Replies

You're already admitting the Stryker isn't as capable as the M8.

M8 is/was not an infantry carrier -it's a light armored gun platform. Apples and oranges. Stryker is vastly superior to M8 when it comes to transporting infantry.

The C17 can carry 2 Strykers or 5 M113's which means you get more vehicles per plane.

Source? That doesn't pass the smell test. Also, those M113s aren't configured with your handy turret.

Once again, you're admitting it has problems.

Every newly fielded system has problems - Abrams fans forget that platform was derided as another "death trap" when introduced, only later becoming the gold standard for armor. I don't disagree a modified 113A3 would have been an excellent choice - but Stryker was preferred for its superior mobility in urban/suburban terrain.

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

M8 is/was not an infantry carrier -it's a light armored gun platform. Apples and oranges. Stryker is vastly superior to M8 when it comes to transporting infantry.

When I brought up the M8 I meant to compare it to the 105mm armed Stryker which cannot shoot sideways (too much recoil, it will tip over) and cannot fit in a C130 at all. I'm not sure whether the 105 Stryker can carry troops either. It also weighs over 45,000 lbs while the M8 in it's air droppable setup weighs 39,000 pounds. With the level 2 upgrade armor the Stryker only weighs 44,000 pounds. Right now though the MGS (105 armed Stryker) is being redesigned because it stinks so bad.

February 28, 2002 (U) MOBILE GUN SYSTEM (MGS) WEIGHT REDUCTION PLAN (U). As part of our Risk Management program, the Project Manager Brigade Combat Team (PM BCT) and the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) Joint Venture (JV) contractor have initiated a plan to reduce the weight of the Mobile Gun System (MGS). Currently the combat weight of the MGS is 45,165 lbs. At this weight, the user is required to remove 7,165 pounds of equipment from the MGS prior to C-130 transport. At the PM's joint quarterly Program Review, the JV committed to developing and implementing a plan to reduce the vehicle weight through redesign and manufacturing techniques. This reduction of vehicle weight will reduce the impact to the MGS Soldier. The goal of this effort is to reduce the combat weight of the MGS to 43,700 pounds in development (July 2002) and 40,250 pounds in production (June 2003). Both these weights will allow the vehicle to meets its transportability weigh requirement, the latter greatly reducing the need to remove Soldier items. The funding required to support this weight reduction effort is being reviewed by the PM's vehicle Integrated Product Team (IPT) and PM BCT. PM BCT has made initial coordination with the Army Staff and OSD on funding requirements. Impact to the Army: Will require movement of FY03 IAV WTCV funding to RDTE during Congressional marking period. COL David Ogg/PM BCT/(810) 753-2000 Oggd@tacom.army.mil APPROVED BY: LTG John Caldwell

So the airborne and IBCT's are still without heavy direct fire support when a vehicle that was already approved by DOD and merely months away from full-scale production which is better suited to the mission is not fielded. Now a quote from Tom Clancy

"Unfortunately, the need to support the expensive peacekeeping operations in places like Bosnia, Haiti, and Rwanda caused the top leadership of the Army to cancel the AGS program, and reprogram the funds. Frankly, given the small size of the AGS program, this was a bad decision. Unfortunately, without any replacement for the M551, the same Army leaders moved from bad decision-making to outright stupidity when they decided to stand down the 3/73 Armored, thus denying the 82nd even the services of 66 thirty-year-old light tanks."

The M113 with a turret will still be shorter than a Stryker without a turret. What are you, some retired Officer working for the company making the Stryker?

I'm not ex-military or anything, however, I see a small problem.
The Stryker seems to be a light M2 or M3 Bradley. It will carry troops and fulfill the recon mission.
What heavy support will they have? We need a light tank to replace the Sheridan. Wasn't that the point of the M8?

The Stryker may be fine for urban combat, but how will it fare against a BMP-3 or a T-72?