Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US)

[Backis]

Do you guys even know how information gets posted on Wikipedia?

People can write what the hell they want there!

Its pretty funny you take FAS and Wikipedia seriously.

[SCAJolly]

Backis said:
Do you guys even know how information gets posted on Wikipedia?

People can write what the hell they want there!

Its pretty funny you take FAS and Wikipedia seriously.

Though you making claims you cant support then try to spin your way out of them by distraction and smokescreens say something about what kinda person you are?

It has struck me that someone experienced, and who might have some insight on the topic in question, could write their articles on Wikipedia, yeah. At least more insight than one who denies a possibility without really supporting that denial with facts.
If you want to, I could phone the American DoD tomorrow (Sunday's sleep-day) and ask them. Or would you rather I didn't quote such hilarious sources, and rather found someone reliable (please, mention some if you'd like)?

[JaM]

As i said, Upgraded M113 will be much more potent combat vehicle than Stryker.But Stryker is quite good police vehicle .You can easily equip M113 with the same C4I suite,OWS,armor atc, without problems with ride capabilities. M113 is far better maneuverable (pivot).Internal volume of M113 is greater , soldiers will not have problems get out as they had in Stryker wearing protective vests with armor plates. With today technologies is possible make tracked vehicle fast as wheeled one.Loudness is only issue if you not using rubber reinforced tracks.
Stryker MGS is totally unadequate for a mission,it is too heavy for ac-130,105mm M68A1 gun has too big recoil, wehicle is not capable of accurate fire on the move.M8 AGS would be far better with much lower costs.

[JaM]

About resistance to IOD, Israeli had problems with IOD,(maybe you know that the Palestinians used them first)there were incidents when they blow Merkava Mk3 Dor Dalet,Most powerfull Israeli tank,crew was killed.(Same thing happened to M1A2 in Irak in 2004),in second incident Israeli Zelda APC hit similar IOD,crew survived it.You are forgeting that even antipersonel mines could stop Stryker,not M113.

[Backis]

JaM said:
You are forgeting that even antipersonel mines could stop Stryker,not M113.

Directly running over an AP mine can trash a single wheel which will not stop a Stryker.

A Claymore-style fragmentation mine may puncture all the wheels on one side with a lot of luck, but the Stryker use run-flats and can adjust pressure in the wheels on the other side for trim, so this will not stop it either.

With luck an AP mine detonating in direct contact with the track can break it and completely immobilize a M113 until repaired.

[Backis]

JaM said:
About resistance to IOD, Israeli had problems with IOD,

So did South Africa and they are generally acknowledged to build the best vehicles in the world regarding IED protection. Weirdly enough they are all wheeled... they must be stupid or something, right?

JaM said:(maybe you know that the Palestinians used them first)

Eh, ok, except that I'd think that "improvised explosive devices" came along with the invention of gunpowder sorta predates the reconstituton of the state of Israel by a couple of centuries...

JaM said:there were incidents when they blow Merkava Mk3 Dor Dalet,Most powerfull Israeli tank,crew was killed.(Same thing happened to M1A2 in Irak in 2004),in second incident Israeli Zelda APC hit similar IOD,crew survived it.You are forgeting that even antipersonel mines could stop Stryker,not M113.

Have I stated anything contrary to this? I even mentioned the Abrams getting its turret popped earlier...

Build a bomb sufficiently big and... Things is that the lower profile of a tracked vehicle makes the vehicle more vulnerable to blast waves, a V-bottomed high profile vehicle is generally better designed to deflect the blastwave

This was perhaps more intended as one more smokescreen regarding the "In everything, they are more versatile" statment?

[JaM]

So you wanna compare M113 basic version from 1960 with 2mil$ 2004 Stryker? Are you serious?
I said M113 is more versatile COMBAT vehicle than Stryker.Newest versions of M113 have much greater survivability,maneuverability, greater weight reserve for additional armor upgrades, cross coutry mobility etc... With Stryker, you are limited to roads, tracks can go mostly everywhere.You will stuck in mud or sand far easily in Stryker than in M113.Soldiers in Iraq are happy to have a Stryker, not becouse it is so perfect allarounder, they are happy that they have something, and they dont ride in Trucks,or humwees becouse mostly all M113A3 stayed in USA. As i said there is not problem equip M113 with same electronics Stryker have.

[JaM]

What about future? What will happends if there will be war with North Korea? With Stryker, US Army will need to convience Kim Cong Il to build better roads, becouse our APCs cant drive though the fields and mud roads.And then when whole Stryker batallion will stuck in mud, you will know that wheel is not so good idea for COMBAT vehicle.

[Backis]

JaM said:
So you wanna compare M113 basic version from 1960 with 2mil$ 2004 Stryker? Are you serious?

Err...

I'll quote your first post in this thread;

M113 will be always better than Humwee or Stryker, israelis dont want strykers at all, as they know that in urban combat, wheel is a weakpoint.Sooner US army finds it, better...

My "eloquent" answer was;

Better at what?

Peeling potatoes?

After which "the mother of all statements" followed;

In everything, they are more versatile.Wheels are too limiting,you cant add too heavy armor without stressing suspension etc...In every aspect are tracked vehicles better in combat than wheeled.

Don't blame me for starting the M113/Stryker comparison bud... its not my fault you can't keep track of the issue.

JaM said: I said M113 is more versatile COMBAT vehicle than Stryker.Newest versions of M113 have much greater survivability,maneuverability, greater weight reserve for additional armor upgrades, cross coutry mobility etc...

This is not UNIVERSALLY true JaM, in some areas and under some circumstances tracked is better, in some wheeled is.

All I'm saying is that tracked isn't ALWAYS better as you have stated (GOD I have repeated this a lot now). I don't have to prove that wheeled is always better since its not my position...

The Stryker will be more survivable against IED due to its design parameters, you can only upgrade the M113 so much, it will retain some vulnerabilities that its basic design have unless you rebuild it as something else than a M113.

Can a tracked vehicle be made safer against mines/IED than a comparable size wheeled vehicle? Perhaps, I don't think anyone has done so yet though. To be sure the M113 isn't though.

JaM said:
With Stryker, you are limited to roads, tracks can go mostly everywhere.You will stuck in mud or sand far easily in Stryker than in M113.

Decide what you are saying, are the Stryker roadbound or just more likely to get stuck?

Do tracks generally have superior tactical mobility through terrain.

Yes.

Have I ever denied this?

No.

Does a somewhat better terrain handling make tracked vehicles;

"In everything, * more versatile"?

No.

JaM said:Soldiers in Iraq are happy to have a Stryker, not becouse it is so perfect allarounder, they are happy that they have something, and they dont ride in Trucks,or humwees becouse mostly all M113A3 stayed in USA. As i said there is not problem equip M113 with same electronics Stryker have.

Have I stated that the Stryker is a "better allrounder" than the M113?

No.

And I guess all "soldiers" riding and driving Strykers correspond with you personally and told you they were just happy with it because it was better than a Hummwee and nothing else?

There is a buttload of M113A3 in theatre (and more in Kuwait)... I wonder why they aren't the vehicle of choice for escort missions, I guess its all about politics, eh...

[Backis]

JaM...

You don't belive your claim yourself and refuse to defend it, but try to use spin-doctoring and obfuscation to hide that fact.

Rather weak, eh.

You didn't say "Upgraded M113 will be much more potent combat vehicle than Stryker"

Which in itself is a meaningless statement without defining "potent" and "combat", which both are relative terms.

You said "In everything, they are more versatile", which is an absolute statement.


Is this you being thick or just proof of a poor grasp of English?