A very interesting article.
David,
Thanks for the link. Haven’t seen that site. Alot of other interesting stuff there
Thanks
very interesting… thanks DAVE!!!
Just goes to show, we think we know it all, but times dictate changes to everyones way of thought. As the article says, you gotta be real close to do serious damage to a modern MBT. Disable the tracks and you have have to be prepared to be on the recieving end of a main gun round shortly thereafter. ‘Have a go’ or ‘bug out.’…hmm tough choice - only if you are a fanatic! Only way I’d be taking on an M1 is in another tank, hull down, camo’d and within range to get the first shot on target without chance of a miss… oh, and as long as the M1’s buddies aren’t around.[:D]
Thanks Dave
Good link Dave. I’ve been hearing that line of thinking from a lot of Army guys because the light vehicles are too easily taken out by RPG and other “light” weapons.
Eric
I think you need to remember that victory is, ultimately, a political, rather than a military concept, and there is more to victory, in a situation like Iraq, then just killing so many of the other guy that the other guy gives up. Many of the senior generals in the US army at the moment must have been company or platoon commanders in Vietnam; does the phrase ‘hearts and minds’ not ring a bell with them?
In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein and the IRA made huge political capital when, in the early 1970s, the British army used Centurion AVREs to clear barricades once or twice, and ,by the standards of Islamic fundamentalists, the IRA are pretty reasonable guys. When Al Jazera shows pcitures of M1A2s rolling down the streets of some Iraqi town, how may more volunteers for the Iraqi resistance will that recruit from the unemployed youth of that sad country? And that’s before someone gets lucky with a RPG…
If you want peace and stability in Iraq, spend the money on Arabic-speaking school teachers, and get the US Army engineers building schools and hospitals. And if the US government can’t get Arabic-speaking school teachers to work for them, maybe they ought to ask themselves why.
Chris.
Hey, did they ever learn what it was that conpletly knocked out two m1 abrams early in the war. I remember reading about it last year, the pentagon was baffled what did it. The crews survived unharmed though. Bill
This is what I have argued all along are Army has been built up for linear combat. With the use of unarmoured supply convoys and a WWII way of thinking that we can simbly use trucks to resupply the front lines. Many soldiers are dying because of unarmoured vehicles victim to RPG’s. Isreal has proven that this sort of non-linear combat or urban terrorism such as roadside bombs must be supplied with and transported with nothing less than an armored vehicle. Washington is simlply trying to save themselves the embaressment of admiting that the Stryker project was a complete failure(an eight wheeled non rpg proof vehicle) how many more troops must die because the brass wont admit that the Bradley is a much more effective and safe troop transporter and that money could have been spent on Up armouring vehicles.
jessiahkinnamon, I agree completely. The only problem with using a tank in an urban environment like Iraq is the risk of a luck hit. The presence of something as big and scarry as an an M1A2 is intimidating to your average person, but provocative to the radical few. If those few can destroy it, the psychological impact is huge. Suddenly, we’re not quite so intimidating, and the few can quickly become the majority.
Interesting discussion…
They are working on countering the RPG threat to the Stryker by adding slot armor. While not a perfect solution, it is helping. From what I’ve read, they’re also looking at adding on ceramic armor tiles.
Slat Armor for Stryker APC
Countering the RPG Threat
Pair of Stryker vehicles come under fire in Iraq
Iraq duty sells soldiers on ‘quiet’ Stryker (2nd story on the page)
I’ve read where it was suggested that the Army should have taken the many M113s in it’s inventory, added on the extra armor and sent those over. The idea was the M113 would provide better protection than the Hummers.
Back to the Stryker, I don’t think it’s a complete failure. I don’t see it as a replacement for the M1 or the M2. But I think it’s going to serve a very useful purpose. Looking at the additional configurations they have planned, those roles are currently filled by an assortment of vehicles, such as M113s , Hummers, and the Bradley in some cases. The Stryker will be a common platform, better protection than the M113 and Hummer, and much quieter than the Bradley. The Bradley isn’t exactly the stealthiest vehicle for the role of reconnaissance.
Stryker
Stryker comprises two variants – the Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) and the Mobile Gun System (MGS). The ICV has eight additional configurations: Reconnaissance Vehicle (RV), Mortar Carrier (MC), Commanders Vehicle (CV), Fire Support Vehicle, (FSV), Engineer Squad Vehicle (ESV), Medical Evacuation Vehicle (MEV), Anti-tank Guided Missile Vehicle (ATGM), and NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV).
You carry a good point Mr Voss, But the Stryker still has points that are very vulnerable to an RPG. Its huge wheel wells as shown in your picture are completley vulnerable , and last time I checked rubber burns easily and hot. The armor on the Stryker is still not RPG proof. In fact the Military is so worried about its vulnerability that They are placing almost 300 of the vehicles in the Northern Sector of Iraq where the Kurds make up most of the population, They were afraid if they brought them down any further south the Arabs would light em up like a Christmas tree. You are right I wouldnt say it is a complete failure but the money certainly could have been spent on Up armouring the already well proven M113 as you stated I to have heard that the M113 is the awnser to the hummer.
Hmm… I found some more interesting articles/opinions.
Stryker Rundown
Actually, Lots of Facts, But Pointless
M113 Gavins in Combat – pro M113, but nonetheless very interesting.
Troop Carriers Survive Roadside Bombs
Among the latest acquisitions are 27 troop-transport armored vehicles from Force Protection Inc., of Ladson, S.C.
Force Protection Inc - Buffalo
Israel’s Main Battle Tanks Adapted For Urban Combat, Low-Intensity Conflict
Now that Is the only way to go to war , Do you have any other sites on that vehicle I would love to see how effective that is and if the military will take it under its wing
No, I haven’t found much more on it. Sounds relatively new.
…back to the Stryker…
There’s a lengthy report that was published back in 2003. It’s 100+ pages. I haven’t had time to read through it, but looks interesting. You can find it in PDF – 3rd item on the page → http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_rpt/
STRYKER BRIGADES Versus THE REALITY OF WAR Written by Victor O’Reilly for Congressman Jim Saxton, Aug 22, 2003 - The issue raised in this report is whether the US Army should be allowed to field the Stryker, a family of vehicles whose extensive deficiencies are comprehensively laid out in the following pages, but which, for technical, bureaucratic and political reasons, has managed to elude the Department of Defense’s Operational Test and Evaluation. [PDF 3.27 Mb]
Apparently you people haven’t seen what an rpg or a mine does to an M113. A lot of years ago we had the same problem -they hung spall curtains on the inside and lined the floor and areas over tracks with a double layer of sand bags. And everybody still rode on top because the spall curtains and sandbags just slowed everything down enough that it wouldn’t go through the roof and get you. All of which meant that you raised the weight of the vehicle enough that you only went off road if you absolutly had to. (take a look at the track width on the 113 family).
As far as the Stryker is concerned, from all the descriptions it’s in the same class as the 113, basically a battle taxi with enough armor to protect those inside from shell fragments and direct fire up to 50 cal. However it’s more versatile because its road speed is higher, probably gets better fuel mileage and with the adjustable air pressure in the tires go in places where a 113 would be hollering for a retriever. As far as the tires burning, I’ve seen tanks burn and they’ll burn for hours. There’s a lot of other things in a combat vehicle that will burn longer and hotter than a rubber tire. And for another thing most Marines I have talked to who have been around them, love their LAVs.
Don’t know what the answer is, but modifing a 1950’s design piece of equipment to do something it wasn’t designed to do will probably just lead to more problems
This reminds me of the T-34’s with bedsprings during the Battle of Berlin
A couple of interesting points about the M113…
The A3’s were supposed to be fitted with applique armor, but the armor wasn’t added during production (funding issues?).
The IDF is outfitting their M113s with the same reactive armor being ordered for the Bradley IFVs.
RAFAEL Supply Reactive Armor for Bradley Fighting Vehicles
M-113 Upgrading & Modernization Program
Gary Motsek, the deputy director of support operations for US army materiel command, said: “I have roughly 700 113-series vehicles sitting pre-positioned in Kuwait, though some are in need of repairs. I have them available right now, if they want them.”
People are arguing that with the M113s already in theatre, the Pentagon should have deployed these rather than waiting for the upgrades for the Hummers. The upgraded Hummers have problems of their own, one being the extra weight. On the other hand, one point rarely mentioned is training. Hummers are fairly easy for anyone to drive, whereas a M113 would require some additional training, not too mention the experience factor.
Replace the hopeless Humvee, Pentagon chiefs are urged
WHEELED ARMORED CARS: FAILURES NOT THE “FUTURE” OF WARFARE
Home of the 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne) - Has a lot of references to the M113 vs. Stryker debate.
Another interesting article…
Supplementary Vehicle Armour
Now THAT’s a cool truck! Dave, you working on the masters for us yet??? [:D]
I need to find out about that company building them too “TSG has entered into a business alliance with Peterbilt through Rush Enterprises of Texas.” I wonder if I’m related…hmmmmm… [;)]
Eric
I am not saying that the M113 is invincible because that it is not, but there are armor kits that can be applied that many countries have employed on their own M113s. The UN uses a version of the M113 in countries such as Bosnia and Somalia. I am also restating what the Army itself is planning to do with the M113 is replacing the hummer already in many parts of Iraq for patrol purposes. The M113 is not the awnser obviously to the whole picture but id definetly rather ride in an M113 with a little extra armor than a hummer when I know that there are people who would love to see me up in smoke.