American Mercenary has waded into the Stryker vs. M-113 debate. A small spoiler...
You also find nostalgic die hards who truly believe that the M113 would actually do better than a Stryker if it just had a bunch of upgrades like rubber band tracks and a hybrid electric drive, additional armor, full digital comms and sensor suite with air conditioning to keep the grunts from riding on the roof. Of course by then the damn thing is so heavy it is no longer amphibious, rubber band tracks wear much quicker, and cross country performance starts to go. TANSTAAFL, every weapon is a set of compromises, the best you can do is pick the ones you want to live with.Read the whole thing here.
I never thought I would see it but we have the armored vehicle version of the 9mm vs. .45 cal going on. The debate will rage until a different type of technology is produced that takes the place of both wheels AND tracks.
Speaking of that 9mm vs 45 debate, the FBI put out a great study on handguns, I'll email it to you, but I love their conclusion. It's not the bullet, it's the shot placement.
ReplyDeleteEven when we get hover or some sort of alternate mode of travel we will always have a debate on what's better.
I once told a fellow who argued about .45 vs 9 mm to go outside and throw one bullet each up in the air and then step under the falling bullet then tell me which hurt worse.
DeleteHe said the .45 did seem to hurt worse but both left a knot on his head.
The bigger the hole the more blood comes out.
A .45 will kill a horse faster than a 9 mm, the .45 was designed to be used to gain mobility kills on enemy cavalry horses. The 9 mm was designed to kill humans, not horses.
A .45 will break bones easier yet a 9 mm will also break bones.
The 9 mm is easier to shoot and gain hits with.
A hit to the heart and CSN will generally stop all but a few opponents instantly.
Caliber doesn't matter when the heart or CNS is hit unless penetration is not deep enough.
Smaller calibers are easier to use to target the heart or CNS area.
No one every said after a gun fight, "I wish I had a smaller caliber" no one.
«Of course by then the damn thing is so heavy it is no longer amphibious,»
ReplyDeleteThis is a lie.The only reason why american M-113s are not allowed to swim is the same one why portuguese M-113s cant swim:they have very bad maintenence and they let water in because there isnt money to keep them in good conditions...
The too heavy to swim is a lie of course:consider the ACV-15 that is heavier than any outher M-113 version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FNSS_ACV-15...now watch it swim...http://youtu.be/DdLILo7dLWQ
and a normal M-113...similar to the one of the US Army-http://youtu.be/keql1C8wuWM
Nuno, I wasn't talking about current version of the M113, but the hyped up future version that people keep saying was just around the corner. The ACV isn't even a full ton heavier than the original M113, and has the same vulnerability to RPG fire as a Stryker although both have much better armor than the M113. The point is that you can't get something for nothing, and I am not convinced that you can cram everything into a M113 (including air conditioning!) and still retain amphibious capability. At some point something has to give, and the Army didn't even bother to ask for amphib capabilities in the trials leading up to the Stryker despite it being a feature of various LAVs looked at.
DeleteThe hyped up version had hybrid-electric drive and other features to keep the weight down...
DeleteThe M-113 is a modular vehicle...in fact it is only an aluminium box in wich you can do what ever you want...if you want to swim or jump out of a plane like russian VDV it offers light protection,but much better than the Hummer...and similar/better than the basic Stryker...NO VEHICLE in this weight class is better protected...
If you want to loose swimming and the airdrop features you can have a much better vehicle than the LAVIII/Stryker http://defense-update.com/products/u/urbanfighter.htm
Nuno, I've just got to ask, have you ever rolled in an M113? Have you ever rolled in a Stryker? Ever deployed in either platform?
DeleteCause that abortion you linked to is not something I would car to drive through even a moderately built up city like Baqubah.
I've just got to ask, have you ever rolled in an M113? Have you ever rolled in a Stryker? Ever deployed in either platform?
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Does it matter if i ride in any?
Bill Gunston wrote about the F-16 , the F-15 and many other aircraft...and he never flew then...your point?
And you also have this from IMI http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68063
All with better protection than the Stryker...
i like the M-113 especially the modernized versions used by countries like israel.. but didnt a modernized IDF M-113 (Zelda) got hit by RPG ambush and totally destroyed it in the recent 2014 conflict with hamas ? and if i recall correctly , there's one incident where an engineer unit's zelda also got ambushed and blown up into small pieces (IED ?) by palestinian freedom fighters in urban setting..
DeleteMy point is this : How survivable is M-113 (Upgraded / UpArmored) compared to other APC in modern setting / urban setting ? Compared to Stryker ? Compared to Bradley ? Compared to Puma ?
thats part of the issue. against IEDs wheeled vehicles are vastly superior to armored ones...in the open desert tracks are superior. i contend that in deep sand, jungle and on the beach tracks are superior. the issue is what it always is. you can design the perfect vehicle for all conditions or you can accept tradeoffs and compromises.
Deleteas far as the M-113 upgrade is concerned i note that the Israeli Army has gone with Namers. they have a different operating philosophy for their maneuver forces and came up with a unique vehicle to satisfy them.
"but the hyped up future version that people keep saying was just around the corner"
DeleteOkay, what one are you talking about?
I assume you are talking about the M113A4/MTVL? right?
Its not coming around the corner, much to the chagrin of M113 fans. As soon as the Stryker was adopted, any hope of this concept vehicle died with the dodo bird.
I think some people are getting wrapped around the "one vehicle can do it all, to include HBCT and Airborne" which is wrong.
You need seperate vehicles.
America seems unable to figure this out. Unfortunately, as posted previously by Sol, our adversaries goddamn sure are.
Nuno Gomes,
DeleteThere is a huge difference between having an opinion, and having an informed opinion. You have an opinion.
Battle taxi or battle truck?
ReplyDeleteYes the M-113 would work great, yes the Stryker is better.
One is an apple the other a pear, so compare but remember, one was at best a battle taxi, the other is a battle truck.
They both can and do the same mission. Hauling Grunts into battle and offering light support.
Both can die a burning, explosive death from the same weapons and both can fall off a highway bridge while under fire.
One is a known old battle tested war cart, the other is a new but battle tested war cart.
It really boils down to tracks or wheels.
Pick one and go with it.
I did a follow up explaining the logistics of the situation, which explains better why Big Army went with the Stryker instead of a m113 solution. Combat capabilities are similar enough between the systems that the answer lies elsewhere.
DeleteA bit of conjecture, but I actually agree with a few of his points.
ReplyDeleteFor one, with all of those upgrades, in addition to a stretched hull, it will be just as heavy as any modern vehicle of its class. To maintain amphibious and air transportable capability, you have to make compromises in protection. The most you will probably have is frontal 14.5mm. You cannot have 30mm protection and amphibious/C130 transportability. Not going to happen.
But the part about band tracks wearing out faster is a hasty assumption. The long-term advantages of newer band tracks remains to be seen. It is known, through anecdotes albeit, that they are quieter, which is a good thing.
Now, to ruffle a few feathers.
You need both tracked AND wheeled APCs/IFVs. No getting aroud this. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages. Its about goddamn time the Army caught up with everybody else, who have been fielding eight wheeled APCs/IFVs since the middle of the cold war. Its a niche that needed filled desperately.
"The real reason the Army went with a Stryker instead of an upgraded M113 is that the mission for he M113 was over"
Not remotely. This is where I disagree with AM.
The M113 was originally conceived as an airborne deployable vehicle for US expeditionary forces. US airborne armor disappeared into irrelevance, once the Sheridan was rightfully retired and the Buford never saw service. Nope. Humvees and Javelins are apparently a better substitute, at least in the eyes of many (and they're dead wrong).
Finally, there is not going to be a m113 2.0 or whatever. Too much politics and controversy behind it. We cannot retrofit existing M113s because those are ancient and worn. I really wish Sparks and his like would look at some of the fucking M113 hulls that I've seen. Not going to happen.
And going back to the original subject, you want to call critics of the Stryker retarded? What is retarded is people fervently defending a vehicle that didn't meet its original requirements for procurement (not just in terms of transport distance, but also something as elementary as "fitting inside the airplane thats supposed to transport it"). That is not even getting into the politics behind its adoption, which is due in no small part to the liar and con artist Eric Shinseki (yes, the "VA" Shinseki a.k.a. the black beret meister).
Really? So there is still a mission requirement for an airborne troop carrier to go fight the Russians streaming across the Fulda gap? Who knew?
DeleteThat mission is over. The response for that is prepositioned ABCT vehicle sets of Bradleys and Abrams, in Europe, the middle east, Korea/Japan, and afloat.
No.
DeleteAirborne forces need the mobility and firepower on a level far higher than what infantry and javelins can provide. This goes far beyond just ferrying troops to plug the gaps in NATO lines during a hypothetical hot war with the USSR.
Prepositioned heavy vehicles does no good when you actually need to drop behind the enemy main force or prevent them from retreating. Like the elements deployed in Northern Iraq during the initial invasion of OIF for example.
prepositioned heavy armor =/= a parachute deployed force behind the forward lines. Two different cats of a different meow.
No? Really? No actual facts other than your assertion that things must be the way you say?
DeleteThe 173rd jumped onto a secured LZ because they wanted mustard stains. They could have just as easily offloaded onto a forward landing strip. And they did it without M113s, so I fail to see how your argument has any bearing on reality.
Airborne forces in the US Army are light infantry. That's the fact. Our airborne cavalry units have been getting by with HMWWVs for so long that I see no reason to bring back M113s to use a troop carrier in a scout role. If you are dropping infantry who then need a battle taxi to get to the fight, you done dropped them in the wrong place.
From a blocking position, to stop an enemy retreat, Javelins and TOWs are sufficient when combined with the 105mm artillery, various mortar systems, and CAS. Adding a 113 to that doesn't bring any new missile systems to the fight, doesn't give the airborne forces a vehicle that can take a hit, and doesn't negate the need to dig in and prepare engagement zones.
The airborne mechanized force concept is dead in the US Army, at least for now, because it never lived up to the hype guys like you insist on spewing.
i didn't ask the question from a hype position but from observing procurement and testing. the 82nd is looking at a Ultra Light Combat Vehicle as we speak with the idea of adding mechanization to airborne forces.
Deleteso the question wasn't just to fuck with you but a real deal question in keeping with current Army procurement.
The ULCV program is meant to upgrade the capabilities currently fulfilled by the HMMWV, that literally has absolutely nothing to do with the M113. The Brits have been doing that with Land Rovers for decades, we did it with Jeeps and HMMWVs. As of right now I know of no one who is looking to drop armor out of aircraft.
DeleteAnyways, think of the trucks that get dropped with airborne forces as a rolling supply rooms, command posts, and arms rooms, not as fighting vehicles. Anything not in your rucksack better be on a truck because if it isn't, you ain't got it.
ULCV is not the only airborne program in the works, they are working on a light tank again known as "Mobile Protected Firepower." So airborne is working on air dropping armored fighting vehicles.
Delete"No? Really? No actual facts other than your assertion that things must be the way you say? "
DeleteSo just because you feel like a vehicle was designed for a certain era in a certain type of warfare, it should be constrained to that era, even if it is useful for other roles?
I have already mentioned the history behind the M113's development. No need to beat a dead horse.
"The 173rd jumped onto a secured LZ because they wanted mustard stains. They could have just as easily offloaded onto a forward landing strip. And they did it without M113s, so I fail to see how your argument has any bearing on reality."
You are missing the point.
The point of airborne forces is to not be involved in forward landing ship business, but rather, insertion behind the forward line to disrupt enemy rear actions. Right???
And the lack of mobility is a serious issue airborne infantry forces are currently dealing with. That is the point of my argument. Tracking?
"Airborne forces in the US Army are light infantry. That's the fact."
So what? just because they are "light infantry" does that mean that they dont need adequate transport?
"Our airborne cavalry units have been getting by with HMWWVs for so long that I see no reason to bring back M113s to use a troop carrier in a scout role."
I have already mentioned why this is wrong. HMMWVs are utility vehicles that are not resistant to small arms fire. M113-type vehicles are (or fuck it, the weisel for that manner or the BMD).
And you must have missed the part where I said "bring back the M113!" will not work for a wide variety of reasons.
" If you are dropping infantry who then need a battle taxi to get to the fight, you done dropped them in the wrong place."
Thats not true at all. Iraq, with its open terrain, was a perfect example of why. Troops without mobility to react to changes in the battlespace are a liability waiting to happen.
"From a blocking position, to stop an enemy retreat, Javelins and TOWs are sufficient when combined with the 105mm artillery, various mortar systems, and CAS."
I agree, but putting a disproportionate amount of the "fucking up bad guys in armor" job on individual infantry is just asking for losses, and when combined with 9-man squads, this is a perfect storm.
You need a family of vehicles with a variety of weapons such as a 30mm automatic cannon, Spike-type or NLOS missile, 105mm gun, and a missile to launch from that main gun. A substantial leap in firepower than just infantry and Javelins, who are reliant on other elements such as artillery and air.
"Adding a 113 to that doesn't bring any new missile systems to the fight, doesn't give the airborne forces a vehicle that can take a hit, and doesn't negate the need to dig in and prepare engagement zones."
Adding a current M113 doesn't add anything new and this is why I never argued for it to be added.
T"he airborne mechanized force concept is dead in the US Army, at least for now, because it never lived up to the hype guys like you insist on spewing."
In what way? and that is a profoundly arrogant thing to say, considering we never fought against a enemy with airbrone mechanized forces (i.e. the Soviet Union).
And the belligerents in the Ogaden War would disagree with the idea that airborne armor is just "hype".
The "Mobile Protected Firepower" procurement is even less along than the GCV was when it was killed, or the Comanche, or the NLOS cannon, XM8, HK416, FN SCAR, etc. I no longer get excited about anything until it is fielded.
ReplyDeleteWhat will happen is that unless the system is cheap, and I mean dirt cheap, because only 5 Airborne Brigades are left, which means only 5 airborne Cavalry Squadrons exist to use whatever this thing is, which means a procurement of about 45 vehicles for the Active Army, plus another 5 for training.... It simply won't happen. 45 light airborne tanks aren't worth the logistic hassle, which is why we got rid of the Sheridans in the first place.
The ULCV program shares a user base with SOCOM, so that will get procurred, and the CH-47 internally transportable requirement means the 101st will probably adopt it as well to some extent. But the point is that you won't get any armor better than 14.5mm protection air dropped, so at that point you might as well just stick bigger guns/missiles on thin skins.
Now eventually some new super boron carbide nano weave armor will be cheap enough that a light, protected, air drop tank might be affordable. And if it uses a common engine, transmission, and turret with something else in the inventory might be adopted. Whatever it is, it would have to be significantly better than the Sheridan, which was significantly better than an M8 Greyhound.
The dream of an airborne mechanized force will never die. It is almost as deeply ingrained as the myth of victory through air power.
and that bring us to the 101st. In the Us Army there are Heliborne and Conventional Airborne represented by the 101st and 82nd Airborne. Those trying to push a Armored Airborne always point to the VDV. but the VDV has the Mi26 with a payload about equal to a C130J. the Largest Chopper in US Service is the CH53. thats a 30,000 lb cargo load or 15 tons a M113 with out the extras or infantry is about 12.3 tons Thats a Stock APC no IFV turret. the math doesn't work. Because once you start with the extras like engine and armament before you even get to the Crew and Infantry you max out.Thats with out mentioning that the US Army doesn't have CH53 so that's not going to happen to the 101st as the heaviest a Ch47 can lift is 14 tons which is the vehicle alone and not even with a crew.
ReplyDeleteSo that's out Unless they actually intend JMR-Ultra a A400M class lifter tiltrotor but that's not till maybe the 2030's and by that point the youngest M113A3 be at least 23 years old. older then most of the guys who would be using it at that point in time but cumitivly the M113 family will be pushing 70.
so your going to have a vehicle type only for the 82nd. it's going to have to fit the C130 okay plus you need them to have all the modern goodies, power packs weapons targeting systems coms and at least a 9 man infantry squad. and you can only drop them from a C130. biggest load a C130 can take is well lets be generous and say C130J-30 at 22 tons.vehicle weight of 12.3 tons and that's for the base model APC move to the APC and its 14 tons okay but your not getting not counting ammo and infantry by the end it's possible but thin and you can only send one at a time which eats up your C130's because a at the end of it what can normally drop 92( C130J-30) troops is cant do that with a full Armored Vehicle in the belly so for every M113 you sent you have to send one C130J so the price of the drop has to be factored into your calculus and then comes the next kicker. Whats the use? presumably you want to drop this behind enemy lines right? Okay how do you resupply? you have a 300 mile operational range. your dropping them behind the lines to attack the enemy but you have to keep those troops in the field combat effective. they need food, water and ammo. There Vehicles need water, Fuel, Spare parts and Ammo. the more vehicle types the more spare parts and ammo types. now what do you do to keep them operational. If fighting the Russians or Chinese you have to consider the possibility that your transports cannot keep running to them as the enemy will employ air denial whether fighters, sams or both running C130's to drop point is going to be come a gauntlet. moving to them by the ground demands an offencive. because you can't have tanker trucks running enemy blockades with our either being captured or turned into massive bond fires followed by the supply trucks that are moving with them. unless you intend to try and have your Airborne forces assault to you. but if they do what happens when they hit the enemies front line and those guns get turned on them? if the best option we have is the M113 for Airborne armor... Were not ready for it. A light vehicle like the Flyer might not offer the protection of the M113 but it has 85mph faster then any tank in service. it can be dropped anywhere slung under a chopper or out a chopper. it's not meant to stand and fight it's meant to raid to run and gun then drive like they stole it. the MPF requirement might push for a vehicle like the XM8 but then again it might also create something like the French EBRC Jaguar
Even the XM8 only had 14.5mm protection in air drop form. You had to bolt on armor on the ground to get better protection, and the Army never got the thing to work except on paper.
ReplyDeleteThey did build prototypes and the design is in fact in use or rather one of the competitors has a derivative that has seen action. The Stingray light tank used by Thailand. Although i don't think they ever dropped it.
Delete