Replies

Thanks. I have to say I fall pretty much on the tracked side of the debate, but I think there is a role for some wheeled vehicles. Didn't the South Africans have some pretty decent and tough armored cars in the late 70's and early 80's before they were abandoned to the communists?

I think that we have to have a force with significant numbers of main battle tanks to defeat any threat. Perhaps we need also something like the Israeli Merkava tank that seemse to be more suitable for urban warfare. You know, as everyone with half a brain does, that urban warfare against a determined enemy will always be a bitch, and armored vehicles will always be vulnerable in spaces where they cannot maneuver.

I'd be inclined to go with something air-transportable, like that M113 variant, for the airborne/light infantry support role.

Didn't the South Africans have some pretty decent and tough armored cars in the late 70's and early 80's before they were abandoned to the communists?

Yes, as did the Rhodesians before them, but note a few differences between their employment and that we have in mind.

First off, the Boers had no intention of trying to air transport their vehicles, and weren't particularly contemplating their use off-road during their region's 6-week rainy season, nor in snow. And the *Kasspir* vehicles used for police services and population control in the troubled urban townships were not particularly fighting vehicles, but essentially armored 5-tonne trucks. Even the S.A. produced *Eland* armoured car, basicly a license-built copy of the French AML-90, was meant for use as an antitank weapon of desperation, should the *frontline states* choose to send in their T55s and T62s.

The real threat to the Afrikaners' vehicles was mines, particularly the Soviet TM-46. And note too the South African development of the six-wheeled G6 155mm artillery piece. As support vehicles, yep, the wheelies do fine. But as a stand-alone vehicle for mech infantry combat, those inside are going to be showing up on a lot of casualty lists.

Thanks. I have to say I fall pretty much on the tracked side of the debate, but I think there is a role for some wheeled vehicles.

For use as mortar carriers [the Stryker mortar setup requires carrying the tube inside and setting up the unit outside the vehicle, rather than fire from inside; even the WWII half-track mortar carriers were an improvement...and less likely to fall victim to counterbattery fire.

The wheelies are okay for such tasks as MP checkpoint support and airfield defense, and can probably be worked up into a much better mortar vehicle than what's now proposed. Likewise, there'' be an ambulance version desperately needed, as the high center of gravity virtualy guarantees rollovers- as has already happened with testybed Strykers at Ft Irwin.

The really sad thing is that a pretty fair vehicle could probably be worked up around the chassis of the 6-wheeled 5-ton truck [without duals in back; the M34 of the old M35A2 family] with about a 2-person crew and 4 or 5 passenger payload...and which really would be transportable by C130. It'd be cost-effective as all get out, though no more [or less] survivable than a Stryker if it'd hit a serious mine. News item:

Chechen ambush in Grozny
31.01.2002
Chechen Resistance Fighters blasted a Russian military armoured BTR vehicle in Michurina township of Grozny, the capital city of Chechnya. Chechen sources said that the remote controlled mine blast of Yesterday killed 5 Russian soldiers. The strong explosion completely destroyed the carrier.
Chechen Resistance Fighters carried another attack to two different Russian check points in Gudermes at around 11:00 hours Yesterday. 2 Russian soldiers are exed in this action.
Other action is reported from locations near Duba-Yurt and Samashki settlements in Chechnya.

Sorta sounds like what we're facing in Iraq, doesn't it?

-archy-/-