Agree with Wilf. There is a loss of situational awareness
and of the deterrent effect of certain opponents or would-be opponents actually seeing a pair of human eyeballs on them as well as a restriction of weapon choice (i.e. can't use your M4 to fire a warning shot or just point at a minor menace as opposed to firing a round or few of .50 cal -- which some ROE might preclude) is real and is a serious concern.
Most of that however is offset by the sensors and stabe on the OWS. Proper training will solve some of the problems, so on balance, they're IMO a net plus. The down side is the cost but even that is less than some of the turreted solutions used today.
The SA and other issues that are concerns are not totally restricted to FID and similar ops but loom far larger there than they do in MCO. The larger advantage in a shooting war as opposed to FID is the lower and smaller silhouette and the under armor protection offered. That's my main reason for believing they're the way to go.
I'm not a COIN fan -- and I believe in special purpose equipment for special uses. Thus SO vehicles should have the simplest and best equipment tailored for the use they're likely to put those vehicles to -- and that will change from time to time, place to place and war to war. An Infantry combat vehicle OTOH should be designed to survive in close combat and therefor must meet different considerations and detectability and protection are more important.
The M 113 is conceptually a good vehicle, far better than many I could name.
It is in fact 1950 technology and it is in fact out of date, no question. It suffered in all versions from various shortfalls.
All of which were and are identified. All of which were corrected / are being corrected OR could easily have been -- but to do so would have killed the need for the Bradley in its time or the FCS more recently.
Thus the US Army deliberately did not consistently upgrade the 113 as they could have and arguably should have and as many other nations with less money very effectively did and still do. That's Army politics at work.
Produce the 113 with todays technology and you have a vehicle that would be reliable, have great range, is quiet, has a low silhouette and is adequately survivable when properly employed. It would also be cheap...
Steve Blair's comment on Viet Nam reliability is correct and most of the problems were due to (1) the flawed US tracks (we don't do them that well...); (2) the electrical system; the voltage regulator spec was wrong and all the early versions overcharged and thus over heated the batteries' (3) poor maintenance. Armor did a reasonable job in that latter, Infantry did not.
There may be a better all round utility track out there but I haven't seen or heard of it. It is not a good combat vehicle due to the aluminum armor -- though IIRC, some composite hull trial versions have been built. -- and Steve's right, no one ever called that a Gavin except Sparky and his readers... :D
For a tracked vehicle today
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Hmm, maybe if you think one million or two was cheap.
it is... :wry: