Stryker collection (merged thread)

[MattC86]

In response to:

(b) No, there is no vehicle ever officially christened the "Gavin," but it's been an off-and-on popular nickname for the M113 (which as far as I know has never had an official name) for some 40 years. . .

(a) Perhaps some wish the Stryker had become the MRAP, but I think a lot of the concerns voiced around here over the FOB-mentality in connection with the MRAP (all tied to the oft-stated COIN paradox about force protection not equaling security) are valid, and also if I'm not mistaken the MRAP is less deployable and multi-mission than the Stryker. Some may question the wisdom of basing several combat brigades around the Stryker - I'm sure a lot of people would be stunned if you were to outfit a few brigades entirely with MRAPs.

Matt

[Rank amateur]

Wikipedia: The M113 has never received an official name, but has received a variety of nicknames over the years. The NLF called it the "Green Dragon"; the Swiss referred to it as the "Elefantenrollschuh" or elephants' roller-skate; the Germans called it the "Schweinewürfel" or pig cube.[7][8] U.S. troops tended to refer to the M113 simply as a "track". Some sources have referred to the M113 as the "Gavin" in an allusion to Gen. Gavin, but U.S. forces have never used the name.[7] The Israeli official name for the M113 is "Bardelas" (Cheetah) but the troops call it "Zelda" (another nickname is "Zippo" after the brand of lighters, as the M113 tends to combust when hit by anti-tank weapons). The Australian Army refers to its M113A1s as "Buckets", and the modified M113A1 fitted with 76mm turrets as "Beasts".

[Eden]

I wish I could say the decision to arm the Stryker with a 105mm was the result of the sort of close and careful analysis many on this site like to do in their spare time, but the fact is that the Army had a bunch of old 105 parts and 105mm ammo in warehouses, depots and industry were still tooled up for that caliber, etc. It was pretty much a question of cost and convenience. Also, to remind everyone, the Stryker was supposed to be an interim vehicle, off-the-shelf, to get us through to the FCS.

As for using variants of M113, the Army leadership early on - we're talking 1999 here - decided any new vehicle would be wheeled, not tracked.

[Cavguy]

I wish I could say the decision to arm the Stryker with a 105mm was the result of the sort of close and careful analysis many on this site like to do in their spare time, but the fact is that the Army had a bunch of old 105 parts and 105mm ammo in warehouses, depots and industry were still tooled up for that caliber, etc. It was pretty much a question of cost and convenience. Also, to remind everyone, the Stryker was supposed to be an interim vehicle, off-the-shelf, to get us through to the FCS.

As for using variants of M113, the Army leadership early on - we're talking 1999 here - decided any new vehicle would be wheeled, not tracked.

Okay, as someone who has had M113A3(+) in his MTOE (slat armor, cupolas, BFT, etc). They suck. They were okay in the 1960's. They're a pretty flexible vehicle. Spare parts are available.

But let's not overlook:

1) The ride absolutely sucks. The infantry hate it. The only thing I liked was the ability for the infantry to open the top hatches and scan.
2) The armor isn't that great, and the slat armor makes it just as unwieldly in urban terrain as the Stryker. Additionally, there's no top protection worth mentioning.
3) They're severely underpowered with all that armor added
4) They're slow, on a good day with all that armor you might reach a screaming 15-20 mph, if your engine doesn't overheat.
5) They break A LOT more than any other vehicle I had, including M1 tanks.
6) Funny thing happened on the way to the up-armoring plant. The ramp pump burned out on every one because it couldn't lift the troop door with that extra armor. so the soldiers had to often use the troop hatch to exit, not exactly rapid deployable infantry.

Now some of that could be resolved with R&D and upgrades, but the M113 is simply a product of the 1950's whose time is past.. Having had M113A3+'s in my MTOE and worked around Strykers, I'll take the stryker for the COIN/LIC mission. And a M2 Bradley was by far the most flexible and useful vehicle in my menu during OIF. Firepower, troop capacity (low, but enough), and armor.

I think there was a thread about the wingnut who was the M113 "Gavin" advocate and fanboy ....

[William F. Owen]

But let's not overlook:

1) The ride absolutely sucks. The infantry hate it. The only thing I liked was the ability for the infantry to open the top hatches and scan.
2) The armor isn't that great, and the slat armor makes it just as unwieldly in urban terrain as the Stryker. Additionally, there's no top protection worth mentioning.
3) They're severely underpowered with all that armor added
4) They're slow, on a good day with all that armor you might reach a screaming 15-20 mph, if your engine doesn't overheat.
5) They break A LOT more than any other vehicle I had, including M1 tanks.
6) Funny thing happened on the way to the up-armoring plant. The ramp pump burned out on every one because it couldn't lift the troop door with that extra armor. so the soldiers had to often use the troop hatch to exit, not exactly rapid deployable infantry.


I think there was a thread about the wingnut who was the M113 "Gavin" advocate and fanboy ....

...and everyone of those can be fixed. Not just a bit, but a lot. The Aussies, Canuks and Norgies have all done it to varying degrees and the Israelis and still tinkering with some stuff. By any analysis, M-113 can be upgraded into an extremely capable APC, with the same comms, optics and weapons as Stryker, or better.

Now I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by getting into the track v wheels argument. "We is all adults here". M113 capability could be significantly extended, for a fractional cost. Do you want to is another question.

The Fan boy you speak of is Mike Sparks.

[Granite_State]

...and everyone of those can be fixed. Not just a bit, but a lot. The Aussies, Canuks and Norgies have all done it to varying degrees and the Israelis and still tinkering with some stuff. By any analysis, M-113 can be upgraded into an extremely capable APC, with the same comms, optics and weapons as Stryker, or better.

Now I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by getting into the track v wheels argument. "We is all adults here". M113 capability could be significantly extended, for a fractional cost.

That's the argument made here:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf

The writer is some author I've never heard of, writing for a Congressman a few years ago. But I'd be curious what more informed members thought of his main points.

[Cavguy]

I have posted here before on this, other than the MGS variant, every soldier I have talked to who has been on Strykers raves about their performance in Iraq.

I've directly worked with several Stryker companies and come away impressed as well. Sure, it has its limitations, but so does any platform.

The d-n-i stuff is mostly politically motivated diatribe.

[William F. Owen]

That's the argument made here:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf

I know this item very well. There are so many things wrong with that document I don't know where to begin. It is not a work of serious military thought.

[Cavguy]

...and everyone of those can be fixed. Not just a bit, but a lot. The Aussies, Canuks and Norgies have all done it to varying degrees and the Israelis and still tinkering with some stuff. By any analysis, M-113 can be upgraded into an extremely capable APC, with the same comms, optics and weapons as Stryker, or better.

Now I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by getting into the track v wheels argument. "We is all adults here". M113 capability could be significantly extended, for a fractional cost. Do you want to is another question.

The Fan boy you speak of is Mike Sparks.

No real issue here. No one seriously doubts the wheeled Stryker was chosen over the M8 AGS/M113 upgrade option mostly because of one word - transformation, or the need to create a perception of change in the Army. The Task Force Hawk debacle (Albania) forced the Army to get deployable or become irrelevant. It faced the perception that it was stodgy (maybe true) and not adapted to the future. That was beginning to impact funding in favor of the USAF and Navy, even before Rumsfeld. A new look was needed to sell congress on the new approach, and rebuilding/upgrading forty year old vehicles (M113's)and adding another tank (remember, tanks were the weapon of the past), even a light one, wasn't going to break the mold.

Hence, a wheeled, air-transportable, air supportable, mobile system that could be rapidly deployed using theater (C-130) only lift, at least on paper. Welcome the LAV-3, or Stryker. Add a fancy new beret and wham ... transformation you have.

I realize that's a little cynical, but there was as much an IO message in the Stryker as anything, for the Army, DoD, and Congress.

That's not to say it's a bad vehicle per se. The wheels/tracks argument was an uproar in Armor branch. As a reformed skeptic, I have walked away impressed (except for the MGS, I suppose).

[Distiller]

So the SBCTs are concepted as little more than protected and reinforced constabulary troops, but since they are here, they are or will be used in roles that are basically beyond their concept and capabilites. I see them always in danger of being employed in the wrong spot of the sequence of Armor - Cavalry - MechInf - MotInf. Basically for tasks like Irak cavalry would be right for the "heavy" part. Problem is they are equipped with 35 metric tons M2/M3. Should have bought the CV90 - are the same weight as Strykers and look much more real to me (I have no experience in either of those vehicles). Of course, if "wheeled" is the buzzword ...


But something else: Given the fact that the whole IBCT thing is just a placeholder for FCS, and the idea is having a protected/armored air portable system, maybe the answer does not lie in keeping things within C-130J limits, but in a new transport plane, like e.g. licence produce the Airbus A400M.

Now that the FCS looks more like 30 tons (and I think it will go to 35) the Hercules is out of the picture anyway (for the lower part of the C-130 mission the C-27J is the right thing). Or if somebody doesn't like Eurostuff, proceede with that Northrop ESTOL Stelath-BWB (Future Tactical Airlifter or something) concept.

And to turn one of the arguments here on its head - when not willing to use an APC stemming from the 1950's, why base whole formations like IBCT or FCS-UAs on the transport capabilities of the 1950's (C-130)? I think what we see here is the lack of coordination from the leadership, to force the USAF to create/buy the right sized tactical airlifter for Army requirements.

[Kreker]

No real issue here. No one seriously doubts the wheeled Stryker was chosen over the M8 AGS/M113 upgrade option mostly because of one word - transformation, or the need to create a perception of change in the Army. The Task Force Hawk debacle (Albania) forced the Army to get deployable or become irrelevant. It faced the perception that it was stodgy (maybe true) and not adapted to the future. That was beginning to impact funding in favor of the USAF and Navy, even before Rumsfeld. A new look was needed to sell congress on the new approach, and rebuilding/upgrading forty year old vehicles (M113's)and adding another tank (remember, tanks were the weapon of the past), even a light one, wasn't going to break the mold.

Hence, a wheeled, air-transportable, air supportable, mobile system that could be rapidly deployed using theater (C-130) only lift, at least on paper. Welcome the LAV-3, or Stryker. Add a fancy new beret and wham ... transformation you have.

I realize that's a little cynical, but there was as much an IO message in the Stryker as anything, for the Army, DoD, and Congress.

That's not to say it's a bad vehicle per se. The wheels/tracks argument was an uproar in Armor branch. As a reformed skeptic, I have walked away impressed (except for the MGS, I suppose).

Hi Cavguy,
Very succinct.
Let's not forget that there was a platform demonstration conducted for all off-the-shelf vehicles, be they wheel or track, at Ft Knox, as part of the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) modernization effort. The LAv variant won out over the 113 variant.
As Eden pointed out the Stryker was to be an interim stop-gap until FCS was fielded, thus only seven SBCT (believe the original total was six.) Eden is also right, in that SBCT were to be used in SSCs and LICs, and could be used in MICs by being augmented/reinforced.
Also remember that FCS is a track vehicle and not wheel. Good discussions.
Best
Kreker

[120mm]

And how, precisely, would you fix the M113's weakness against under-road IEDs and anti-tank mines?

The belly plate, as flat as it is, combined with the tracks, make it a deathtrap. You'd need to find someway to vent the explosion out the sides, probably a "V-shaped" hull or somesuch. That would probably mean redesigning the hull completely, and then you'd have some other vehicle, by the time you're done.

It's interesting to note that the Joseph Stalin series of heavy tank had pronounced "V-hulls", precisely in order to make them more resistent to mines.

Sorry, I didn't see page 3, when I was responding to William Owen's post vis-a-vis fixing the weaknesses of the M113.

[J Wolfsberger]

"V hull" doesn't do anything to protect against mines.

There are three things that can be done: increase standoff, reduce presented area, and increase armor at the bottom hull (belly armor).

The basic, so-called, "v hull" shape of the MRAPs actually looks like:
Hull.jpg

They work because of increased standoff and reduced presented area. The "V" shape is just incidental - it doesn't lead to any "blast deflection."

BTW, these worked well when originally designed by the South Africans because they were fighting LIC in the veldt. Who cares what the silhouette is if you can still be seen coming from 20 klicks out no matter what you're driving? They work well for us today, because we're travelling relatively predictable routes, so who cares if we can be easily seen? In a different type of conflict/mission, different terrain, different threat weapon system mix, etc., they could turn out to be unfixable death traps.

The relevant dimensions for design trades are: presented area vs. vehicle height; standoff vs. vehicle height, ride stability, mobility/agilty; belly armor vs. just about everything.

[William F. Owen]

And how, precisely, would you fix the M113's weakness against under-road IEDs and anti-tank mines?

Sorry, I didn't see page 3, when I was responding to William Owen's post vis-a-vis fixing the weaknesses of the M113.

..and that's one think you can't fix, so you don't. You apply the means and technology within a field of doctrine and teaching.

As a by-stander the level of Stryker v M-113 debate had been just embarrassing. Wheels versus tracks is a false argument, unless couched in precisely defined operational context. A combined MRAP & Modernised M-113 Brigade of even Combat Team would be a step up in capability

The M-113 design of 2008 bears no resemblance to anything currently in US Army service. The UK fluffed the FV-432 upgraded for Iraq to save money, but what we got was 100% increase in capability.

[KenWats]

Okay, as someone who has had M113A3(+) in his MTOE (slat armor, cupolas, BFT, etc). They suck. They were okay in the 1960's. They're a pretty flexible vehicle. Spare parts are available.

But let's not overlook:
5) They break A LOT more than any other vehicle I had, including M1 tanks.

I followed Cavguy's link from another thread and am responding here because it seemed more appropriate.

I agree with all of your points except 5. My M113A3s were never uparmored, but they broke down significantly less than our M60 class bridge carriers, ACEs, or CEVs (my experience is late 90s, fwiw). I know that's not saying much, but of the vehicles I had in my various platoons (M113, Humvee, M548, ACE, CEV, AVLB/AVLM, SEE, HEMMT), the 113 was definitely on the "more reliable" side. Maybe my view is skewed from what I had to work with.

I never really had (many) problems keeping up with Brad/M1 equipped company teams when it was just my organic combat engineer platoon (probably a function of mine not being uparmored with slat armor, etc- I know towing the MICLIC trailer made a difference, so I can imagine that the extra armor would be just as bad). Attach the CEV or an AVLB/AVLM and I had a bear of a time keeping track of the lumbering behemoths behind me, and the tank/bradley platoons speeding ahead.

[Cavguy]

I followed Cavguy's link from another thread and am responding here because it seemed more appropriate.

I agree with all of your points except 5. My M113A3s were never uparmored, but they broke down significantly less than our M60 class bridge carriers, ACEs, or CEVs (my experience is late 90s, fwiw). I know that's not saying much, but of the vehicles I had in my various platoons (M113, Humvee, M548, ACE, CEV, AVLB/AVLM, SEE, HEMMT), the 113 was definitely on the "more reliable" side. Maybe my view is skewed from what I had to work with.

I never really had (many) problems keeping up with Brad/M1 equipped company teams when it was just my organic combat engineer platoon (probably a function of mine not being uparmored with slat armor, etc- I know towing the MICLIC trailer made a difference, so I can imagine that the extra armor would be just as bad). Attach the CEV or an AVLB/AVLM and I had a bear of a time keeping track of the lumbering behemoths behind me, and the tank/bradley platoons speeding ahead.

Good point. My FIST-V always had problems keeping up b/c it was still an A2 version with the smaller engine. The 1SG's 113 was fine until we added all the extra stuff. My cross-attached combat engineer platoon had all the same problems.

Best use of a 113 I saw was as a tricked out "bass boat"/mini 577 for the BCT commander (basically a 113 with extra radios) - difference being he could ride around hatch open with his FSO in tow on the battlefieldof Hohenfels - since it was a light track it could get up high where the M1/M2's couldn't b/c of the goat trail conditions.