Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US)

[Backis]

2mil for OHWS and C4I...Rafael makes much better and much cheaper systems,There is a M113 version with 2x7.62mm and one 12.7mm OWS.

Oh please, you're such an authority on judging these types of systems are you Mr "In everything, they are more versatile"?



1; If you think FAS is a good reliable source you're kidding yourself. To much crap has snuck in and noone has seriously maintained the site for years. Why don't you quote Wikipedia or something next, huh?

2; They guy claiming that the applique armour on that M113 stops Milan doesn't know what he's talking about. Exact specifications of the armour are ofcourse classified to begin with...

A hint can however be taken from the fact that USMC uses a version (imported from Israel) as an applique addon on LVTP-7's (the EAAK kit).

Against HEAT it is described as having following effectiveness;

"(it)Substantially decreases the effectiveness of shape charge weapons by reducing the fragmentation debris cone from 110° to 35°"

This is not "immunity"...

In AAR's it seems to be barely sufficient vs PG-7/7M against which is has failed completely at least once resulting in a total loss. Total number of hits, or data on penetrations failing to destroy the vehicle I haven't got, but I assume the vehicle should be relatively resistant to the damage due to its sheer size (overpressure and heat causing fire is less of a problem), giving a statistical probability of several more penetrations.

This all suggest even early Milan would eat it for lunch...


Amazing...

It was a pleasure not communicating with you.

Bye bye now, and welcome to my ignore list, because to be honest you bore me and isn't worth further effort.

[SCAJolly]

From Wikipedia:
Approximately 80,000 units of all types have been produced worldwide making it the most widely used armored fighting vehicle of all time. The M113 is unofficially known as M113 Gavin.

I think we can indeed call it a fact that the unofficial nick for the M-113 IS Gavin, or would anyone like to sit in their holes at that?

[JaM]

Maybe in Sweden they call them unofficially diferently... :-)

[JaM]

By the way, M113 gets name by this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Gavin

[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.

[Backis]

SCAJolly said:

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.

Experienced in readmitting faulty articles to Wikipedia ad nauseum?

Oh please...

The essays on Wikipedia are open source and can be edited at will, being stubborn and resubmitting your view is what makes articles survive there, not being "experienced"

FAS is unreliable at best, and is essentially a bunch of website claims gathered into one page, some even seemingly taken from Wiki...

Wikipedia is a pretty cool source, but its NOT RELIABLE! Especially when asshats with an agenda like Sparky are always loose.

Trusting Wikipedia is like trusting the loudest screamer out on the street because you hear him best...

Do yourself a favour and search "mike sparks gavin" and "mike sparks usmc" on whatever search engine you prefer and see if what you come up with tells you anything.

This guy is a serious adherent to the "repeat it enough times and it become truth" paradigm.

Oh, and please sign up on the petition "for the widow"...

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)?

What now? You need my permission?

What will it tell you?

1; That its not its OFFICIAL nickname (nobody claims that...yet...).

2; wheter the individual answering subscribes to the "Gavin" mythos or not.

3; That they are busy and have better things to do?


Btw, "Gavin" or not, isn't this pretty OT little troller?

[Backis]

Against better knowledge I'll bite again... I'm just friggin dumb...

Your insults just indicate what the person you are.

Nice of you adding your own "insults" when I promise to ignore you, such an act of overt bravery!

I guess you're no better than me, being "what the person" I am.

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?

If you somehow missed it the thing I am debating with you is this statement of yours;

"In everything, they are more versatile."

You refuse to even acknowledge you made this statement, instead you employ topic drift and pretend to debate something else to cover yourself from fallout from a stupid statement.

JaM said:

Backis: Addon armor for LVTP-7 is not the same as on Zelda-2, read thread on tanknet more preciselly.

That might be so, however there is a report critical of it for failing to stop PG-7/PG-7M warheads, so I think they actually were believed to be at least resistant to that threat level and failed. But this is pretty irrelevant to the core debate between you and I anyway.

I haven't stated, nor intend to state that wheeled vehicles are "in everything more versatile" to tracked vehicles. Both have their advantages and drawbacks. The point I make is that there are missions where a wheeled vehicle have advantages over tracked vehicles, this you meet with nonsense about M113 going "through" threats, which is another daft position considering you don't specify which threat.

Even if the applique package for the Zelda 2 would be superior to the yet undeployed applique pack for the Stryker, better protection levels alone still does not equal;

"In everything, they are more versatile."

See? I can concede a point, but still your statement remain ludicrous.

Stop squirming and fess up to that it was am unsupported unfactual statement made without really considering its meaning and you'll find that we're probably closer on this subject than you think.

Sorry about being an [censored] about this, I'm usually not this bad. Must be having a bad week.