Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.

[JaM]

M8 AGS is much more transportable than Stryker MGS and much better armored and mobile.

[PlasmaKrab]

JaM said:
M8 AGS is much more transportable than Stryker MGS and much better armored and mobile.

The point is that the LAV-III MGS is much more transportable and mobile than the old Leos.
OK, that's strategic mobility we are talking about here. Surely a full-fledged tank will behave better on rugged terrain once deployed, but as Mark said, you have to delpoy it first.
Canada hasn't and could barely afford the transport plane fleet to deploy 30-ton tanks.
Now that the Germany deployment is irrelevant, all Canadian forces have to be reformatted to more deployable standards.

Besides, because I know you could argue that the M8 is as deployable and more mobile than the MGS, remember that the LAV-III (Mowag Piranha-III) is already in extensive service in the Canadian forces, and domestically produced in Canada, while the Stingray isn't actually produced anywhere. Do you see where that leads us?

Not necessarily the best decision in procurment history, but there is definitely a rationale behind it.

[thatguy96]

I thought the Thais were using the Stingray? Not to mention I think the XM8 with all the applique armor wasn't very air transportable, at least not by C-130, and without it it wasn't very armored either.

[JaM]

M8 has 3 degree of protection. 1st. protect against heavy MG AP rounds.with this configuration it can be air dropped.
2nd. degree protect it against autocannons and 3rd. protect against RPGs and ATGMs. Is is not a problem transport few M8 in one plane and addon armor in other. Armor can be attached on place.

[PlasmaKrab]

So you cannot have at the same time an air-transportable and notably-armored track on the ground, right?

I know it would just take, what, 30 minutes with the crew and a 2-ton field crane to get the armour on, but that can be the 30 minutes between life and death in case of a hot airdrop on, say, an occupied airstrip.
Notionally even better than not being able to fit any uparmouring at all, if you ask me.

It all goes with different doctrines anyway, so yes, why not give it a try for a fully light-armored-standoff force?

As for "modular airtransportable" armor or whatever, it boils down to the decades-old C-130 requirement. If countries are willing to put up deployable forces, then where is the long-range, heavy-load, heavy-duty plane for them? I'll have to check the specs on the A400M, and the An-70 and An-74 could also be worth a look.

[JaM]

If you will deploy Stryker MGS as a Airdrop it will be dead meat much sooner than M8.BTW any wheeled vehicle that is dropped from plane will have serious problems with wheels after drop... If you are dropping a vehicle from Plane, crew is never inside, so it will take time to get into the vehicle... So you are limited to make land with plane and unload vehicles classical way, so then you can have uparmored M8 without problems with much better resistance than Stryker

[whdonnelly]

Another weakness of the Stryker is the small ammo loadout. How does the M8 compare?

[thatguy96]

I don't understand how wheeled vehicles have problems after a drop. Wheeled vehicles are airdropped all the time, this doesn't make any sense. How many countries with vehicle drop capabilities drop crews in vehicles anyways? I don't see how an XM8 with protection only from machine guns is any less vulnerable than a Stryker either. Do you have any reputable sources to back these complaints up?