Why don't we bring the M113s back into service?
They're literally perfect for multiple roles and are loads cheaper than any Striker variant. Not to mention that they are tracked and won't have as much issue with rough terrain.
>>29471741
because theyre 50 year old matinence nightmares that get raped by ww2 era shaped charge weapons
>>29471741
>>29471741
Tracks are good, but their maintenance is insane. Literally fucking insane.
Wheels were chosen for a reason for the Stryker. Also, road travel is way better with wheels.
>>29471741
M113's are going to still be in service for a long time to come, even as AMPV's start replacing them in ABCT's in 2-3 years.
Though this is a bait thread and anyone who actually had an interest in the subject would know this.
Could always make them into mobile cargo transports, long after they're retired from combat.
>>29471741
Because they melt if you keep them in the sun too long, have terrible fuel efficency, and as stated, it cost as much to keep them working than it does to make them.
That, and we never actually retired them.
>>29471896
modern tracked systems are better than wheels
Wheels were chosen for the stryker because specific generals had wheeled fetishes
This has, predictably, turned into a disaster.
most of the complaints about the M113 are because the US refused to upgrade them or uparmor them due to this wheeled fetish.
>>29472416
meanwhile you can't explain why modern wheeled vehicles are so popular because your narrow worldview keeps you from recognizing the advantages wheeled vehicles have
>>29471741
Fuck off Sparky
>>29472663
>muh strategic mobility!
>Compares modern day vehicles to shit from 30-40 years ago
excellent just excellent
For anything OTHER than driving down roads, wheels are inferior to tracks.
Modern rubber tracks are equal to wheels on roads.
>>29471741
>They're literally perfect for multiple roles and are loads cheaper than any Striker variant.
>>>/combatreform/
>>29473130
>Compares modern day vehicles to shit from 30-40 years ago
Well, that's what you're doing here, aren't you?
>>29473130
>Modern rubber tracks are equal to wheels on roads.
>>29471741
They're also deathtraps and have outlived any possible upgrades.
Is the M113 "Gavin" nutter going to show up in this thread?
>>29473364
Sparks himself? Probably not, you might get the gliderfag to though.
>>29471760
>50 year old matinence nightmares
have you ever seen what an M113 looks like inside?
it's literally a box with an engine. a honda civic is a more complex machine.
>>29473272
>>29473210
It's true m8
Which is why the army is purchasing the AMPV
>>29471741
Fuck off Sparky
Fuck that, just make them into remote operated VBIEDs.
>>29473591
>Number of new tracked vehicle test and evaluation programs that the Army has conducted over the past 30 years: over 9 gorillion
>Number of vehicles fielded from those programs: 0
I suspect they're not being scrapped because in whatever next conflict we will have, the U.S. is going to robotize m113's.
>>29471965
How come the US never got into ferrets? I know the striker is a major PoS, but who's pockets were getting lined so hard to gimp US armour so bad?
They're being kept around, I suspect, to be robotized for a future conflict.
>>29471741
Get back in your shipping container, Sparky
Who the fuck are these people who think 113s are not in service anymore? The US Army alone has thousands of them in active use.
>>29473773
>I know the striker is a major PoS
I was going to respond seriously until you went full retard.
>>29473130
For anything other than driving on extremely soft terrain like deep mud, tracks are inferior to wheels.
>>29473727
Because the US army had their programs cancelled & had a light wheeled vehicle fetish for a time
Now that's changed and they are going to go heavier
>>29473888
It's my BattleBox, fucker
I can't believe no one has considered dropping these from gliders.
>>29473383
"simple" doesnt necessarily mean "low matinence".
a 65 stang is pretty fucking simple compared to a civic too. Guess which one needs regular greasemonkeying to function, and which one can go 150k miles on regular oil changes and a filter swap or two?
>>29474049
but what if we filled them with attack ants first
>>29474017
Now you get to explain why wheels have become so prevalent worldwide in the last 20 years.
>>29471741
Take your meds Mike.
>>29474003
If your route to a destination requires you to pass through mud/river/soft sand/snow/etc
Then the wheeled vehicle simply cannot get there
Doesn't matter if 99% of the journey was road.
>>29474060
My guess is urbanization.
We had hundreds of them sitting in Kuwait during the early years of Iraq War. When we had a huge need for armored vehicles. When we were bolting and welding scrap sheet steel to our trucks and stuff the floors with sand bags. Just to get any sort of extra protection.
The M113 and variants might not have fared better against the IED. It would have at least given us a gun platform that was resistant most small arms.
They took my M577 in 2005 and replaced her with a Stryker. Fucking piece of shit Stryker.
>>29473988
>Can't handle mud
>only works on roads
>needs extra extra armour and a full body cage to survive
>couldn't handle IEDs in an area expected to be laden with IEDs
There are better options in a dozen different ways, why the stryker?
>>29474058
killer bees, then you wouldn't have to spend so much money on the joint strike fighter.
>>29474081
Oh, you are the anon who says not being 'as good' as a tracked vehicle means being incapable of traveling on extremely soft terrain.
>>29474132
>There are better options in a dozen different ways
>non mentioned
>>29474060
Cold War is over and no more need for tracks, because no more need to fight a war across the fields of eastern europe.
Wheels are lighter, cheaper, and easier to maintain. Which makes for better light forces you can send all over the world. To fight wars against poor brown people in the name of globalism and zionism.
Which is going to be the downfall of the US as a military power. Just like it did to the UK and French in the first half of the 20th century. They kept their forces as expeditionary/colonial forces. Just enough to oppress the brown people. Yet not enough to fight a real war.
>>29474122
How can you win the Hearts and Minds if you are driving around in scary tracked vehicles?
How could they sell the stryker if they were doing the job with M113's?
>>29474118
My guess is technology.
>>29474158
Thank you for letting us know you are unfamiliar with the structure of the US Army, let alone what it is set up to fight against.
>>29474138
>fuck my life hans, fuck my life
Listen OP, I know you've got a hard on for the 113, but I and many others have seen how these things perform downrange and they just don't hold up in modern combat. I've seen a deep buried IED throw one of these things 20 feet in the air and flip it on its roof. The ones that we pulled out that were still alive were extremely fucked up. Those that lived long enough to make it to Landstuhl were probably all medically discharged.
How does an MRAP fare? The wheels get blown off and the crew gets rattled around a bit, but they're not fucked up for the rest of their lives because of it.
>>29474171
I was in the US Army. They didn't start training everyone to fight real armies again, until just a few years ago.
We don't have as many heavy mech units as we did during the Cold War.
>>29474180
thrown tracks in deep mud is the worst.
Experienced it my self once at JRTC. M577 threw a track, no Herc to pull us out, tropical storm starting to hit the area. So we just buttoned up, turned on the AC, and watched movies or napped in the vehicle for 12 hours.
>>29474201
>They didn't start training everyone to fight real armies again, until just a few years ago.
You were in the army during a decade where the Russian army was a joke and China had yet to start throwing its weight around, and are surprised you were not trained to fight state adversaries?
>>29474187
The M113 wasn't designed to withstand large IED's, so expecting it to perform well vs a substantially heavier MRAP is obviously flawed thinking.
A high ground clearance V hulled tracked vehicle would perform just as well/better than an MRAP
>>29474155
I mentioned the ferret earlier dingus, but feel free to think the American BTR is fine and dandy.
>>29474266
We didn't train anything but COIN for a decade. Even in the attack aviation units.
Which I feel is a major mistake. We need to to train COIN, because we were deploying to do it. Yet we still needed to train symmetrical war against uniformed armies. Because soldiers need to know that stuff too.
>>29471741
Because it sucked 50 years ago and it still sucks now.
>>29474308
The fact that you are trying to compare a 4x4 light recon vehicle to an 8x8 APC/IFV speaks volumes.
>>29474373
>Yet we still needed to train symmetrical war against uniformed armies. Because soldiers need to know that stuff too.
Which is why the army has self evaluated what it had to let become deficient while dealing with the sandbox, just as it did after Vietnam.
>>29474288
That 113 didn't flip over because it lacked a v-shaped hull, it flipped because it was light enough to be flipped. You don't see M1s getting flipped over by deep buried IEDs. Even Bradleys don't do that. Any vehicle that gets tossed in the air by an IED isn't heavy enough to necessitate the added weight and complexity of tracks.
>>29474492
113 isn't much lighter than an MRAP
They flip because they are a flat bottom hull that absorbs the explosive force instead of directing it to the side
Same reason they are buying V-hulled strykers now
Or why all the MRAPS were V-hulled
>>29474688
MRAPs also use composite armor instead of homogenous metal. Not sure if they implemented that into newer Strykers, but that stuff can take some punishment.
>>29474492
Abrams have even launched into the air by massive buried ieds.
I have seen the aftermath of when hadji buries 10 anti tank mines in to stacks of 5. Then detonates when the Abrams is over.
Tank was punted several feet up.
>>29474688
That's exactly my point. Any vehicle that light will need a v-shaped hull to survive those kinds of attacks and tracks on a vehicle that light just don't offer any advantage.
>>29474880
There's a big difference between throwing a vehicle a few feet in the air and throwing it 20 feet in the air and flipping it on its roof.
>>29474972
A modern rubber track is no more difficult to operate than a wheeled vehicle
>>29474411
>4x4
Wut?
It's a light tracked IFV, Germany uses them for scouting and medical transport, among other things.
>>29471741
The LAV is better
>>29474138
Can a tank crew repair something like this? Or if your tread comes off, do you just sit and wait?
Why don't we bring the cavalry back into service?
They're literally perfect for multiple roles and are loads cheaper than any Striker variant. Not to mention that they are hoofed and won't have as much issue with rough terrain.
>>29472416
How many Wheels does a Stryker have?
> 8
How many Wheels does a M113 have
> 10 + 2 Drive, 2 Idler (14)
you will nearly have like 80% higher maintenance just on the running gear, let alone thinking about tracks
>>29475081
Yes, with allot of man power and leverage.
>>29475151
Doesn't really work that way...
>>29475151
What beautifully simplistic thinking.
What happens when your tire gets shot?
>>29475206
It kinda does, each wheel has its own suspension, own bearings so each time you add a wheel you add another point of failure along with another set of things to be maintained
>>29475235
Most combat vehicles have centralized inflation, reinforced tires and the tires can be run flat with reduced efficiency
.
>>29475266
Not all wheels are made equal
>>29475085
I could launch them from 18 inch guns
>>29475296
Im just looking at it from a simplified perspective, if you wanted to you could look at the steel mills that make the billets that get machined into the wheels.
But, thats out of the scope of this discussion I would think.
>>29475311
Nothing stops you from producing tracked vehicles with less wheels
They are in fact much simpler, mechanically
>>29471741
>WHY DONT WE BRING X OR Y OR Z BACK INTO SERVICE
because we have a nigger in the white house who is determined to only use drones and hackers for war and downsize our military to below ww1 levels
VOTE TRUMP
>>29475365
Apart from you then have to worry about tracks, that create friction reducing the fuel economy and have to be replaced. Then you have the driver and Idler gear/puly along with return rollers etc..
>>29475649
Have to replace tires too.
Not sure precisely how rubber band tracks compare to wheels, in terms of fuel economy.
But they are a relatively recent invention, and a massive improvement of steel tracks.
>>29474221
>then when recovery rolled by we became submariners
there ya go.
>>29475081
>>29475168
So no, they need a repair crew...
>>29475085
Cavalry are probably one of the least terrible "lets bring something back" ideas ATM: special forces are trained to fight on horseback if needed.
Just not, you know, actual cavalry. And even then, their role is niche to rough, mountainous terrain. Which is a terrain type we aren't fighting in at the moment, hence going to the effort to raise a traditional cavalry unit being pointless.
>>29471741
Because their "armor" is thin aluminum. Its a tracked personnel carrier, its not armored and provides no protection to its occupants or crew.
MRAPs are better in every way.
>>29476897
Funny because so is the Stryker.
APC was designed so light infantry could have an NBC protected environment. Not for protection.
MRAP isntr better in every way, they actually auck sometimes especially when you fall down the stairs. And if you want, I'll pull the combat deployed card on your bitch ass.
>>29476926
Difficulty mounting and dismounting is a fair price to pay for actually surviving a patrol.
>>29476957
Hahahaha
We dont patrol with MRAPs, you idiot
>>29474373
You train for the threat, train against what you will fight.
Your unit went to the middle east so you trained for COIN.
The people in USFK don't do COIN and instead train for purely force on force. They are the people who never stopped doing tank tables and maneuver drills all through the middle east clusterfuck.
"but what if the Russians or Chinese?"
Well in that time period, the Russians and Chinese were even less well prepared to fight a force on force war than the US. They know it, and the army knows it. Training everyone in the large scale wargames that actually prepares you for force on force is expensive as fuck when there is precisely zero chance of that training scenario paying off.
>>29476897
M113 is good enough for 360 protection against 7.62, but durkas with rifles aren't the big threat, IEDs are, and M113's are completely useless against IEDs.
>>29475039
>its a light tracked IFV
No it isn't, you complete mongoloid.
I'm guessing you'll now realise your stupid mistake and proceed to backpedal.
>>29474158
>Stryker
>lighter, cheaper, and easier to maintain.
Pick one and ONLY one.
>>29474122
>m113 resistant to 7.62
You're a funny retard
>>29475235
>What happens when your tire gets shot?
You keep driving.
Unliked wheeled vehicles, tracked vehicles cannot move if they lose multiple roadwheels or the drive / idler wheels.
>>29476926
>Funny because so is the Stryker.
Strykers are at least armored against HMG fire.
>>29475081
getting the track back on the spigot wheel? yes detatch a link and put it round.
Can a tank Drive itself out of being sunk that deep? doubtful
>>29475039
Your thinking of the Wiesel mate,
The Ferret is an old Bong 4x4 armored scout car
>>29474221
hahahaha what? every NCO/Officer that i know of would have simply ordered you to replace the track because "you boys aren't scared of a little rain are you?".
>>29474308
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferret_armoured_car
>>29474161
>Selling the Stryker
You don't sell things to the us gov.
You convince them there's a need, then wait till they start throwing money at you.
Then you try to figure out how best to exploit said govt contract for you companies gain.
Problem - lack of ied safe vehicles
Solution. Billions of dollars worth of vehicles that need to be redesigned and upgraded to survive ieds.
Solution 2.0. Billions of dollars worth of vehicles that can survive ieds but are left in foreign lands cause it costs to much to ship them home.
>>29474288
So redesign the mrap for tracks.
Send the m113 to the NG for emergencies. It's combat days are over.
>>29478060
Strykers were not procured because of an IED threat.
Turn this.
>>29478076
>So redesign the mrap for tracks.
And gain nothing.
>>29478122
Into this.
>>29474180
More like Matti.
>>29478116
Shhh, you will ruin his narrative.
Based on his complaint about MRAP's being stored in the middle east (because sending them stateside just to ship them back makes sense) he is probably the anon who complains M1117's were not used as MRAP's.
>>29478125
A mine resistant apc. With tracks!
Better than the m113, anyway.
>>29473785
>BRDM
>NATO small arms
>operator stache
this made my dick twitch for some reason
>>29478165
>Better than the m113, anyway.
So is a Stryker, hence gaining nothing.
>>29478145
>>29478159
different idiot here.
And why would we send them back?
Sell a bunch to the Saudis, and Jordan.
>>29478116
>>29478159
It was called the "Interim" Armored Vehicle because it was initially supposed to be a temporary measure until light air-mobile vehicles from the Future Combat Systems program came online, none of which did before FCS was canceled. So pretty much just a money farm that does better than the HMMWV.
>>29478193
>And why would we send them back?
Exactly, for some reason the anon thinks they are being thrown away by sitting in parking lots near where they might actually be used.
>>29478199
>So pretty much just a money farm that does better than the HMMWV.
Said while advocating spending even more money on a tracked MRAP.
>>29474056
This is correct.
>>29472416
So, Why don't you drive a bulldozer to work?
>>29478227
I did no such thing. I may not be the person you are thinking about. Tracked MRAP sounds like a retarded idea to me.
Fuck off Mike Sparks
>>29478145
Doesn't the IDF still have a lot of those in storage?
>>29473297
>deathtrap
and the Striker is what then?
>no upgrades
striker shill
>>29479105
Your inability to write the Strykers name correctly is not lending any credibility to what you are saying.
>>29479105
>FV430 Mk3 with a shooped 30mm cannon
I'm not shilling for the Gavin, but I really want one.
For around the farm and such...
>>29475081
yes you can easily repair a thrown track. in that situation they are probably stuck though
>>29474056
>a 65 stang is pretty fucking simple compared to a civic too. Guess which one needs regular greasemonkeying to function, and which one can go 150k miles on regular oil changes and a filter swap or two?
Both.
>>29474122
The M113 has extensive experience against mines. That was back in Vietnam, and the results weren't pretty.
And you just hate the Stryker because you don't have all the room you had in the M577.
>>29478166
mate..... That's not a BRDM, and that's okay you didn't know what it was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Gage_Commando
>>29478166
>not knowing what a brdm looks like
you must try harder
>>29479311
To be fair to him, it's not exactly the most common of vehicles, and at a glance looks somewhat similar to a BRDM.
>>29479262
because for some fucking reason nobody did it with a M113 (and I'm lazy)...
You have to admit that would be a good way to go with an actual upgrade.
You get to keep the intenal space, yet you get a big stabilised chaingun with fancy optics.
>>29476968
>Combat Deployed
>Doesn't patrol in MRAPs
Fucking what? Unless you some kind of 100% dismount unit, you patrolled in an MRAP. Or maybe you're just full of shit.
>>29471741
'Sup Sparky.
>>29472416
>modern
So, not the M113.
>This has, predictably, turned into a disaster.
[citation neeed]
The Strykers performed fine so far.
>refused to uparmor or upgrade
There is no aount of uparmirong or upgrading that can compensate for the M113 being a decades-obsolete shitbox.
>>29471866
I cannot believe it has taken 10 years for me to realize that a Rhino tank is basically an M113.
>>29479495
GW and THQ made that real life Rhino back in the day by welding stuff on a surplus FV432.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PEU_201IfI
>>29478165
>>29478174
wheels are unsuitable for military vehicles
>>29474158
>Just like it did to the UK and French in the first half of the 20th century. They kept their forces as expeditionary/colonial forces. Just enough to oppress the brown people. Yet not enough to fight a real war.
But that is literally wrong. The BEF was designed as a highly trained quick reaction force while the navy did the heavy lifting in the event of war. And the French army was the third largest on the planet before the First World War and was literally considered the most powerful army on the planet in 1939.
>the adoption of wheeled vehicles instead of tracked vehicles will be the downfall of the sole current global superpower
You should listen to yourself sometime soon.
>>29479611
You are entirely correct without qualification.
>>29479286
hot DAMN
>>29479611
Where we're going, we don't need wheels
>>29479611
>said nobody with even the slightest clue, ever
>>29479655
No surprise that the US loses vs every insurgency it fights, they think wheels are suitable for military vehicles.
Or that they don't need armor
>>29479917
>every vehicle needs to be protected against everything
>>29479940
every vehicle should be protected against small arms
At least for the crew/engine
>>29479917
you are so wrong and dumb it fucking hurts, holy shit
No, having wheeled vehicles is not the reason why the US struggles with insurgencies you fucking moron. Not every vehicle is a combat vehicle and therefore does not need to be weighed down with superfluous armor. Nor does having tracks on a vehicle protect it from the biggest threat with modern insurgencies, which are IEDs
>>29480126
US struggles because they are filled with dumb POS's that make the same mistake again and again while learning nothing from the past.
>>29477836
I was the ncoic. There was a tropical storm hitting. It wasn't during the exercise period.
Everything was suspended during the storm. Everyone was ordered to shelter. We couldn't abandon the m577 because of the radios in it. Could not get a truck to get the radios put and back to the TOC.
So me and my two common soldiers, "pulled guard" on the sensitive items. In the armored vehicle, that was acceptable shelter from the storm.
Next morning a Hercules came by and pulled us to solid ground. We got the track back on. Then continued mission to get the m577 to the FARP to serve as the comms shelter.
Army Aviation is different from the rest of the US Army.
I have a better question
Where can I get an M113?
>>29479363
You're a dumbass.
>>29471741
fuck off with the gavins
>>29480590
>Army Aviation
I thought the Army gave up all their air units to the Air Force after it was created.
>>29471760
>because theyre 50 year old maintenance nightmares that get raped by 5.56 AP
fixed that for you
>>29475085
>Why don't we bring the cavalry back into service?
It never went away. Tanks, recon vehicles, and all manner of fighting vehicles are cavalry. Even infantry are effectively dragoons these days.
>>29479347
And still have no advantage over a Stryker, while being IED bait.
>>29481021
Helicopters exist.
>>29481243
M113 is much more off road capable than stryker, as long as you don't throw a track.
>>29480183
The US 'struggles' because it has absurd rules of engagement, hearts and minds and all that.
>>29481263
In addition to being slower, worse on roads, more dangerous, less well protected (especially against IEDs/mines), et cetera.
>>29481263
It really isn't outside of its extremely light weight.
>>29481404
Iraq hill sides disagree.
My m577 climbs hills and boulders like a goat. The Stryker struggled.
>>29481842
Its like you didn't even comprehend why I mentioned vehicle weight.
