|
BlacktailFA (October 11, 2008 at 1:59 am)
Tracked vehicles are less vulnerable to mines, due to their lower ground pressure (M113A3 = 9psi, Stryker = 40psi), and the fact that the majority of AT mines are pressure-fused.Compare the losses of just 147 tracked vehicles in the Russo-Afghan war, to more than 1300 Armored Cars.As for the "ease" of blowing off tracks, Task Force Smith was assaulted by 33 tanks at the start of the Korean War, and attacked their tracks (their armor was too thick).They only disabled 2 tanks this way.
BlacktailFA (October 11, 2008 at 1:39 am)
While knocking back a few, the Strykers will rust away --- more than half of the Steel-hulled LAV-25 family of Armored Cars bought by the Marines in the '80's are already rusted through and useless, and the Strykers have already exceeded half of their corrosion-related hull life.At thier present rate of use, they'll but rusted frozen by 2020 --- if they aren't shattered by the guns of Light Tanks in the next war, first.
yubbayubba (October 10, 2008 at 6:28 pm)
At least we can recycle all those old M113s and make beer cans out of them.
yubbayubba (October 10, 2008 at 6:27 pm)
The M113 tracks (regardless of model number) are exceedingly vulnerable to damage by the same "landmines" that you keep claiming are killing our troops by deflating Stryker tires.All you need to do to completely disable a M113 is blow off one track shoe. One. The vehicle becomes nearly impossible to control, and the drivers of M113s are trained to immediately decelerate the vehicle to a stop when it happens.
BlacktailFA (September 7, 2008 at 7:36 pm)
gadget445,True, but it can also fire HE, HE-FRAG, and APDS rounds in order to inexpensively (and VERY effectively) engage non-Battle Tank targets.
Gouldenman (September 4, 2008 at 9:08 pm)
Hmm... Sorry man, u learn somethiing new everyday, thanks for the added info to my arsenal, and yeh strykers are bad... i rekon the ASLAV is probably better, but you can't go past the m113, it is the best APC out there, and with modern armour it could keep going forever, and i hope it does :P thanks mate
BlacktailFA (September 4, 2008 at 11:03 am)
The T-34 track is not out of context, because the quality of the alloys and design of the tracks, and the Anti-Tank weapons that Task Force Smith used against those T-34s,are in direct proportion to the quality of the M113 Gavin's tracks and export-grade RPG-7s.As for M113s throwing tracks, I've never heard of it being a frequent problem before. Even so, the M113 has NOTHING on the Stryker --- Stryker drivers are MANDATED to never exceed 35mph, 'cause they're starting to throw whole WHEELS!!!
Gouldenman (September 4, 2008 at 6:34 am)
I have to say I love the m113, which is why I was intrigued by the vid, but u use out of context and inappropriate information for ur arguments, like with the tracks and t-34's completely different to modern tracks, of course any idiot who suggest tracks break easily are, well idiots, but m113's do throw tracks quite often, it is one of the leading causes of injury lol at trim vain though:PGreat vid though, thanks redy for the next... oh and anyone who thinks of those myths should read up...
BlacktailFA (September 1, 2008 at 8:29 am)
That steel won't last very long once the extra 7 tons of weight in modifications gets fitted to the Strykers.Hell, they're all nearly DOUBLE the weight that the MOWAG Piranha suspension (that they use) was designed to carry anyway!
BlacktailFA (September 1, 2008 at 7:47 am)
GordonofSeattle,The whole problem started when the (then) US Army Chief of Staff, Eric "Rick" Shinseki came up with the brilliant idea of putting the entire US Army on wheels, and forced the LAV III into service --- the whole "Interim Armored Vehicle" initiative was only a smokescreen, as evidenced by the testing & evaluation and procurement methods used.The vehicle we know today as the "Stryker" is a waste product of this objective. |