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

[ArmySGT.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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