dejawolf Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 pretty interesting video of proposed BAE bradley conversions:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jRgjakf59s&feature=player_embedded#! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Killjoy Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Back to our old tactics. Taking American kit and making it better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 So we take a Bradley and downscale it to an M113 and pay BAE for the privilege?All looks very "the" war rather than "a" war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javelin Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Interesting, but not impressive, BAE doing it on the cheap, can see the practicle sense though. Wonder if its still a go with the EADS merger now on, guess so ...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Thunder Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I read that the contract is only for a refit of 95 Bradleys to replace some of the aged M113s in inventory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin 7 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I read that the contract is only for a refit of 95 Bradleys to replace some of the aged M113s in inventory.I did too 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueSnake79 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 That is actually one of the better ideas that they've had. I'm sure that the men who currently ride around in the older 113's would be ecstatic to get some more armor. You might survive a RPG-7 hit in the 113 med track, no high explosives inside. But the mortar carrier, that would make a nice fireball.. Imagine being told to drive in a column of vehicles through some Iraqi town in that thing. "Sir, is it ok if I just run along side?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingtiger Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Im with RS on this one, looks like some really good modifications there compared to the M113, morever they are using the BFV which means that spare parts and maintanance etc is the same instead of buying a new vehicle which means new spare parts, education etc etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I like it, but I'd rather see us purchase these as new vehicles rather than scrap parts of our M2 inventory.Speaking as a guy who gets all of his armor experience through PC simulators, I don't see the M2/M3 or M113 as being suitable replacements for each other, as is. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it seems like they're just too different. I imagine the M2 probably doesn't fit in well in the current conflict because it's meant to smash up an enemy army fielding their own IFVs and APCs...I actually like the idea of using the M2 as a base for an M113 replacement, but rather than converting existing M2s I think I'd build them from scratch. Replacing the big turret with an M2HB and giving the troops some top hatches to fight from a mounted position basically turns it into an M113 on steroids. If they manage to save some weight, maybe they can fit some ERA to it a little heavier than the M2/M3 kit to give it some more protection.Going one step further with that, I wonder if the M2s and M3s in inventory now could be modified with the externalized fuel tanks and have some hatches put in to allow the infantry to unbutton and fight from the vehicle, CV90 style, instead of being stuck heads-down as passengers?As for the Stryker, well, I understand that most of the units that have them were formerly regular foot-mobile infantry units, and a lightly armored eight wheel truck is a significant upgrade from a 2.5 or 5 ton truck and a pair of boots. Having said that, I'm worried about the potential vulnerability of the tires. Had I been the guy choosing what equipment we procured, I'd have probably bought M113s instead of the Stryker, and be campaigning right now to start replacing broken, worn out, or destroyed M113s with the new BAE M2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted September 22, 2012 Members Share Posted September 22, 2012 I'm worried about the potential vulnerability of the tires.A lot could be said about the Stryker, but the tires do not appear to be a big problem. They have a run-flat capacity, and quite often after a mine/IED blast a Stryker can still extricate on its own power even after the loss of more than one of the wheels.But of course, in a combat zone the demand for replacement tires is very high and apparently it took the US Army a bit by surprise. (Kinda "d'oh!" if you asked me, but ... oh, well.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 A lot could be said about the Stryker, but the tires do not appear to be a big problem. They have a run-flat capacity, and quite often after a mine/IED blast a Stryker can still extricate on its own power even after the loss of more than one of the wheels.But of course, in a combat zone the demand for replacement tires is very high and apparently it took the US Army a bit by surprise. (Kinda "d'oh!" if you asked me, but ... oh, well.) Yhea...To be honest the other reason is that it reminds me too much of a BTR-80. And every time I see a BTR-80 in either version of Steel Beasts it's either already dead and everybody in it is already dead, or I'm the first guy to spot it which is why it isn't dead yet and I'll kill it and everybody in it as soon as I feel like like being bothered with smashing it up... Every time I look at one of those things.... Thats what I think of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted September 23, 2012 Members Share Posted September 23, 2012 It really depends on the threat level. Make a scenario with M113s as your heaviest asset, give the BTRs plenty of artillery support, and see what will happen then.Without doubt the survivability of the Stryker is much better than the BTR's, not the least because of the MEXAS composite armor. And where it is currently being emploed, well, the enemy's assets are limited to pickup trucks, heavy MGs, RPGs and IEDs. For most of that the Stryker is adequate. But of course, even a measly T-55 (if properly led) would rip a Stryker to pieces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 A "Heavy" Team will always chew up a "Medium" team."Medium" teams I guess are for limited war/peacekeeping missions.I seem to remember an M4 command vehicle in M1TP2 that was based on the MLRS chassis.Anyone know what happened to it? I guess it was cancelled in late 90s? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 And you can fit a lot more Strykers in a C-17 or C-5 and put some boots on the ground, while you wait for the ship with the M1s and M2/M3s on it to turn up.Especially if your adversary isn't full of "heavy units". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 And you can fit a lot more Strykers in a C-17 or C-5 and put some boots on the ground, while you wait for the ship with the M1s and M2/M3s on it to turn up.Especially if your adversary isn't full of "heavy units".Yep, that's the another advantage of medium teams 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john.gear Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 The changes to the M2 are interesting. I think this is the best course of action for an Army that is facing substantial budget cuts. I do not think the money is there to build the vehicles from scratch. The medium team concept is valid as long it is deployed in the type of operations it has been recently deployed in. I have a bad feeling that the US Army is moving to many units to the medium team concept. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 It really depends on the threat level.(snip)...the enemy's assets are limited to pickup trucks, heavy MGs, RPGs and IEDs. For most of that the Stryker is adequate. But of course, even a measly T-55 (if properly led) would rip a Stryker to pieces.Yhea thats really the key. Threat level. IMHO the Stryker is the better vehicle to go up against an enemy armed with pickups, MGs, RPGs, and IEDs. It moves better along roads when it has to convoy with cargo trucks, tank trucks, HMMWVs, etc, and it still has off-road capability when it needs it.The thing is that I don't think it's a good replacement for a heavier, tracked APC for use in higher intensity conflicts, and my concern is that we're going to try to use it as a replacement for whatever reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RENEGADE-623 Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 As for the Stryker, well, I understand that most of the units that have them were formerly regular foot-mobile infantry units, and a lightly armored eight wheel truck is a significant upgrade from a 2.5 or 5 ton truck and a pair of boots. Having said that, I'm worried about the potential vulnerability of the tires. Actually you are part right, two heavy armored cav units that used to have brads and tanks now are strykers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Alfa Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 And some like the one I was attached to had MRAPS, and MaxPro's. the Cav are very flexible now a days it seems:cul:. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Actually you are part right, two heavy armored cav units that used to have brads and tanks now are strykersSee that is EXACTLY what I don't want to hear."Congrats, we traded in our massive killing machines that have huge main guns, lethal auto-cannons, and lots of other stuff that kills people, for trucks with lots of wheels." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Well the other option is the tanks and bradleys go into storage and the unit is dis-established.I'd rather outfits like 3 ACR lived on (even with different kit) than disappeared entirely.You have to pay for a budget deficit somewhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted September 24, 2012 Members Share Posted September 24, 2012 ...the fact remains that seven entire brigades were converted to Strykers, and each Stryker isn't exactly cheap in procurement. If you keep the personnel and if the old equipment goes into long storage anyway, the cost savings in operating costs must be balanced with the substantial investment into the new equipment, the re-training of the personnel, etc.I doubt that cost savings were the driving argument behind this move. General Shinseki deliberately started a transformation towards a lighter Army, he didn't choose to experiment with a single division first - no, it had to be an entire Corps. And the decision was made in the late 1990s when tightening the budget wasn't really a driving factor in decision-making (that current trend will show its true effect only in a couple years down the road).The prime argument for the Stryker was that it was supposed to be transportable by Hercules. That was a collossal flop. It might have worked if the Army had shot for a 16t vehicle instead of picking the 23t limit initially, given that during development phase the vehicles practically never stay with the original weight (let alone future upgrades). Even if the 23t limit could have been met, a C-130 could have lifted such a Stryker at sea level for a whopping 100 miles before running out of fuel.After the entire disaster became apparent, the Pentagon simply moved the goal posts and declared that C-130 air transportability wasn't important anyway.Let's be honest here. The Stryker isn't all bad, but suitable only for a rather limited purpose. It isn't by far as operationally mobile as the Army dreamed it would be (there are FAR more C-130s available than C-17s and C-5s, and far fewer airports are suitable for the latter), so going by the original ideas and the intended purpose of an air mobile corps that could be rapidly deployed globally the entire program was a very costly failure.Whatever the Army is saying now about the Stryker, it's window dressing, putting lipstick on a pig. Switching to the Stryker didn't add a lot of meaningful capability, but certainly eliminated some. At least for the first ten or fifteen years it also didn't save money, but cost more than keeping the legacy force would have. So, MAYBE we're going to reach the fiscal break-even point around 2018...2025. Who knows what kind of wars we're going to have to fight then (hopefully none, but not very likely). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.