[hchutch]

Agreed. I'd rather have M8 Bufords over the LAV Strykers.

But the LAV-25 is better than the M113, IMHO.

Personally, my view on the "Modernization" is that we ought to add two or three "light" (relatively light) armored cav regiments that could be deployed somewhere. Same organization as a heavy unit, but replacing M1A2s with the M8 and M3s with the LAV-25.

[rightwing2]

But the LAV-25 is better than the M113, IMHO.

This of course is a moot issue since the LAV-25 was rejected by the Army as being impossible to fit on a C-130 just as the Stryker MGS is impossible to fit on a C-130. The LAV-25 has more firepower than a standard issue M-113. However, M-113 can be fitted with guns as large as 76mm and has been by many of our allies. Even with a 76mm turret, the M-113 would be C-130 transportable because it is tracked and has a lower profile than a LAV-25. The other problem with LAVs is that they are road-bound. They have little to no battlefield tactical mobility and as Millenium Challenge proved they are very susceptable to flat tires even without live ammo being fired on the battlefield! 13 Stryker tires had to be replaced during the four day Millenium Challenge exercise totalling 6% of the Stryker companies tires. Each one of those vehicles could have been turned from mobility kills to hard kills while changing their tires. With flying bullets, we could see 75-100% mobility kills for the wheeled Stryker WW2 relic design vehicles.