To: SJackson
We have thousands of 113 APCs parked at military depots in the US and in Europe. Why haven't some of these been sent to Iraq and Afghanistan? They are not as armored as the Bradley, but better than the Humvee.
2 posted on
03/19/2004 7:13:29 AM PST by
RicocheT
To: RicocheT
Were you one of the guys capping on the Stryker?
The Humvee can maneuver better and is faster than the 113. It may be a mistake but I'd leave the 113s right where they are. Just beef up the Hummers.
7 posted on
03/19/2004 8:57:29 AM PST by
VaBthang4
(-He who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps-)
To: RicocheT
If I remember correctly, most of the troops I saw in Viet Nam were riding on top of, not inside, the M113. It seemed safer to be outside the vehicle.
39 posted on
03/19/2004 4:14:36 PM PST by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: RicocheT
The increased maintenanace costs for the M113's coupled with the increased fuel costs are definitely one consideration. What I couldn't help thinking while reading this article was how we performed many of the missions being described before the HMMWV was introduced. We performed the missions using jeeps, and no one gave a damn about the lack of armor protection.
It is unfortunate that no one in the Army's procurement organization foresaw the extended deployment of 150,000 soldiers in a peacekeeping mission and bought the necessary equipment. But I'm glad they were more properly focused on buying the equipment for those 150,000 soldiers to go into combat and win as that has got to be a higher priority than peacekeeping.
To: Thud
ping
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson