I agree with your what is the point comment, Strykers are ok for some things but they seem to have a lot of limitations especially when you consider all of the money we put into the program. We could have gotten a lot of the same capabilities at not even half the cost if we had just modernized some of our old M113.Originally Posted by Uboat509
Stu,
The Stryker has a huge logistical advantage over the M113, which is one of the bigger reasons for the LAV platform getting picked. While it may seem like only a marginal change to add the logistics for M113 equipped BCT, that change adds up quite a bit such that the footprint detracts greatly from the deployability as well as makes sustainability of the unit via air suspect at best given the air fleet constraints.
Another huge advantage that has played out in Iraq is the relative stealth of the Stryker vs. a M113 platform as well as the degraded mobility capabilities of the Stryker. If you lose track on a M113 from an IED, you lose mobility. If some tires get blown by an IED, you still can limp out of the kill zone immediately and then take the appropriate remdial action (if it's even necessary) from a safe zone.
Last edited by Shek; 09-22-2006 at 02:54 PM.
I don't think the M113 is some kind of super vehicle, or that it should have been the choice for the IBCT's, but I can't understand why Airborne units don't have some. It's got to be a better weapons platform for the Delta Companies than an uparmored hummer. What else out there can be airdropped that we've got right now?
I am not sure I understand how it has a huge logistical advantage, could you explane more?
My bigest problem with the Stryket is not its preformance just the price that it comes at. I do think it is better than a 113 just not enough better for the price tag.
Stu,
1. M113s would guzzle twice as much gas, and so you'd have to nearly double the number of fuelers. While only a small increase in the number of overall vehicles, on the margin it has a huge impact, as it is already a difficult task to resupply the SBCT under a scenario where there is only an aerial LOC.
2. The Stryker's engine is the same as the engine in the FMTV. Because of this, you have a smaller PLL and ASL (repair parts that are on-hand and hauled around by the unit) requirement than if you had a FMTV/M113 combo. Also, there is more commonality of parts across the Stryker variants than there would have been across the M113/M8 combo. You have the same effect here as with the engine story. In the end, the M113 equipped unit would require more vehicles to carry these additional parts
3. The Stryker has fewer maintenance requirements above and beyond the analysis in #2. So, if you had a M113 equipped IBCT, you'd have to add even more vehicles.
While the above three points aren't exhaustive, because the SBCT is designed to be very lean on logistics without much of a cushion, once you start adding on the margin, it has a huge impact on everything. Not only do you add vehicles, but you add the requirement for more gas to run these vehicles, soldiers to crew the vehicles, food to feed these vehicle crews, ammunition to arm these vehicle crews, etc.
Hopefully, the above gives you an idea on why the Stryker has the logistical advantage. As far as price goes, an extremely valid argument. Having spent my time in Iraq in a Stryker, I am certainly biased in favor of having spent the extra $$. The one thought that I would leave is that the cost advantage of M113 is not as great as some would claim, as you would have to do large upgrades to existing mothballed M113s to get them to the equivalent standard as a Stryker in terms of protection, lethality, commo platforms, etc. That being said, though, the M113 still would have been a cheaper option.
Flash report
Tonights lead story on the local news in Slapout is that the Daleville,Al. (near Ft. Rucker)just had 1970's model M113 donated to the police department. Whoooo Doggies!! I have some buddies on the Daleville police department. It is police blue with lightning bolts on the side and the word "NEGOTIATOR" painted on the front. They made them take off the 50 cal., oh well. Anybody have an extra Stryker laying around?
I've seen a handful of websites where the local police department has some old M113s as part of their SWAT unit. It's interesting to see them all painted up as a police vehicle!
Vehicle protection
The other advantage of Stryker of M-113 is armor. The Stryker is built to withstand heavy machine gun fire. It's supposed to have a ceramic overlay for RPG/shaped charge warheads - which ran into development problems - slat armor is the expedient replacement. M-113's have repeatedly proven to be too vulnerable without significant uparmoring. The IDF has completely redone theirs, but I doubt they fully trust even that level of protection any more given what happened in the recent fighting in Lebannon.
Really, I think the whole Stryker vs. M-113 debate is kind of besides the point. The current mucky mucks in charge of procuring/developing new systems are perfectly capable of turning in an M-113 based platform which has all the problems of a Stryker and spending just as much money while they're at it. I think better oversight by Congress, the Department of Defense and the Army could have brought either project in for a lot less money than was/is being spent.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks