/mines or buried IEDs/mines?

How many LAV25s, which are armored less than the Stryker, were destroyed during the “kinetic phase” of OIF?

How do explain the presence of Stryker battalions operating in the battles for Samarra, An Najaf, Fallujah, and crushing insurgent operations in Tal Afar and Mosul? Were these minimal risk areas? Why was the SBCT assigned to secure the MSRs south and north of Baghdad starting in April 04, a tasking that remained for several months?

How do you respond to the articles and letters to the editor responding to the CALL article?

How many deaths do you attribute to the Stryker vehicle’s performance? You seem to attribute all SBCT casualties, regardless of reason, to the Stryker. On the same note, how many deaths do you attribute to M113s in OIF?

What are the specific reasons that make you think that the insurgency is growing? How much violence do you attribute to the insurgency and how much to terrorists?

Anon

I will gladly ask him all those questions...but i think we both know what Mr. Sparks will say.

"SNIPER YOU'RE CLUELESS! EVERYONE KNOWS THE GAVIN CAN DO ALL THAT BETTER THAN THE STRYKER...THE STRYKER IS A DEATHTRAP AND YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!"

LOL...

troung

Someone send this to him...


IDF M-113 experiences in Lebanon and Palestine.

Here is some data on IDF M-113 lessons.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_279.shtml

The situation with M-113s was less satisfactory: these APCs apparently suffered such losses in the first few days of the war, that by the time the IDF reached Beirut the Israelis were doing their best to avoid deploying them in combat first of all. The Israeli infantry therefore walked a better part of their way into Lebanon.

Despite immense problems, quite a few surprises, and losses, the Israelis were eventually satisfied with results of the conventional part of the war in Lebanon: in four days of battles they claimed destruction of 81 Syrian tanks, and capturing 41 (mainly T-62s), losing only eight M-48s and two Merkavas in return. Supposedly, one of destroyed Merkavas was subsequently salvaged and repaired. Pictorial evidence exists for a number of additional M-60s being destroyed as well, while the losses of M-113s were obviously so heavy that they were not deployed in forward lines until much later, when most were equipped with additional protection against anti-tank missiles.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1987/SGC.htm

RPG fires that left tanks unscathed had a greater effect on the following APC's, setting some on fire and causing the troops to ride on top or walk rather than risk burns.

The M-113 APC did not fare so well, tending to burn quickly when hit. Such was its reputation that troops sometimes refused to ride in them, preferring to walk alongside and forego the armor protection rather than chance burning to death.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...113/Zelda.html

The M113 (Bardehlas) was introduced in Israeli service in 1972 and has been obtained in huge numbers. Estimates are 5500 of all marks. Although the vehicle had more than sufficient mobility, it lacked adequate armour protection. Because the hull was made from aluminium, once hit by an RPG (rocket propelled grenade) fires raged furiously and there was almost no escaping the vehicle. The M113 earned its unofficial name Zippo and crew preferred to ride on the vehicle's roof, taking the risk of exposing themselves to enemy fire rather than staying put in the flammable confines of the Bardehlas.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...13/M-113_.html

One of the lessons learned so costly at the Yom Kippur War (1973) and Lebanon War (1982) was the vulnerability of the armored personnel carrier (APC) in the modern battlefield.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...NagmaShot.html

During The Lebanon War (1982) Israeli M-113 infantry carriers proved vulnerable to shoulder launched antitank weapons. As a stopgap, the IDF introduced a series of Centurion based Kangaroo carriers for use by infantry and combat engineers.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...puma/Puma.html

After the incident in June 2004, where the Zelda (Toga equipped M113's) didn't provide the necessary protection, these vehicles have been withdrawn as far as possible for use in the territories. In this particular incident, eleven Israeli soldiers lost their lives as a result of an exploding road side bomb. The tasks were taken over by more heavily armored vehicles like the Puma, Nagmachon and the Achzarit.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...OUTGawrych.htm

M-113 APCs transported troops and supplies, but the IDF understood their vulnerability to RPGs and used them sparingly as a result.
http://www.specialoperations.com/mout/pfg.html

PLO-fired RPGs had little success against the Israeli Merkava tank, but forced the IDF to stop using M113 armored personnel carriers and trucks near the front line.

Israeli infantry moved mostly on foot in cities because the lightly protected M113 armored personnel carrier was found wanting in several respects after initial operations in Tyre. PLO ambushes of Israeli columns with RPGs caused extensive casualties, in part because of the tendency of the M113's aluminum armor to catch on fire after being hit by anti-tank weapons. In some IDF units, men became so frightened at the possibility of RPG induced fire that they simply walked next to them or rode outside rather than risk being burned to death. By the time of the siege of Beirut, armored personnel carriers were only used to carry supplies to advancing troops, always stropping at least 100 meters behind enemy lines. Besides the vulnerability of M113s to RPG fire, the IDF found them unsatisfactory for urban warfare because of their: (1) limited ability to provide suppression fire -- their machine-guns lacked sufficient elevation to use against upper stories of building; (2) extreme vulnerability of crews serving out-side mounted machine-guns to sniper fire; and (3) inability to maneuver in narrow roads and allies of cities and refugee camps

http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/arab-i...l_Observations

The M113's aluminum armor tended to catch on fire after being hit by anti-tank weapons.

The IDF had little success when using the M113 in Tyre. The limitations included:

Vulnerability to RPG fire. Their aluminum armour burst into flame when hit causing extensive IDF casualties.
Inability to provide suppressing fire. Their machine-guns lacked sufficient elevation to use against upper stories of building.
Extreme vulnerability to sniper fire for the crews serving out-side mounted machine-guns.
Inability to maneuver in narrow roads and allys of cities and refugee camps.
Increasingly IDF fear of RPG ambushes meant the infantry simply walked next to their APCs or rode outside. By the time of the siege of Beirut APCs were not used in the front line.

The IDF resorted to some make shift transport for their infantry:

With it ammunition racks removed the Merkava tank could transport 10 troops who entered/exited via the rear door. Similarly the Merkava was also used as an improvised armored ambulance.
The IDF also adapted an armored engineering vehicle called the Nagma-chon. Normally used to carry engineering troops it could also take infantry. It was relatively invulnerable to RPGs because its glacis and superstructure were protected by Blazer reactive armor.
The Israelis added passive spaced-armor to existing APCs.


Here is Sparkys come back.........


"IDF M113 Gavin experiences: its the add on armor you add, stupid"

"Blind obedience human organizations stifle reality facing and forward thinking even in the fabulous and egalitarian IDF. We must remember that the IDF is cash strapped. So when M113 Gavins as-is do great in open area, essentially linear combats like the 1973 War there isn't a realization that you need better armor than the baseline 7.62mm AP protection the hull provides until the milicrats are forced to. If you are trying to be some kind of smart ass, Aaron suggesting that a tracked vehicle that can easily be up-armored but is not because of HUMAN STUPIDITY is to blame here, you are sorely mistaken. The whole point of the Stryker truck requiring cancellation is because IT CANNOT BE MADE SURVIVABLE AND TACTICALLY USEFUL--its already maxed out by a 3 ton bird cage that doesn't work 1/2 the time. A tracked vehicle by design is 28% more capable of armor protection than any wheeled truck.

Maybe you are just going through the learning curve most of us here on this list have already gone through? If so, please hurry up and catch up so I do not have to repeat the fact again and again and again. Have you gone through ALL of the group's posts from the beginning? I think from now on, all new members will be invited to do this."

-------------------------------
-----------------------------

The whole point of the thing sent to him was that the M-113 cannot do everything and his precious IDF has been moving away from it to conduct the type of ops they need to. He calls the guy stupid and brings up the Styrker. In fact I don't think he has done any real research on the subject of the M-113 in action in the Middle East. And was I the only one that noticed that he changed the name of the email and put in the word "Gavin"

FYI after each conflict the IDF slapped more armor onto the M-113 and they just kept getting blown up. Should have had the guy send him the link with one IED which took out a T-55, a M-113 and the tank transporter they both were on. So his raging about how the M-113 is so well protected is false. Today the IDF is going more towards a tank-apc force to keep the guys inside safe, which was in one way the point and of course the other point was to point out that the M-113 even being used by the vaunted IDF is not as perfect as he claims.



PS -- Here is him saying SF Smith would have been killed by T-34s if they had Styrkers with TOWs and the MGS gun system...

"I doubt if even Stryker TOW ATGMs fired from their rubber-tired mounts would have changed the outcome as the T34/85s would have point/shot/blasted them on the road. Ditto that for MGS even if that 105mm gun variant worked."