User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:20:47 PM EDT
[#1]
No portholes?!?!?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:21:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 100% accurate WRT to the current M113 role. Stryker based is a much better solution. Except now all HBCT combat vehicles will be one of two hulls. Thats a pretty big win for logistics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:22:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No portholes?!?!? Please regale us with more lines from a movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:23:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/108155/mil-armored-multi-purpose-vehicle-1800_j-1577371.JPGProduction of the first new armored vehicle that will replace the Army Vietnam Era M113 armored personnel carrier is now complete, manufacturer BAE Systems announced today. The first Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, or AMPV, rolled off BAE's production line as part of a 2018 low-rate initial contract to deliver up to 450 of the vehicles to the Army, according to a BAE news release. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/09/02/army-set-receive-first-armored-vehicles-replace-vietnam-era-m113.html?ESRC=eb_200903.nl We did this already, back in the 80s...they called it the Bradley. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:25:23 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We did this already, back in the 80s...they called it the Bradley. No we fucking didnt. The M113 family is still alive and well. It needs to be replaced and this is a sensible approach to doing so. The Bradley only replaced M113s in infantry and cavalry roles. The large amount of specialized vehicles, ambulances, command vehicles, and mortar carriers are still 113s. Yet, people are in here acting like its a fucking boondoggle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:28:54 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No we fucking didnt. The M113 family is still alive and well. It needs to be replaced and this is a sensible approach to doing so. Yet, people are in here acting like its a fucking boondoggle. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We did this already, back in the 80s...they called it the Bradley. No we fucking didnt. The M113 family is still alive and well. It needs to be replaced and this is a sensible approach to doing so. Yet, people are in here acting like its a fucking boondoggle. Yes, we did. The whole point of the M2 Bradley was to replace the 113. A troop carrier that could shoot back, effectively. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:30:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, M992A3s. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The MLRS does, but I thought the M109's were a different hull. They did. Now they use Bradley hulls. I was out there when they were testing them, the different dimensions were causing all kinds of loading issues and shearing fuzes. Supposedly they got better. Are they replacing the CATs with Bradley-hull based models as well? Yeah, M992A3s. This whole thing reminds me of the Navy's Super Hornet program, in that I'm a bit shocked such a major change is just getting a minor version designation. With the Howitzer, at least it's the same gun. But that ammo carrier has to be completely different. But, about damned time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:33:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, we did. The whole point of the M2 Bradley was to replace the 113. A troop carrier that could shoot back, effectively. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We did this already, back in the 80s...they called it the Bradley. No we fucking didnt. The M113 family is still alive and well. It needs to be replaced and this is a sensible approach to doing so. Yet, people are in here acting like its a fucking boondoggle. Yes, we did. The whole point of the M2 Bradley was to replace the 113. A troop carrier that could shoot back, effectively. It replaced the M113 in a few very narrow, front line roles. We never funded a full replacement for all M113-based platforms. This finally catches the rest of the fleets up, 30+ fucking years later. This has been explained at least 4 times already in this thread, and again in the post you just quoted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:33:37 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, we did. The whole point of the M2 Bradley was to replace the 113. A troop carrier that could shoot back, effectively. So why are there still thousands of them still.in service? Maybe there were roles that the Bradley couldn't fulfill, like mortar carrier, TOC vehicle, ambulance, Fister etc. This is replacing those hulls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:35:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, we did. The whole point of the M2 Bradley was to replace the 113. A troop carrier that could shoot back, effectively. No we didnt. We replaced the M113 as an APC, which was only one of 4-5 roles it had. The M113 is literally still sitting in ABCT motor pools to this day as mortar, medic, and command tracks as the 1SG assigned vehicle and the M577. The AMPV will finally replace that. My company took them to Iraq in 2007. But please, by all means continue. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:36:10 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mobility vs armor vs firepower. Still not sure why the 113 wasn't essentially replaced by the Stryker, which does the same thing, if a bit heavier and rolling on wheels. Not to mention the M1117, though you'd be hard-pressed to squeeze more people into that tin can. 1. As far as mobile firepower goes, I'm surprised the US military doesn't already field something akin to the 3T German Wiesel, 2. 2-man armored weapons platform or "mini-tank" the size of a hummvee but rocking a 20mm canon, or any number of other weapons. 3. Wiesel 1 chassis are being tested as unmanned land vehicles by DARPA... There's a lot of shit you can do with an IFV that small and fast. 1. I am too. An Americanized Scorpion or Scimitar equivalent with updated sensors would be nice. 2. Sensors vs need for firepower. Target ID for intel is main mission. 20mm is not the weapon I would not choose if I had to engage with anyway. 20mm is next to useless compared to alternatives. 3. Agreed unmanned you can add a lot of potential to the platform especially with size and payload. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:38:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, we did. The whole point of the M2 Bradley was to replace the 113. A troop carrier that could shoot back, effectively. It replaced the M113 in APC and scouting roles,along with the rare M114,but not as an ambulance,mortar carrier,command vehicle,engineers vehicle,mortar carrier,smoke layer etc. This is why many,many M113 variants are still in service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:38:39 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It replaced the M113 in a few very narrow, front line roles. We never funded a full replacement for all M113-based platforms. This finally catches the rest of the fleets up, 30+ fucking years later. This has been explained at least 4 times already in this thread, and again in the post you just quoted. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We did this already, back in the 80s...they called it the Bradley. No we fucking didnt. The M113 family is still alive and well. It needs to be replaced and this is a sensible approach to doing so. Yet, people are in here acting like its a fucking boondoggle. Yes, we did. The whole point of the M2 Bradley was to replace the 113. A troop carrier that could shoot back, effectively. It replaced the M113 in a few very narrow, front line roles. We never funded a full replacement for all M113-based platforms. This finally catches the rest of the fleets up, 30+ fucking years later. This has been explained at least 4 times already in this thread, and again in the post you just quoted. We were still waiting for our ADA variants to come when I left in late 89. Guess they never got around to it? Along with a few other things? The Bradley was supposed to take care of a lot of things, that it didn't. Sort of like the whole Sgt York stuff...granted, at least the Bradley was effective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:39:28 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So why are there still thousands of them still.in service? Maybe there were roles that the Bradley couldn't fulfill, like mortar carrier, TOC vehicle, ambulance, Fister etc. This is replacing those hulls. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yes, we did. The whole point of the M2 Bradley was to replace the 113. A troop carrier that could shoot back, effectively. So why are there still thousands of them still.in service? Maybe there were roles that the Bradley couldn't fulfill, like mortar carrier, TOC vehicle, ambulance, Fister etc. This is replacing those hulls. All of which, in the mid to late 80's; the Bradley chassis was supposed to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:40:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So why are there still thousands of them still.in service? Maybe there were roles that the Bradley couldn't fulfill, like mortar carrier, TOC vehicle, ambulance, Fister etc. This is replacing those hulls. FMC (the original Bradley manufacturer) had variants for all of those roles ready to go back in the 80s but the Army wasn't interested |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:41:43 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It replaced the M113 in APC and scouting roles,along with the rare M114,but not as an ambulance,mortar carrier,command vehicle,engineers vehicle,mortar carrier,smoke layer etc. This is why many,many M113 variants are still in service. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yes, we did. The whole point of the M2 Bradley was to replace the 113. A troop carrier that could shoot back, effectively. It replaced the M113 in APC and scouting roles,along with the rare M114,but not as an ambulance,mortar carrier,command vehicle,engineers vehicle,mortar carrier,smoke layer etc. This is why many,many M113 variants are still in service. Hmmmm...perhaps my memory is being faulty then. I could have sworn the bradley chassis was supposed to do all of that, except the smoke layer/engineer stuff. Been awhile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:42:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All of which, in the mid to late 80's; the Bradley chassis was supposed to do. Quote HistoryQuoted: All of which, in the mid to late 80's; the Bradley chassis was supposed to do. But it didn't, so you were wrong. However a Bradley chassis just did replace them with the AMPV. Quoted: Hmmmm...perhaps my memory is being faulty then. I could have sworn the bradley chassis was supposed to do all of that, except the smoke layer/engineer stuff. Been awhile. The Engineer track is literally the only one of those the Bradley DID replace. ABCT Engineers have Bradleys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:44:02 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cool, since we are making more M113s can we start making M551 Sheridan's again? Keep the 152mm Gun/Launcher, just upgrade the Shillelagh. That was the most fun vehicle I ever crewed/'commanded. Small, fast with a massive gun. Sort of like me in my prime.  Upgraded sheridan would kick ass |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:44:57 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We were still waiting for our ADA variants to come when I left in late 89. Guess they never got around to it? Along with a few other things? The Bradley was supposed to take care of a lot of things, that it didn't. Sort of like the whole Sgt York stuff...granted, at least the Bradley was effective. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We did this already, back in the 80s...they called it the Bradley. No we fucking didnt. The M113 family is still alive and well. It needs to be replaced and this is a sensible approach to doing so. Yet, people are in here acting like its a fucking boondoggle. Yes, we did. The whole point of the M2 Bradley was to replace the 113. A troop carrier that could shoot back, effectively. It replaced the M113 in a few very narrow, front line roles. We never funded a full replacement for all M113-based platforms. This finally catches the rest of the fleets up, 30+ fucking years later. This has been explained at least 4 times already in this thread, and again in the post you just quoted. We were still waiting for our ADA variants to come when I left in late 89. Guess they never got around to it? Along with a few other things? The Bradley was supposed to take care of a lot of things, that it didn't. Sort of like the whole Sgt York stuff...granted, at least the Bradley was effective. The Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle was indeed fielded, and later replaced by the Bradley Linebacker for SHORAD. The original was just another Brad with ADA bubbas inside with MANPADs. The Linebacker offered mounted Stinger pods. Like all Bradleys, these and the Cavalry variant had the 25mm gun. The new program replaces the equipment that doesn't get the gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:44:59 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We were still waiting for our ADA variants to come when I left in late 89. Guess they never got around to it? Along with a few other things? The Bradley was supposed to take care of a lot of things, that it didn't. Sort of like the whole Sgt York stuff...granted, at least the Bradley was effective. The Bradley Linebacker did enter service but the original idea was that Stingers carried in Bradleys would replace the M163 and M167. The Linebackers were converted back to normal Bradleys about 15 years ago though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:46:12 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except now all HBCT combat vehicles will be one of two hulls. Thats a pretty big win for logistics. Are you referring to M1 and M2 Hulls? You still have the M113 in logistic system. Replacing it with a Stryker chassis would get rid of one whole different system (M113) that can be easily replaced. Stryker is already in logistic system and I would be hard pressed to find a reason to keep the M113. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:47:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Bradley Linebacker did enter service but the original idea was that Stingers carried in Bradleys would replace the M163 and M167. The Linebackers were converted back to normal Bradleys about 15 years ago though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We were still waiting for our ADA variants to come when I left in late 89. Guess they never got around to it? Along with a few other things? The Bradley was supposed to take care of a lot of things, that it didn't. Sort of like the whole Sgt York stuff...granted, at least the Bradley was effective. The Bradley Linebacker did enter service but the original idea was that Stingers carried in Bradleys would replace the M163 and M167. The Linebackers were converted back to normal Bradleys about 15 years ago though. That's pretty much all they were ever used as. The dawn of the drone has led to a fascinating new relevance for short range ADA, with the Army scrambling to adapt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:47:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle was indeed fielded, and later replaced by the Bradley Linebacker for SHORAD. The original was just another Brad with ADA bubbas inside with MANPADs. The Linebacker offered mounted Stinger pods. Like all Bradleys, these and the Cavalry variant had the 25mm gun. The new program replaces the equipment that doesn't get the gun. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We did this already, back in the 80s...they called it the Bradley. No we fucking didnt. The M113 family is still alive and well. It needs to be replaced and this is a sensible approach to doing so. Yet, people are in here acting like its a fucking boondoggle. Yes, we did. The whole point of the M2 Bradley was to replace the 113. A troop carrier that could shoot back, effectively. It replaced the M113 in a few very narrow, front line roles. We never funded a full replacement for all M113-based platforms. This finally catches the rest of the fleets up, 30+ fucking years later. This has been explained at least 4 times already in this thread, and again in the post you just quoted. We were still waiting for our ADA variants to come when I left in late 89. Guess they never got around to it? Along with a few other things? The Bradley was supposed to take care of a lot of things, that it didn't. Sort of like the whole Sgt York stuff...granted, at least the Bradley was effective. The Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle was indeed fielded, and later replaced by the Bradley Linebacker for SHORAD. The original was just another Brad with ADA bubbas inside with MANPADs. The Linebacker offered mounted Stinger pods. Like all Bradleys, these and the Cavalry variant had the 25mm gun. The new program replaces the equipment that doesn't get the gun. Ahhh, k. Thanks. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:48:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You want our soldiers to rust Mr. Smarty Pants?  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I wonder if the “spray everything inside with oil” mod comes standard on this one like it’s predecessor? You want our soldiers to rust Mr. Smarty Pants? Automatic Anticorrosion System |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:49:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's pretty much all they were ever used as. The dawn of the drone has led to a fascinating new relevance for short range ADA, with the Army scrambling to adapt. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We were still waiting for our ADA variants to come when I left in late 89. Guess they never got around to it? Along with a few other things? The Bradley was supposed to take care of a lot of things, that it didn't. Sort of like the whole Sgt York stuff...granted, at least the Bradley was effective. The Bradley Linebacker did enter service but the original idea was that Stingers carried in Bradleys would replace the M163 and M167. The Linebackers were converted back to normal Bradleys about 15 years ago though. That's pretty much all they were ever used as. The dawn of the drone has led to a fascinating new relevance for short range ADA, with the Army scrambling to adapt. Let me guess, short and mid range ADA is now becoming somewhat important, again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:50:26 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's pretty much all they were ever used as. The dawn of the drone has led to a fascinating new relevance for short range ADA, with the Army scrambling to adapt. Avengers and handheld Stingers are back in style, and the M-SHORAD Stryker is in the POM. Another couple billion and we might crack the drone nut as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:50:59 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: War with China imo will likely involve 2 of their allies https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/459941/A8057057-6E92-43DB-AFA3-AEBE7092C482_jpe-1577717.JPGhttps://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/459941/9D18FA99-FE53-4308-A245-DC5A0D44C2A1_jpe-1577689.JPGhttps://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/459941/8DEEEF56-D2F4-46E0-B816-9B025869F125_jpe-1577699.JPGhttps://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/459941/A96AAD92-C042-4729-B378-24FB7E769379_jpe-1577700.JPGhttps://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/459941/3783E3A0-77B6-404E-BFF5-34B194B17903_jpe-1577711.JPGhttps://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/459941/30AA9866-1520-492A-98FB-0D9900CF04D9_jpe-1577712.JPGhttps://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/459941/4BFA4600-4A7F-45F5-B7A9-7F76BA317247_jpe-1577713.JPG Airdrop pussy and internet to best Korea and Iran. Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:51:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you referring to M1 and M2 Hulls? You still have the M113 in logistic system. Replacing it with a Stryker chassis would get rid of one whole different system (M113) that can be easily replaced. Stryker is already in logistic system and I would be hard pressed to find a reason to keep the M113. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Except now all HBCT combat vehicles will be one of two hulls. Thats a pretty big win for logistics. Are you referring to M1 and M2 Hulls? You still have the M113 in logistic system. Replacing it with a Stryker chassis would get rid of one whole different system (M113) that can be easily replaced. Stryker is already in logistic system and I would be hard pressed to find a reason to keep the M113. Totally different units. Stryker-based units sacrifice survivability for deployability. They are a compromise. Adding Strykers to heavy formations would add another type of fleet, and less capable vehicle platform than a Bradley. True Armored formation are a wholly different animal than Stryker units, and meant to go up against the worst anyone can throw at us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:56:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Avengers and handheld Stingers are back in style, and the M-SHORAD Stryker is in the POM. Another couple billion and we might crack the drone nut as well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's pretty much all they were ever used as. The dawn of the drone has led to a fascinating new relevance for short range ADA, with the Army scrambling to adapt. Avengers and handheld Stingers are back in style, and the M-SHORAD Stryker is in the POM. Another couple billion and we might crack the drone nut as well. Has there been movement on the Bradley M-SHORAD variant? Haven't seen anything on it in years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:59:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This whole thing reminds me of the Navy's Super Hornet program, in that I'm a bit shocked such a major change is just getting a minor version designation. With the Howitzer, at least it's the same gun. But that ammo carrier has to be completely different. But, about damned time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The MLRS does, but I thought the M109's were a different hull. They did. Now they use Bradley hulls. I was out there when they were testing them, the different dimensions were causing all kinds of loading issues and shearing fuzes. Supposedly they got better. Are they replacing the CATs with Bradley-hull based models as well? Yeah, M992A3s. This whole thing reminds me of the Navy's Super Hornet program, in that I'm a bit shocked such a major change is just getting a minor version designation. With the Howitzer, at least it's the same gun. But that ammo carrier has to be completely different. But, about damned time. Same tube, but everything except recoil will be running on electric instead of hydraulics. It'll be a pretty big learning curve I think. Getting rid of those Detroit Diesels will be nice, too. The CAT is just a hauler. No cab to deal with, you just have to fit some storage racks in there and add a halon fire protection system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:06:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has their been movement on the Bradley M-SHORAD variant? Haven't seen anything on it in years. I recently spent some time forward with a few ADA bubbas and they were only talking about the JLTV Avenger variant and Stryker. I had to look the Bradley version up just now when you brought it up, never seen it before since the Linebacker got canned. I anticipate the inclusion of a lot of these types of systems across the force at all levels, light, medium, and heavy. As you stated the concept is to not cross platforms and to have all vehicles in the formations standardized with the same mobility capabilities as the rest of the unit. That was a huge issue with the M113, it was WAY slower than anything else in an armored company, and could not carry as much fuel. Thats the same problem you had mixing Strykers with Humvees or MRAPs, they could not keep up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:07:21 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Totally different units. Stryker-based units sacrifice survivability for deployability. They are a compromise. Adding Strykers to heavy formations would add another type of fleet, and less capable vehicle platform than a Bradley. True Armored formation are a wholly different animal than Stryker units, and meant to go up against the worst anyone can throw at us. I am very familiar with the animal. What could the Bradley/ M113 solution offer that a Stryker could not already a lot more effectively? If you say logistics that is ridiculous at this point. We have brought in dozens of different MRAPs etc that were never in the system before but we seem to have figured it out very quickly. Strykers are already in the system. Arguing TOE is also moot. Last I seen Division organization makeup is not the same as the 2000s. Not by a long shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:09:38 PM EDT
[#33]
I kind of thought the Stryker was supposed to fill this role? What am I missing here?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:11:09 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am very familiar with the animal. What could the Bradley/ M113 solution offer that a Stryker could not already a lot more effectively? If you say logistics that is ridiculous at this point. We have brought in dozens of different MRAPs etc that were never in the system before but we seem to have figured it out very quickly. Strykers are already in the system. Arguing TOE is also moot. Last I seen Division organization makeup is not the same as the 2000s. Not by a long shot. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Totally different units. Stryker-based units sacrifice survivability for deployability. They are a compromise. Adding Strykers to heavy formations would add another type of fleet, and less capable vehicle platform than a Bradley. True Armored formation are a wholly different animal than Stryker units, and meant to go up against the worst anyone can throw at us. I am very familiar with the animal. What could the Bradley/ M113 solution offer that a Stryker could not already a lot more effectively? If you say logistics that is ridiculous at this point. We have brought in dozens of different MRAPs etc that were never in the system before but we seem to have figured it out very quickly. Strykers are already in the system. Arguing TOE is also moot. Last I seen Division organization makeup is not the same as the 2000s. Not by a long shot. In other words, "don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind." Got it. You do you. Meanwhile, an HBCT will continue to be designed without any Strykers, for good reason, and the whole point of the AMPV is to replaces those M113s in those HBCTs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:11:44 PM EDT
[#35]
eta; eh, not in the fight anymore. wtf do i know.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:11:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Show me the 577 version. I once made my 577 aid station fly. I also almost drowned my TC fording a creek. I still want to see the hightop ride. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So replace a 113 series vehicle with an upgraded 113? lol Show me the 577 version. I once made my 577 aid station fly. I also almost drowned my TC fording a creek. I still want to see the hightop ride. It is as tall as a 577 already, then again, I think the floor inside is that much higher. Yea does this new pig swim? The M106A3 barely did a doggie paddle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:12:50 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am very familiar with the animal. What could the Bradley/ M113 solution offer that a Stryker could not already a lot more effectively? If you say logistics that is ridiculous at this point. We have brought in dozens of different MRAPs etc that were never in the system before but we seem to have figured it out very quickly. Strykers are already in the system. Arguing TOE is also moot. Last I seen Division organization makeup is not the same as the 2000s. Not by a long shot. All that was GWOT centric, it would have never worked in a conventional near-peer style conflict. We figured it out with the MRAPs by using contracted civilian FSRs that were a huge pain in the ass, and they required static FOBs, they were not something capable of moving with the unit in a conventional FLOT. Thats why we also got rid of most of them once GWOT funding dried up, they were never meant to be enduring systems and were never programs of record for the most part. The concept now is creating 2 common chassis across an ABCT for all vehicles with commonality in maintenance and capabilities that can be supported in an actual large scale combat operation. Stryker units are doing the exact same thing, and light will mirror it with the JLTV being the base vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:13:47 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I kind of thought the Stryker was supposed to fill this role? What am I missing here? Yeah, in Stryker units. As far as what you are missing, you could start with the last several pages of this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:14:35 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I kind of thought the Stryker was supposed to fill this role? What am I missing here? Stryker was just supposed to be an interim vehicle, it was actually called the Interim Armored Vehicle, until the FCV (Future Combat Vehicle) family came online. Then the FCV got cancelled and the Strykers became permanent |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:14:58 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I kind of thought the Stryker was supposed to fill this role? What am I missing here? No. The Stryker was meant to be the rapidly deployable option vs Bradleys and M1s,not an M113 family replacement for the entire Army. Autocorrect made it rapidly deplorable??????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:15:57 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I recently spent some time forward with a few ADA bubbas and they were only talking about the JLTV Avenger variant and Stryker. I had to look the Bradley version up just now when you brought it up, never seen it before since the Linebacker got canned. I anticipate the inclusion of a lot of these types of systems across the force at all levels, light, medium, and heavy. As you stated the concept is to not cross platforms and to have all vehicles in the formations standardized with the same mobility capabilities as the rest of the unit. That was a huge issue with the M113, it was WAY slower than anything else in an armored company, and could not carry as much fuel. Thats the same problem you had mixing Strykers with Humvees or MRAPs, they could not keep up. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Has their been movement on the Bradley M-SHORAD variant? Haven't seen anything on it in years. I recently spent some time forward with a few ADA bubbas and they were only talking about the JLTV Avenger variant and Stryker. I had to look the Bradley version up just now when you brought it up, never seen it before since the Linebacker got canned. I anticipate the inclusion of a lot of these types of systems across the force at all levels, light, medium, and heavy. As you stated the concept is to not cross platforms and to have all vehicles in the formations standardized with the same mobility capabilities as the rest of the unit. That was a huge issue with the M113, it was WAY slower than anything else in an armored company, and could not carry as much fuel. Thats the same problem you had mixing Strykers with Humvees or MRAPs, they could not keep up. There is no way wheeled variant ADA is going to keep up with tracked armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:16:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Back in 04 when I enlisted, I was under the impression that the Stryker was supposed to replace the 113.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:18:28 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is as tall as a 577 already, then again, I think the floor inside is that much higher. Yea does this new pig swim? The M106A3 barely did a doggie paddle. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So replace a 113 series vehicle with an upgraded 113? lol Show me the 577 version. I once made my 577 aid station fly. I also almost drowned my TC fording a creek. I still want to see the hightop ride. It is as tall as a 577 already, then again, I think the floor inside is that much higher. Yea does this new pig swim? The M106A3 barely did a doggie paddle. I don't see why they'd need a high top variant. As for swimming... I've always found it a bit of a gimmick. Not sure why the Soviets obsessed with it so much, or why we tried to follow suit. Spend that money and effort on more bridging assets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:20:30 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, in Stryker units. As far as what you are missing, you could start with the last several pages of this thread. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I kind of thought the Stryker was supposed to fill this role? What am I missing here? Yeah, in Stryker units. As far as what you are missing, you could start with the last several pages of this thread. Why does some dude from Estonia understand this all better than so many Americans who fancy themselves critics? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:23:46 PM EDT
[#45]
The Soviets didn’t want to wait for bridging units so they wanted everything to swim or wade. This was an obvious part of having an offensive rather than defensive mindset,like many of the decisions they made.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:27:29 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Soviets didn’t want to wait for bridging units so they wanted everything to swim or wade. This was an obvious part of having an offensive rather than defensive mindset,like many of the decisions they made. At what echelon were their bridging units held? It always seemed to me that the Soviet mindset was much more of a "gotta make do with what I can physically get my hands on" as opposed to any sort of trust that any support would ever be there when needed. That exists in all militaries (witness the every popular CAS debates here), but the Soviets seemed to obsess on it. My guess is hard-earned experience working within their own dysfunctional systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:32:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why does some dude from Estonia understand this all better than so many Americans who fancy themselves critics? Armor envy. We used to have to borrow a couple of the handful of Latvian T-55s to have something with tracks to train against 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:34:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Back in 04 when I enlisted, I was under the impression that the Stryker was supposed to replace the 113. Heard that in 06, I laughed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:36:38 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All that was GWOT centric, it would have never worked in a conventional near-peer style conflict. We figured it out with the MRAPs by using contracted civilian FSRs that were a huge pain in the ass, and they required static FOBs, they were not something capable of moving with the unit in a conventional FLOT. Thats why we also got rid of most of them once GWOT funding dried up, they were never meant to be enduring systems and were never programs of record for the most part. The concept now is creating 2 common chassis across an ABCT for all vehicles with commonality in maintenance and capabilities that can be supported in an actual large scale combat operation. Stryker units are doing the exact same thing, and light will mirror it with the JLTV being the base vehicle. Makes sense. When did funding dry up? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:41:25 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Soviets didn’t want to wait for bridging units so they wanted everything to swim or wade. This was an obvious part of having an offensive rather than defensive mindset,like many of the decisions they made. Interestingly enough, many of the NATO heavy vehicles could wade, fairly well. The idea was to let the Soviets break their A divisions on our lines, then roll their B, and C, divisions up. Most of the Soviet ADA, and Engineer units were attached to their A divisions, at the time (80s-early 90s). The M1A1, Leopard II, Challenger, and Leclerc tanks were all equal to, or better than anything the soviets could field. They just had more of them. Granted, at the time, we were unsure of that. The soviets were assumed to go full NBC on the front, with an emphasis on chemical, to push through us. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
