User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:08:17 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think there were still Guard units with A2s when Sept 11th happened. It was a long drawn out fielding. I helped load bodies into 1 one time. That sucked |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:12:18 AM EDT
[#2]
Talk to me about a V shaped hull, EFPs and drone vulnerability.
Or are we still pretending it’s the Cold War? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:18:46 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Talk to me about a V shaped hull, EFPs and drone vulnerability. Or are we still pretending it’s the Cold War? Mobility is survivability. Or are we sill pretending there aren't armored formations out there that we still need to be ready to defeat on the field of battle if necessary? What's an EFP if not a poor man's tank gun? V-shaped hulls are a design compromise that is necessary in a static situation with a pervasive low intensity threat. It is not a design for front line combat forces facing other front line combat forces. There's not much related to modern warfare that doesn't factor in drones. It's an exciting new world for SHORAD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:23:20 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Basically a Bradley without a turret pardon my ignorance, but isnt that thing on top a turret ? or does turret mean something else ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:26:11 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M113A3 were still being rolled out in '89. From what I was told by friends down the street in 2AD, they were pretty good. The 1st Cav didn't get them until at least after fall of 89. Yeah. The 113 in support roles stuck around a long time and the A3 were better, but it doesnt take a genius to realize a Bradley based replacement would work better for the Heavy units since it would share many components and result in a more survivable track. I will laugh when someone demands a dragoon turret for them though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:28:00 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: pardon my ignorance, but isnt that thing on top a turret ? or does turret mean something else ? Its a weapons mount. Technically a turret, but not an armored encased turret that takes up internal volume. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:29:23 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What were the Bradley and Stryker for? The Bradley is the infantry fighting vehicle for mechanized infantry companies, as well as the scout vehicle for cavalry troops within mechanized formations. The Stryker was part of Shinseki’s plan to turn the Army into a UN peacekeeping force. (Maybe a bit tounge in cheek there. Maybe). The M113 was retained for various functions in the armored and mechanized divisions (now the armored brigade combat teams) for which the cost of the Bradley was not justified or the lack of space due to the turret made the Bradley unsuitable. This new vehicle will replace the M113 in those roles. As a wheeled vehicle the Stryker would not fit as well alongside tanks and Brads. A lot of infantry guys have said the Bradley turned too many members of the mechanized infantry platoon into combat vehicle crewmen. I always wondered how well a mixed platoon of Bradleys and turretless APCs would address that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:30:36 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: pardon my ignorance, but isnt that thing on top a turret ? or does turret mean something else ? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Basically a Bradley without a turret pardon my ignorance, but isnt that thing on top a turret ? or does turret mean something else ? You know that scene in "Crocodile Dundee" with the mugger and the knife? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:31:52 AM EDT
[#9]
Does it require a Depot rebuild every 6000 miles like the Bradley does?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:32:41 AM EDT
[#10]
What were the Bradleys?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:33:18 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: pardon my ignorance, but isnt that thing on top a turret ? or does turret mean something else ?  Attached File Crows Course |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:34:58 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mobility is survivability. Or are we sill pretending there aren't armored formations out there that we still need to be ready to defeat on the field of battle if necessary? What's an EFP if not a poor man's tank gun? V-shaped hulls are a design compromise that is necessary in a static situation with a pervasive low intensity threat. It is not a design for front line combat forces facing other front line combat forces. There's not much related to modern warfare that doesn't factor in drones. It's an exciting new world for SHORAD. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Talk to me about a V shaped hull, EFPs and drone vulnerability. Or are we still pretending it’s the Cold War? Mobility is survivability. Or are we sill pretending there aren't armored formations out there that we still need to be ready to defeat on the field of battle if necessary? What's an EFP if not a poor man's tank gun? V-shaped hulls are a design compromise that is necessary in a static situation with a pervasive low intensity threat. It is not a design for front line combat forces facing other front line combat forces. There's not much related to modern warfare that doesn't factor in drones. It's an exciting new world for SHORAD. This won’t be defeating any armor formations with that 50cal. That’s what the tanks are for. Brads for other vehicles and troops. This is certainly an upgrade to the M113 but let’s not pretend this is a giant leap into 2050 conflicts. This is the army dragging its bloated corpse into an alternate universes 1995. Now if you wanted to convince me that we’re going to streamline the idea of Stryker units, Armored Calvary, mechanized infantry all the other ridiculous hybrid units the army has into ABCTs and that was that, I’d be onboard. This reeks of more maneuver officers thinking they’ll be fighting the Russians or Chinese on the steppe or Eastern Europe. When in actuality they’ll be losing guys to contracted snipers block by block in some megacity, getting a vehicle swallowed up by collapsing sewers from IEDs, taking 15 daisy chained EFPs to one vehicle and having drones swarms drop into their COP at night. Same as it ever was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:48:45 AM EDT
[#13]
I joined the Army in 2006 as an 11B and I was under the impression 5 minutes ago that the 113 hasn't been in service since before that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:48:45 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This won’t be defeating any armor formations with that 50cal. That’s what the tanks are for. Brads for other vehicles and troops. This is certainly an upgrade to the M113 but let’s not pretend this is a giant leap into 2050 conflicts. This is the army dragging its bloated corpse into an alternate universes 1995. Now if you wanted to convince me that we’re going to streamline the idea of Stryker units, Armored Calvary, mechanized infantry all the other ridiculous hybrid units the army has into ABCTs and that was that, I’d be onboard. This reeks of more maneuver officers thinking they’ll be fighting the Russians or Chinese on the steppe or Eastern Europe. When in actuality they’ll be losing guys to contracted snipers block by block in some megacity, getting a vehicle swallowed up by collapsing sewers from IEDs, taking 15 daisy chained EFPs to one vehicle and having drones swarms drop into their COP at night. Same as it ever was. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Talk to me about a V shaped hull, EFPs and drone vulnerability. Or are we still pretending it’s the Cold War? Mobility is survivability. Or are we sill pretending there aren't armored formations out there that we still need to be ready to defeat on the field of battle if necessary? What's an EFP if not a poor man's tank gun? V-shaped hulls are a design compromise that is necessary in a static situation with a pervasive low intensity threat. It is not a design for front line combat forces facing other front line combat forces. There's not much related to modern warfare that doesn't factor in drones. It's an exciting new world for SHORAD. This won’t be defeating any armor formations with that 50cal. That’s what the tanks are for. Brads for other vehicles and troops. This is certainly an upgrade to the M113 but let’s not pretend this is a giant leap into 2050 conflicts. This is the army dragging its bloated corpse into an alternate universes 1995. Now if you wanted to convince me that we’re going to streamline the idea of Stryker units, Armored Calvary, mechanized infantry all the other ridiculous hybrid units the army has into ABCTs and that was that, I’d be onboard. This reeks of more maneuver officers thinking they’ll be fighting the Russians or Chinese on the steppe or Eastern Europe. When in actuality they’ll be losing guys to contracted snipers block by block in some megacity, getting a vehicle swallowed up by collapsing sewers from IEDs, taking 15 daisy chained EFPs to one vehicle and having drones swarms drop into their COP at night. Same as it ever was. Not being able to resist and defeat an armored force will guarantee such things and worse. Getting rid of the M113s in our heavy formations has been a long time coming, and they are all more survivable against EFPs or anything else than a 113. And, with heavy forces, logistics is everything. Getting rid of a whole class of vehicle and replacing it with one with a large commonality to an existing vehicle is a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:53:20 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We put 22 people in a M113 once. It wasn't fun. That one asshole farted the moment the thing started moving, didn't he? One'a them nasty, rank MRE farts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 12:55:05 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We put 22 people in a M113 once. It wasn't fun. Packed in like sardines was an accurate description. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:01:31 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I joined the Army in 2006 as an 11B and I was under the impression 5 minutes ago that the 113 hasn't been in service since before that. Variants are still lugging ammo and supplies, driving around 120mm mortars, serving as ambulances, generating smoke, being command and control vehicles, you name it. The Bradleys or other upgrayedds have replaced 113s in the front line infantry units, the howitzers, and air defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:09:16 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not being able to resist and defeat an armored force will guarantee such things and worse. Getting rid of the M113s in our heavy formations has been a long time coming, and they are all more survivable against EFPs or anything else than a 113. And, with heavy forces, logistics is everything. Getting rid of a whole class of vehicle and replacing it with one with a large commonality to an existing vehicle is a good thing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Talk to me about a V shaped hull, EFPs and drone vulnerability. Or are we still pretending it’s the Cold War? Mobility is survivability. Or are we sill pretending there aren't armored formations out there that we still need to be ready to defeat on the field of battle if necessary? What's an EFP if not a poor man's tank gun? V-shaped hulls are a design compromise that is necessary in a static situation with a pervasive low intensity threat. It is not a design for front line combat forces facing other front line combat forces. There's not much related to modern warfare that doesn't factor in drones. It's an exciting new world for SHORAD. This won’t be defeating any armor formations with that 50cal. That’s what the tanks are for. Brads for other vehicles and troops. This is certainly an upgrade to the M113 but let’s not pretend this is a giant leap into 2050 conflicts. This is the army dragging its bloated corpse into an alternate universes 1995. Now if you wanted to convince me that we’re going to streamline the idea of Stryker units, Armored Calvary, mechanized infantry all the other ridiculous hybrid units the army has into ABCTs and that was that, I’d be onboard. This reeks of more maneuver officers thinking they’ll be fighting the Russians or Chinese on the steppe or Eastern Europe. When in actuality they’ll be losing guys to contracted snipers block by block in some megacity, getting a vehicle swallowed up by collapsing sewers from IEDs, taking 15 daisy chained EFPs to one vehicle and having drones swarms drop into their COP at night. Same as it ever was. Not being able to resist and defeat an armored force will guarantee such things and worse. Getting rid of the M113s in our heavy formations has been a long time coming, and they are all more survivable against EFPs or anything else than a 113. And, with heavy forces, logistics is everything. Getting rid of a whole class of vehicle and replacing it with one with a large commonality to an existing vehicle is a good thing. I completely agree. I’m frustrated that we as an institution have not learned that without solid doctrine and increasing the quality of our people it doesn’t matter what vehicles and toys we have. We maintain an edge of technological superiority but we are far far behind when it comes to developing a winning strategy and actual implementation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:27:28 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Talk to me about a V shaped hull, EFPs and drone vulnerability. Or are we still pretending it’s the Cold War? Ok, I will. That is a direct replacement for the M113 in an ABCT. Nothing in an ABCT outside of route clearance has a V hull. Doctrinally they are spearhead units, not COIN and rear guard. You can't make them do both. That pic also looks like it has reactive armor on it. There really isn't much else you can do against an EFP. Drone vulnerability? I'm not sure what you mean by that and I've been working the drone problem for a while now. The only real defense on that is SHORAD CUAS systems in depth, combined with training soldiers in ID and battle drills. If you have another way to solve that problem the Army has a few billion to toss your way. Funny you bring up the cold war, because a future near peer LSCO fight is a pretty good analogy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:29:40 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I joined the Army in 2006 as an 11B and I was under the impression 5 minutes ago that the 113 hasn't been in service since before that. We brought tons of them to Iraq in 3ID in 2007. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:30:53 AM EDT
[#21]
Replacement for the M113?
don't we have the Bradly fighting Vehicle as an armored personnel carrier? Yes, it's technically called an Infantry Fighting Vehicle. But this isn't an APC, it's an AMPV. If you get hung up on the difference between an APC and an IFV, then I'd just point out that the definition of IFV vs APC is based on having a 20mm cannon but that term/definition was only cooked up in 1990. And if that doesn't meet the definition of APC because the cannon is too big, then there's the Stryker, which is called the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, designed to fit between the IVF and a Humvee. Heck, if that's not enough there are the MRAPs and now the SCTVs (kits that basically turn a Humvee into something with MRAP level armor, but more mobile. So no, it's just one if a long line of armored vehicles designed to carry troops into battle, and whose chassis will be also fitted to do 'other things' as well, be it hospital, recon, mortar carrier, or what have you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:34:59 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok, I will. That is a direct replacement for the M113 in an ABCT. Nothing in an ABCT outside of route clearance has a V hull. Doctrinally they are spearhead units, not COIN and rear guard. You can't make them do both. That pic looks like it has reactive armor on it. There really isn't much else you can do against an EFP. Drone vulnerability? I'm not sure what you mean by that and I've been working the drone problem for a while now. The only real defense on that is SHORAD CUAS systems in depth, combined with training soldiers in ID and battle drills. Funny you bring up the cold war, because a future near peer LSCO fight is a pretty good analogy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Talk to me about a V shaped hull, EFPs and drone vulnerability. Or are we still pretending it’s the Cold War? Ok, I will. That is a direct replacement for the M113 in an ABCT. Nothing in an ABCT outside of route clearance has a V hull. Doctrinally they are spearhead units, not COIN and rear guard. You can't make them do both. That pic looks like it has reactive armor on it. There really isn't much else you can do against an EFP. Drone vulnerability? I'm not sure what you mean by that and I've been working the drone problem for a while now. The only real defense on that is SHORAD CUAS systems in depth, combined with training soldiers in ID and battle drills. Funny you bring up the cold war, because a future near peer LSCO fight is a pretty good analogy. This is certainly a good upgrade. I’m just not seeing the point of shiny new toys when we weren’t able to wrangle a strategic win in Iraq after 17 years. OIR (resolve) is just another cover for propping up the Iraqis and keeping Iran’s dick out of the region. Which were not even doing well. This is more hardware coving software issues. Don’t listen to me. I’m pulling staff duty again for an armor unit right now so I’m a little bias. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:35:02 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. The Bradley was always an IFV with turret and ATGM launcher Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Isnt that what the bradley was supposed to be from the get go? A light, fast way to get troops to the front, no turret or missiles or anything No. The Bradley was always an IFV with turret and ATGM launcher no, it wasn't. Heck, they have even made a movie about how crazy the Bradley development was, because they kept on throwing unrealistic metrics at it, and basically the only way to accomplish the goal was to keep on dropping the official troop capacity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:36:10 AM EDT
[#24]
Found this on wikipedia. Looks like the new vehicle is a lot chunkier than the m113.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:39:07 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This won’t be defeating any armor formations with that 50cal. That’s what the tanks are for. Brads for other vehicles and troops. This is certainly an upgrade to the M113 but let’s not pretend this is a giant leap into 2050 conflicts. This is the army dragging its bloated corpse into an alternate universes 1995. Now if you wanted to convince me that we’re going to streamline the idea of Stryker units, Armored Calvary, mechanized infantry all the other ridiculous hybrid units the army has into ABCTs and that was that, I’d be onboard. This reeks of more maneuver officers thinking they’ll be fighting the Russians or Chinese on the steppe or Eastern Europe. When in actuality they’ll be losing guys to contracted snipers block by block in some megacity, getting a vehicle swallowed up by collapsing sewers from IEDs, taking 15 daisy chained EFPs to one vehicle and having drones swarms drop into their COP at night. Same as it ever was. Not everything can be heavy just because you saw the need for that over the GWOT. You need units that can rush forward and sieze objectives to even get your armor to the FLOT. The last time I checked the biggest threats for conflict are China and Russia, and its been proven that ABCTs would have a hell of a time even going from port to the FLOT due to tons of water crossings, unsuitable infrastructure and terrain. COIN is a rear guard fight in a convenentional conflict, you have to dominate the conventional aspect to even make it to that point. There still exists the propensity for standalone low intensity conflict, which is one reason we are moving to the JLTV fleet and keeping our MRAPs stockpiled. We have learned plenty of lessons, the biggest one being that we can't make every unit functional in every capability. We need a tiered approach mixing armor vs speed in order to work through every contingency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:43:37 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: no, it wasn't. Heck, they have even made a movie about how crazy the Bradley development was, because they kept on throwing unrealistic metrics at it, and basically the only way to accomplish the goal was to keep on dropping the official troop capacity.  Well now we know your knowledge of military matters is even worse than it is on policing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:44:19 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is certainly a good upgrade. I’m just not seeing the point of shiny new toys when we weren’t able to wrangle a strategic win in Iraq after 17 years. OIR (resolve) is just another cover for propping up the Iraqis and keeping Iran’s dick out of the region. Which were not even doing well. This is more hardware coving software issues. Don’t listen to me. I’m pulling staff duty again for an armor unit right now so I’m a little bias. Crushing Iraq militarily is not a problem. Im there now, its a pretty pacified and fairly friendly place. Fighting small SMGs or ITN is a different story, one that ultimately belongs to the Iraqis themselves,, and for us belongs in the political arena engaging Iran on the world stage. This vehicle has nothing to do with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:48:29 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Replacement for the M113? don't we have the Bradly fighting Vehicle as an armored personnel carrier? Yes, it's technically called an Infantry Fighting Vehicle. But this isn't an APC, it's an AMPV. If you get hung up on the difference between an APC and an IFV, then I'd just point out that the definition of IFV vs APC is based on having a 20mm cannon but that term/definition was only cooked up in 1990. And if that doesn't meet the definition of APC because the cannon is too big, then there's the Stryker, which is called the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, designed to fit between the IVF and a Humvee. Heck, if that's not enough there are the MRAPs and now the SCTVs (kits that basically turn a Humvee into something with MRAP level armor, but more mobile. So no, it's just one if a long line of armored vehicles designed to carry troops into battle, and whose chassis will be also fitted to do 'other things' as well, be it hospital, recon, mortar carrier, or what have you. False. Its not an APC, M113s havent been used in that capacity for decades. Its a replacement for what the M113s ARE being used for. Mobile C2/Oscar, ambulance, mortar carriers, MDTF enabler platforms, etc. in a vehicle that can keep pace with tanks and brads, which the M113 really couldn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:54:47 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: pardon my ignorance, but isnt that thing on top a turret ? or does turret mean something else ? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Basically a Bradley without a turret pardon my ignorance, but isnt that thing on top a turret ? or does turret mean something else ? while not a hard and fast definition, a turret generally contains the gun operator inside it - be that a ball turret on a WW2 bomber or a tank turret. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:56:54 AM EDT
[#30]
Having spent a lot of time crewing an M113 maintenance track, I'll reserve judgement on the turretless Bradley. There are pros and cons to both hulls, I'd be interested to see what BAE did with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 2:00:02 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: pardon my ignorance, but isnt that thing on top a turret ? or does turret mean something else ? https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/459941/A71728EF-600D-432B-B8A1-B1FFE9581211_jpe-1577749.JPG  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8WJAJPYloIWhat? Once a month you give a 1 week course - okay. But what do you use that facility for the rest of the time? Oh, training trainers for 3 weeks. Well how many trainers do you need? With a dedicated facility, on any given month have 3 of the one week course |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 2:00:25 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not everything can be heavy just because you saw the need for that over the GWOT. You need units that can rush forward and sieze objectives to even get your armor to the FLOT. The last time I checked the biggest threats for conflict are China and Russia, and its been proven that ABCTs would have a hell of a time even going from port to the FLOT due to tons of water crossings, unsuitable infrastructure and terrain. COIN is a rear guard fight in a convenentional conflict, you have to dominate the conventional aspect to even make it to that point. There still exists the propensity for standalone low intensity conflict, which is one reason we are moving to the JLTV fleet and keeping our MRAPs stockpiled. We have learned plenty of lessons, the biggest one being that we can't make every unit functional in every capability. We need a tiered approach mixing armor vs speed in order to work through every contingency. Russia and China have been our biggest threats for 70 years. We still haven’t fought them and I doubt we ever will. That may be a chicken before egg thing. They don’t fight us because we have this capability. Your first example is interesting in that these vehicles are supposedly to be for support elements of an ABCT (comms, medical etc) so if the main fighting force can’t get somewhere these sure as hell won’t so they don’t solve that issue of port to FLOT. If it’s a COIN fight they are again about useless because they either won’t be directly engaged or they will be but with traps and more advanced IEDs which makes their existence moot since a JLTV or mrap would do the same job. We do need an upgrade to the 113 but we need better forward thinking doctrine more than this stuff. That’s all I’m saying. Hopefully that doctrine is coming. We got a new pistol and that only took about 15 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 2:03:05 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Found this on wikipedia. Looks like the new vehicle is a lot chunkier than the m113. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/US_Army_AMPV_compared_to_the_M113.png wow that's significantly larger! I am guessing that being it is going to be accompanying Abrams, the size won't be a huge limiting factor as far as transport, but what about what kinds of bridges it can cross? How likely is it this thing will be used in medium brigades especially when it's redesigned to fill other roles, and THEN people complain 'it's too big and heavy! design something new!' |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 2:06:30 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 2:07:17 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Crushing Iraq militarily is not a problem. Im there now, its a pretty pacified and fairly friendly place. Fighting small SMGs or ITN is a different story, one that ultimately belongs to the Iraqis themselves,, and for us belongs in the political arena engaging Iran on the world stage. This vehicle has nothing to do with that. That’s my point. We (the army) can already smoke any conventional force on the planet. Meanwhile we’re watching our baby Iraq fail miserably at something one or two of our federal police forces could tackle in about 6 months. All while having no strategic vision whatsoever. This vehicle can’t fix any of those issues but here we are talking about it. Kinda like when someone asks what manufacturer they should buy for their 4th AR15 but have never taken a single training class. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 2:09:50 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Found this on wikipedia. Looks like the new vehicle is a lot chunkier than the m113. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/US_Army_AMPV_compared_to_the_M113.png That first picture doesn’t do it justice. This thing is big. I’m glad we’re upgrading, I really am. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 2:10:50 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: wow that's significantly larger! I've been parked next to Bradleys in a 113. The hulls are quite a bit taller but it'll be nice to have something that can natively resist 50 cal. I wonder without the turret if it has all the same creature comforts of the M113A3? Without the turret it should also have pretty good mobility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 2:16:40 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Russia and China have been our biggest threats for 70 years. We still haven’t fought them and I doubt we ever will. That may be a chicken before egg thing. They don’t fight us because we have this capability. Your first example is interesting in that these vehicles are supposedly to be for support elements of an ABCT (comms, medical etc) so if the main fighting force can’t get somewhere these sure as hell won’t so they don’t solve that issue of port to FLOT. If it’s a COIN fight they are again about useless because they either won’t be directly engaged or they will be but with traps and more advanced IEDs which makes their existence moot since a JLTV or mrap would do the same job. We do need an upgrade to the 113 but we need better forward thinking doctrine more than this stuff. That’s all I’m saying. Hopefully that doctrine is coming. We got a new pistol and that only took about 15 years. The ABCT mobility issue was addressing your concerns that lighter units such as Strykers are insignificant and they need to bump up to armored. Light and medium units secure the mechanisms to get armor to the fight. It doesn't make sense to add an AMPV into a Stryker unit and bog them down as well. Russia is a paper tiger but has been absolutely crushing us on the competition front, our focus with them is holding the line on their influence westward. China and Iran are absolutely viable threats. We are closer to war with them now than ever before. If you haven't taken notice of the entire Marine Corps restructuring to enable a sustained Pacific fight, and the US cozying up to Chinas neighbors, you may want to start. That war is inevitable pending they don't self collapse before it happens. War with any of these three (which includes North Korea with China) is simultaneously the most likely and most hazardous course of action we face in the next 10-15 years, and as such are what we need to be planning against. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 2:24:03 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s my point. We (the army) can already smoke any conventional force on the planet. Meanwhile we’re watching our baby Iraq fail miserably at something one or two of our federal police forces could tackle in about 6 months. All while having no strategic vision whatsoever. This vehicle can’t fix any of those issues but here we are talking about it. Kinda like when someone asks what manufacturer they should buy for their 4th AR15 but have never taken a single training class. We can smoke any conventional force...most likely. But the reality is that our Army is in shambles with regard to large scale combat operations and is already way behind the power curve with MDO and the future fight. Vehicles like the AMPV and JLTV provide light and heavy platforms to finally get those MDO assets integrated at the tactical level, such as CUAS systems, SHORAD, CYBER and EW, NBC/CWMD, etc. China and Russia don't need to completely dominate us, they found the niches we ignored and became masters of those specific areas. I assure you there have been plenty of studies and scouting missions showing how we plan on getting to the Suwalki gap or getting divisions into Korea and China, and they didn't go as well as we always assumed they would for the past 20 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 2:59:17 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That first picture doesn’t do it justice. This thing is big. I’m glad we’re upgrading, I really am. I'm thinking that big doesn't work too good for the 3rd world shithole streets that our troops get deployed to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:00:38 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm thinking that big doesn't work too good for the 3rd world shithole streets that our troops get deployed to. Heavy armor hasn't been on those streets in over a decade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:06:24 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm thinking that big doesn't work too good for the 3rd world shithole streets that our troops get deployed to. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That first picture doesn’t do it justice. This thing is big. I’m glad we’re upgrading, I really am. I'm thinking that big doesn't work too good for the 3rd world shithole streets that our troops get deployed to. Which is exactly where we’re likely to end up. Again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:23:06 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M113A3 were still being rolled out in '89. From what I was told by friends down the street in 2AD, they were pretty good. The 1st Cav didn't get them until at least after fall of 89. We had M113A3 when I was a Scout Platoon Sgt. They were fast and powerful BUT they had a steering wheel instead of Laterals. They also had a very powerful automatic brake, the first time I drove a new one we got right off the truck I wanted to drive it. I had a new Lieutenant as the TC. The first time I hit the brake this baby stopped so fast it threw the LT out of the TC position. I actually grabbed him by the butt when he flew next to me. Thank God for the Trim Vane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:23:08 AM EDT
[#44]
Still not a Gavin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:24:09 AM EDT
[#45]
Too bad those soon to be surplus M113's will never reach the US market. I'd love to have a shoebox on tracks!! You can buy an FMC skidder same chassis |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:28:41 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The ABCT mobility issue was addressing your concerns that lighter units such as Strykers are insignificant and they need to bump up to armored. Light and medium units secure the mechanisms to get armor to the fight. It doesn't make sense to add an AMPV into a Stryker unit and bog them down as well. Russia is a paper tiger but has been absolutely crushing us on the competition front, our focus with them is holding the line on their influence westward. China and Iran are absolutely viable threats. We are closer to war with them now than ever before. If you haven't taken notice of the entire Marine Corps restructuring to enable a sustained Pacific fight, and the US cozying up to Chinas neighbors, you may want to start. That war is inevitable pending they don't self collapse before it happens. War with any of these three (which includes North Korea with China) is simultaneously the most likely and most hazardous course of action we face in the next 10-15 years, and as such are what we need to be planning against. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Russia and China have been our biggest threats for 70 years. We still haven’t fought them and I doubt we ever will. That may be a chicken before egg thing. They don’t fight us because we have this capability. Your first example is interesting in that these vehicles are supposedly to be for support elements of an ABCT (comms, medical etc) so if the main fighting force can’t get somewhere these sure as hell won’t so they don’t solve that issue of port to FLOT. If it’s a COIN fight they are again about useless because they either won’t be directly engaged or they will be but with traps and more advanced IEDs which makes their existence moot since a JLTV or mrap would do the same job. We do need an upgrade to the 113 but we need better forward thinking doctrine more than this stuff. That’s all I’m saying. Hopefully that doctrine is coming. We got a new pistol and that only took about 15 years. The ABCT mobility issue was addressing your concerns that lighter units such as Strykers are insignificant and they need to bump up to armored. Light and medium units secure the mechanisms to get armor to the fight. It doesn't make sense to add an AMPV into a Stryker unit and bog them down as well. Russia is a paper tiger but has been absolutely crushing us on the competition front, our focus with them is holding the line on their influence westward. China and Iran are absolutely viable threats. We are closer to war with them now than ever before. If you haven't taken notice of the entire Marine Corps restructuring to enable a sustained Pacific fight, and the US cozying up to Chinas neighbors, you may want to start. That war is inevitable pending they don't self collapse before it happens. War with any of these three (which includes North Korea with China) is simultaneously the most likely and most hazardous course of action we face in the next 10-15 years, and as such are what we need to be planning against. That’s all well and good but this is painting rocks for officers. We’re gearing up for a fight that won’t happen. Why on earth would we push into mainland China? That would trigger a lot of things, none of which are good. Nuclear war, COIN, economic doom, India going full retard etc. and we certainly won’t be doing island hopping with tanks, brads and this bad boy. I doubt we’d even move into North Korea. Every exercise I’ve seen the end goals are find fix destroy forces past phase line X and then secure and normalize previous borders. That’s it. Our whole concept now is “maintain status quo at all costs.” With the terrain there too mountains, rivers and tanks don’t mix, we learned that from the Russians in Afghanistan. We won’t be charging into Russia anytime soon either and I’d be amazed if they could punch a log train past western Poland and survive more than a week. Iran.....maybe but that would just be 1991 all over again. We don’t need anything fancy for that one. A troop of Girl Scouts with a predator feed could handle that. Better than average chances we’ll be propping up some half baked shithole puppet we installed below the equator somewhere relearning about Pepsi can IEDs and the need for sniper netting on guard towers or we’ll be fighting through a maze of tent cities and bombed out rubble in whatever capital city we’re trying to pacify (maybe Portland at this rate) for reasons but it won’t be in any of the big three because there’s no need and the country won’t have the stomach for it. If I’m ever wrong and we end up in WWIII and you’re defusing bombs in Moscow and I’m trying to figure out who the minister of electricity is in Beijing you shoot me an email and I’ll buy ya a beer when it’s all over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:28:42 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which is exactly where we’re likely to end up. Again. Heavy armor was only on those streets because nothing else existed past the soft skin humvee. That is not the case by far anymore, and if there's one singular capability that has literally been beat to death, it's the armored low intensity urban COIN patrol. As we saw in Syria the minute a new low intensity conflict opened up we had a premade material solution already literally waiting in yards in CENTCOM. Meanwhile, you are worried about UAS, how do you think the new CUAS systems are going to be integrated within the ABCTs maneuver formations? They aren't getting mounted on an Abrams or Bradley, that's for sure. COIN and LSCO are two completely separate entities that share points of overlap, but both have fundamental differences that must be addressed by solutions that won't be universally compliant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:42:44 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s all well and good but this is painting rocks for officers. We’re gearing up for a fight that won’t happen. Why on earth would we push into mainland China? That would trigger a lot of things, none of which are good. Nuclear war, COIN, economic doom, India going full retard etc. and we certainly won’t be doing island hopping with tanks, brads and this bad boy. I doubt we’d even move into North Korea. Every exercise I’ve seen the end goals are find fix destroy forces past phase line X and then secure and normalize previous borders. That’s it. Our whole concept now is “maintain status quo at all costs.” With the terrain there too mountains, rivers and tanks don’t mix, we learned that from the Russians in Afghanistan. We won’t be charging into Russia anytime soon either and I’d be amazed if they could punch a log train past western Poland and survive more than a week. Iran.....maybe but that would just be 1991 all over again. We don’t need anything fancy for that one. A troop of Girl Scouts with a predator feed could handle that. Better than average chances we’ll be propping up some half baked shithole puppet we installed below the equator somewhere relearning about Pepsi can IEDs and the need for sniper netting on guard towers or we’ll be fighting through a maze of tent cities and bombed out rubble in whatever capital city we’re trying to pacify (maybe Portland at this rate) for reasons but it won’t be in any of the big three because there’s no need and the country won’t have the stomach for it. If I’m ever wrong and we end up in WWIII and you’re defusing bombs in Moscow and I’m trying to figure out who the minister of electricity is in Beijing you shoot me an email and I’ll buy ya a beer when it’s all over. So we should ignore the primary threat that has the potential to wipe us clean off the face of the earth because you are certain it would never happen in the next 10+ years? China would attack just because the 3 gorges dam burst and they needed an external threat to blame so they dont get overrun by their own people. That isnt the threat you ignore and hope to catch up with if you need to through dollars and a can do attitude. They could close 60% of the world's shipping lanes via the South China Sea if they wanted to on a whim. Iran may not be a peer adversary on the open front, but they have a lot of big missiles they could get off before we could do anything about it, as they showed us. The Aramco oil attacks in Saudi they sponsored caused a 5% reduction in global oil supply in an afternoon, via a proxy, not even their regular army. You seem awfully confident they dont intend on doing any of this, but military planners dont have that luxury. You seem to be preoccupied with propping up and developing the COIN fight. At what point militarily do you think we've got that licked? COIN fails because of politics and moving goalposts, not because we didnt develop an adequate military infrastructure to do it. We are the most COIN capable military to ever have ever existed right now. Meanwhile we let ADA/SHORAD fall to pieces, lost expeditionary capability in the Pacific, and are already taking major losses in the CYBER/EW and IW domains. Strategic planning isnt about now or next year. It's about 2028 and 2035. POM cycles are 5 years, making that the minimum you can project large scale innovation and capability growth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:57:24 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Heavy armor was only on those streets because nothing else existed past the soft skin humvee. That is not the case by far anymore, and if there's one singular capability that has literally been beat to death, it's the armored low intensity urban COIN patrol. As we saw in Syria the minute a new low intensity conflict opened up we had a premade material solution already literally waiting in yards in CENTCOM. Meanwhile, you are worried about UAS, how do you think the new CUAS systems are going to be integrated within the ABCTs maneuver formations? They aren't getting mounted on an Abrams or Bradley, that's for sure. COIN and LSCO are two completely separate entities that share points of overlap, but both have fundamental differences that must be addressed by solutions that won't be universally compliant. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Which is exactly where we’re likely to end up. Again. Heavy armor was only on those streets because nothing else existed past the soft skin humvee. That is not the case by far anymore, and if there's one singular capability that has literally been beat to death, it's the armored low intensity urban COIN patrol. As we saw in Syria the minute a new low intensity conflict opened up we had a premade material solution already literally waiting in yards in CENTCOM. Meanwhile, you are worried about UAS, how do you think the new CUAS systems are going to be integrated within the ABCTs maneuver formations? They aren't getting mounted on an Abrams or Bradley, that's for sure. COIN and LSCO are two completely separate entities that share points of overlap, but both have fundamental differences that must be addressed by solutions that won't be universally compliant. I’m not saying this is a bad move. Just that we have always prepared for a fight that has never materialized. Thats probably a good thing too. My point is we’re not being honest about the conflicts we’re going to be engaging in. Those conflicts will be geographically confined to small areas, probably urban and politically constrained to very small formations to avoid another grinding Vietraqistan-like forever war. As evidence Id point to: The army was all ready getting itself spun up for “the next war” when Syria kicked off and it not surprisingly didn’t look anything like what the army thought ie WWIII. We were quite literally killing mercenaries sent from the same country we were deconflicting humanitarian aid convoys from into an area where the locals were trying to kill both of us and that doesn’t even scratch the surface of the other state and non-state actors. It was and continues to be a giant ball of string with no known end state. SOF is doing a metric fuck load of operations down in South America, partner training, counter drug, counter terrorist stuff the usual, if any of that grows into something it’ll look more like the narcowar in Mexico or the Marawi fight a few years back. We may also have to go back into Iraq and restablize since they’re one hard sneeze away from total chaos at any given moment. Africa is a complete and utter disaster from stem to stern and if we ever end up fighting China it’ll be there. That won’t be a lot of tanks either it’ll be more like Vietnam but with cellphones and manpads. Any of those is way more likely. I think we’re talking past each other with you clearly demonstrating the most dangerous course of action and me advocating the most likely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:57:56 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think there were still Guard units with A2s when Sept 11th happened. It was a long drawn out fielding. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So replace a 113 series vehicle with an upgraded 113? lol Its a bradley hull. This is something that should would have happened in the early 90s if the wall hadnt fell. The 113 needed replacing then but money dried up. The M113A3 were still being rolled out in '89. From what I was told by friends down the street in 2AD, they were pretty good. The 1st Cav didn't get them until at least after fall of 89. I think there were still Guard units with A2s when Sept 11th happened. It was a long drawn out fielding. Our separate engineer units had them last, it was after 2010 when we got rid of the last batch. Our ESB/ABCT had A3s as long as I've been in the Guard, so 19 years at least. |
|
|
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.
