M113 v Stryker

Modeling Subjects Armor
1

What’s the basis of the argument? I’m sorry if I start something here, but where did this fight come from? I ran into it on another forum.

From what I know about the M113 it is an old APC that was/is highly upgradeable and modifiable but not appropriate for modern combat as it is over forty years old and unsuitable for improvements that may occur in the future.

I know a lot about the Stryker, and it appears to be a superior vehicle in to the M113 in regards of maneuverability, surviveability, servicibility, and armament. It is also brand new and well-suited to new upgrades.

2

where did you hear the arguement? seems like comparing a M48 with an Abrams

3

Youtube, actually. Someone put out a video series trashing everything from the Navy’s failure to buy the PRM SeaMaster and F2Y SeaDart to the Army’s purchase of the M113.

Good analogy, I didn’t think of that one. Makes perfect sense, too. The M48 was a great tank, but it can’t compare to the Abrams in the same way that the M113 was and is a great vehicle, but can’t compare to the Stryker.

4

That argument sounds like from a person who hasn’t even seen a single minute in the military. M113 did and continue to serve the army (for at least for another few decades) well. So, what is wrong with M113?

5

Nothing, from what I’ve read/heard, I just don’t see the validity of comparing it to a Stryker and concluding that the Stryker is a deathtrap, isn’t as mobile, is only doing the jobs the M113 does, can’t do what the M113 can do, etc.

I’ve read the battle record of the M113, it is very impressive. It contributed greatly to modern battlefield strategy as our first true APC. I’m not bashing the vehicle, I just don’t think that it can be compared to the Stryker.

6

a APC from what about the 60s compared to a similar weapon from the 21st century is apples V. oranges it is not a fair comparison regardless of other issues. I bet the guy that started that on the other board is a troll[|(]

7

Matt,

You are right. You can’t really compared those two vehicles. Stryker was designed for rapid deployment, especially to an urban battle scenes VS M113, tracked vehicle that was designed many moons ago for different type of battle scenarios. Both fine vehicles for what they are designed for. Stryker is a newer vehicle so it probably can accommodate more modern stuff and probably cost a lot more money compared M113. M113 is more of an recycling project (with budget in mind) for the army with newer upgrades here and there.

8

God, give me strength! The M113 has been one of the MOST versatile, flexible, and successful APC’s ever built anywhere! It’s ‘replacement’ is the Bradley IFV, not the Stryker. At one point, it looked like the M113 was going to go out of the inventory entirely, when it was discovered that there just wasn’t a suitable commanders track to go along with the Abrams and Bradley’s, and the Bradley was considered too expensive to either modify or ‘waste’ as a commanders vehicle. Thus, the M113/A3, which with its significantly upgraded suspension and power train can easily keep up with an Abrams over any terrain (and I believe the medics use 'em as ambulances as well these days). M113’s have been produced in more versions, for more purposes than you can shake a stick at, and all (with the exception of the A3’s) using the same chassis, engines, tracks, etc, etc, etc. It’s not just about what an individual vehicle can do, it is what a whole FAMILY of vehicles can do. Commonality of parts is the name of the game as far as logistics is concerned, and it is logistics that keeps an army in the field, instead of a resupply depot you knuckleheads! For all these reasons, the M113 remains an outstanding vehicle that can be easily modified to do just about anything, and can accommodate just about any kind of equipment you can think of (at the end of the day, it is an armored box; put anything in it you want!).

Is the M113 series a ‘recycling project?’ Well sure! That’s the whole point, you maggots! I can tell you, the M577A1 (command track) that I commanded through the first Gulf War was recycled from a Vietnam casualty 20 years before (and you could still see where the RPG round had gone through the drivers compartment, despite the welded-over hole in the armor!), and it did the business needed well enough, but I admit, I was VERY jealous of those M113A3’s (those things can MOVE!)…

As for the Stryker, it has its good points, particularly in an urban environment, but it has some significant drawbacks too. It is a tall vehicle, which means it has a lot harder time keeping low and out of sight. It is a wheeled vehicle, which means it has a harder time negotiating difficult terrain. It is also a complicated vehicle, and complicated means ‘more to go wrong,’ which is not helpful if you are on the move for long periods. But the Stryker can be deployed quicker and easier than a M113, is faster on roads, and carries significant firepower where it is needed at a much cheaper cost than a Bradley, and when you consider that the planners were thinking that wars in the future were going to be ‘brushfires’ and short deployments, it looked like the Stryker would be a real winner. Of course, they hadn’t figured on Iraq lasting like it has, or turning out like it has either! At the end of the day, the actual ‘war’ was fought and won by Abrams, Bradleys, M113’s, and our good friends in the sky (all of 'em!), and the Stryker has yet to deal with an opponent with armor, so I’m not sure you can say it has been fully ‘tested’ yet!

9

I would agree with all thsoe points but one. The stryker DOES do quite well offroad. I’m not going to say I am or ever have been in military service, I’m not. I have a medical history that kept me out. I know I tried. Just my medical records alone were enough to get me auto DQ’ed. Anyhow my grandfather was retired career army man, and I spent ALOT of time with him on Fort Lewis when they were testing these things. These things were awesome. I’ve heard the argument that Fort Lewis is almost all flat open ground covered in grass. While it’s true large parts of it are, there are area’s that are immensly wicked. There are tank traps out there, that stop the Abrams in it’s tracks. The stryker however made it right through. So did I in my 1982 Datsun 4x4, with mostly bald 31inch tall Avon M/T’s. In 2WD through most of them. Tanks can’t go over all terrains, and neither can wheels. They each have terrain that they can’t go on but the other can. One advantage is that if the Stryker has lockers(which I believe it does, and it would be retarded if it didn’t), is if you take out a tire on the Stryker, it can keep going, with nearly no loss of performance. If you take out a track on the tank, it has to be repaired or you just run around in circles looking like a crazed idiot. Although I must admit it’d be fun as hell spinning circles in a tracked vehicle. Which brings another advantage to that type of drive.Zero foot turning radius, they can spin on axis, the Stryker cannot. As was pointed out, different purposes. I know a Marine, that got to ride in a Stryker sometimes, he loved it every time. He ws ok with Bradleys, and AAVP7’s, and such, but the Stryker, is something he would do almost anything to ride in. The M113, if they are smart, will be in service for another 40 years. It may end up being outmoded as a frontline fighter, but in the next generation of automated fighting vehicles, the M113 is easily adapted to such a roll. It’s already been done in Israel. Israel has some that are completely automated, and some that only have a driver, and a gun controller sitting at a computer station. When automated, you don’t have to deal with the thought of armoring to keep the guys inside from getting killed, only enough to keep the systems functional. Which is easier to do. Plus the ambulance role is a good one as well. I think it makes a better ambulance then the Hummers I’ve seen fulfilling that roll. Would make a great parts hauler and mobile station for engineers and the like, mechanics and whatnot. Besides aren’t they still making parts for the M113’s?

10

Plain and simple, the Chief of Staff of the Army (at the time) did not want soldiers going into combat in the 2000’s with the same basic vehicle he went to war with in Vietnam. Back when he was the 1st Cav CG, his goal was to develop a medium weight combat force that was a deployable as the airborne forces yet had more combat stopping power than the basically leg infantry units that airborne troops become when they land on the ground.

We held a PPD or Platform Performance Demonstration at Ft. Knox to compare the attributes of the M113A3 FOV (Family of Vehicles) to the Stryker FOV. Some of the benefits to the Stryker that were much better than the 113 were the overall weight and the ability to travel at highway speeds for great distances.

When a unit is landed at some airfield or airport, the Strykers can be offloaded, jump onto the nearest highway and travel a hundred miles at at decent speed to get to where they need to go.

The M113A3 was limited in speed and distance it could go. For those of you who may have done the long road marches in tanks and 113s on the German autobahns, after several hours, the vibrations and rattling have just about wore you out.

The Stryker did not replace the M113, these APCs are still serving in the US Army heavy brigade combat teams. It is still a viable, versatile weapon system that will be in use for decades.

The Stryker did replace some of the airborne/airmobile/light infantry forces, making them mechanized when they hit the ground.

11

Yup, agreed. As having served in armor (2AD FWD), mech infantry (8th ID and 1st ID) and light infantry (7th ID), I can tell you that the airborne guys were always at a very distinct disadvantage; always sent in first, with the least to defend themselves! I can’t tell you how many exercises at the NTC I have watched the armored OPFOR just roll over the 82nd, 101st, and the 7th ID Light (‘light Fighters’ became ‘Light Fritters’ real quick!), so an easily deployable light armored vehicle with some real firepower was a must, and had been for a very long time (notwithstanding the Sheridans).

Of course, a lot of this problem is simply a result of what the Airborne is used for, rather than what they are ‘supposed’ to do. As long as Airborne is used for aerial parachute insertion behind enemy lines, particularly in urban, jungle, forested or mountain environments, leg infantry do fine. But quite frankly, that scenario hasn’t been around much since Vietnam, with most ‘combat jumps’ mostly done for the glory of the thing rather than combat necessity. All that said, BECAUSE the Airborne and light infantry like 10th Mountain are so easily and quickly deployed, they ARE, almost regardless of the military situation on the ground. And I’ll betcha every single one of those guys, especially those that have been in the Army for more than a few years just LOVE those Strykers!

The M113A3 was designed to keep up with the Bradleys and Abrams in a armored combat environment (which the old M113’s just were not able to). They can be modified to fit almost any combat or suppoert role, and have. Rolling down a road is great, and IS generally the fastest way from A to B, but the point of tracked vehicle is to go off-road and catch the enemy where he doesn’t expect you to go (IED’s? What IED’s? ‘Where we’re going, we don’t NEED roads!’). Wheeled vehicles inherently get better speed and lots better mileage than a track, and that is very important to remember when you are fairly lightly equipped logistics-wise. I remember during the first Gulf War one of the biggest problems was getting fuel tankers up to the front to keep the tanks and IFV’s from running out of fuel. The tanker trucks just couldn’t keep up, and neither could a LOT of wheeled support vehicles, and it appears the problem would have been almost as bad in this latest hurrah if the powers that be hadn’t carefully chosen their MSR’s (Main Supply Routes, maggots!) to include major highways heading North for most of the way. In any case, it appears pretty clear to me that the M113’s will be around for a long time to come, perhaps as long as there continue to be heavy armor units with soldiers in them.

One last point about wheels VS tracks, the old Soviet army (and the current Russian one too) has always had both wheeled and tracked APC’s/IFV’s for the specific reason that each performs their role, in their environment, better than the other, but that doesn’t necessarily make one ‘better’ than the other!

12

on the wheels vs track

which is more likely to cave in combat?

13

I did read an article that was very pro M113. It just blasted the Stryker and praised the M113. But after reading these comments it I see that these are designed for different uses. As far as wheels V tracks I know that our tractor is much better on fuel than the Skid steer. I know I’ve spent the last two days on the skid steer and it drinks fuel.

Grizz

14

These kind of argument is almost like which is better, Porch 911 or GMC Sierra 2500 pick up truck. Both fine vehicles designed for very different usage.

15

Track vehicles are inherently more survivable in combat and more maneuverable cross country. The tracks spread the weight of the vehicle along the entire length, wheeled vehicles place the entire weight of the vehicle at however many points (tires) the vehicle has.

Because of this, a tracked vehicle can support more weight and thus be more heavily armored pound-for-pound than a wheeled vehicle can.

16

[#ditto] M1

With that aside as well stated by searat and Rob, the Stryker gives us something we did not have…it is not a replacement for the M113. The M113 and Bradley are with armor and mech forces while the Stryker is for light forces. I spent many years in a light unit and the light units (abn, aa and mt) back then would have given their right arm for a Stryker.

We would joke that the mission of the light units was a dip mission…“die in place”. We were deployed to stall until armor could arrive. The light units of WWII were…for the most part employed properly…behind the lines, urban, small important point targets.

In Korea and especially VN the were just more boots on the ground. Doctrine was in flux. The Europian concept was delay until more forces arrive.

In this day and age with less boots in the Army every unit is important. The Stryker gives the light units the ability to reach out with the tip of their spear and be an offensive power.

The idea of which will last longer is not an issue. NO VEHICLE WILL LAST 5 MINUTES UNLESS PROPERLY EMPLOYED.

Tell me which vehicle will have less causulaties carrying troops who come under SA fire…M998, M35A2 or M925 or a Stryker. I’ll take the Stryker any day.

Rounds Complete!!

17

I happened to work for the company that built the drive trains for both combat vehicles, and went thru about 80% of the upgrades that followed. First of all they are built for vastly different roles, and actually don’t interchange all that well in many areas of operation.

  • for dry land operations the Stryker is probably a little better. It’s drive train is pure automotive in concept. It’s cheaper to build & maintain. The drive train is actually similar to what’s in a larger RV.

  • the M113 series is a better off the road combat vehicle when it comes to mud and snow. It can traverse water if it’s equiped with the correct drive train package or the X200 drive train. But the X200 also cost about six to eight times as much as the MD in the Stryker. Also is capable of handeling a much higher load than the MD. I think the gun package is a mute point as you could actually install anything in a Stryker on an M113 (or vise versa). The one down fall with the M113 is the aluminium armor plate verses the slanted steel armor on the Stryker. Yet neither one has proven tobe anything capable of stopping an RPG. Also the M113 series is a much older design, and really compares with the Bradley. Then of course we have an all together different ball game (but not without more faults). One thing that’s often overlooked in the M113 (probably because the hull is made of aluminium) is just how durable it is. It’s capable of withstanding command detonated mines in the 82mm class, and has been known to do OK with a 105 round going off in the front end (usually blowing off the drive sprocket and busting a couple torsion bars). The M113 actually started out with an automove drive train, that was upgraded to a true tank style gearbox in the early eighties.

gary

18

In the early eighties we intruduced TACOM to the X200 transmission, and they took it and ran with it. We are still building a couple hundred of them a month. This transmission is very similar to the X1100 used in the Abrams, and is very similar to (but of course smaller) to the X300 series that was to go into the Bradleys when TACOM was searching for a better drive train to replace the OEM one. It’s a full hydrostatic drive gearbox. Towards the latter part of the eighties we drug out the tooling for the TX1000 transmission and built several hundred of them, and then scraped the tooling. I think all those went to Korea or maybe Europe. At one time there was some interest in replacing the Detroit engine with the Cummins out of a Dodge pickup truck, and they actually did build a handfull of them for testing. If they plan on discontinuing the M113, they still must be planning on building the X200 for quite awhile yet. As a couple years ago they did a major retool of the basic assembly areas as well as the testing equipment (test stands are very high dollar and will only work on one style of gearbox).

gary

19

Interesting thread.

No one has mentioned that it is the Airborne forces, 82nd AB in particular that wants the upgraded M113 “Gavin” instead of the Stryker. They also want the 4 to 6 completed XM8 Armored Gun Systems (presumably in lieu of Strkyer MGS).

The reason is simple. Stryker MGS will not fit in any C-130 and the M1128 Styker can only fit in a C-130J. Neither are air droppable or LAPES deployable. The M113 Gavin AND the M8 AGS both are and both will fit in any C-130 with a full combat load. This is why 82nd AB wants them.

The Stryker is a great system to enhance light forces, however there is a Stryker
“Mafia” that is very leery of having their pet project overshadowed by the capability of tracked vehicles so the 82nd are being told to “make do” with Strykers (and in essence depend on the availability of C-5, C-141, and C-17 aircraft.)

Admittedly I am on the tread head side of the argument -19E, 11B, 19K, and 19D(M3) are my MOS’. The M8 AGS “Buford” is an awesome light tank, much better fitted to an anti-tank/tank destroyer mission than a Stryker MGS IMO. A turreted tank need only to unmask it’s “dog house” or commander’s hatch to scan the battlefield. A Stryker MGS while it keeps it’s crew down below the enemy line of fire while engaging, it must expose it’s gun contiuously in order to see the battlefield in front of it…making it alot easier to detect and engage with indirect fire.

20

Quoting “Sheepdog A39”

“Interesting thread…” Very, cogent points, no trolls…

They also want the 4 to 6 completed XM8 Armored Gun Systems … So who is going to kit this? Scratch build anyone?

Stryker MGS … M1128 Stryker … From a modellers’ point of View, will make interesting kits…

& on “air droppable or LAPES deployable”, …

(Aside)…

I saw a demo of a (Strengthened!) 109" Landrover & 105mm Light gun from 7 Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery (7 PARA RHA) LAPES deployed from a Herculese (C-130 to you guys) at about 20-30 feet, & if memory serves, & a second pass at about 200-250 feet for the gun crew to parachute deploy at a Larkhill (UK) Artillery Day display. The PM & gun were palleted on a overgrown mechano structure

fun fun fun…

http://www.army.mod.uk/16_air_asslt_bde/brigade_units_.htm

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2005/press_1309200518.html

http://baesystems.com/ProductsServices/l_and_a_ls_105mm_light_gun.html