Thanks for the article Jonathan...
What happens when a service that has a history of fighting for its very existence suddenly starts making stupid decisions and ties itself to a single airframe to the exclusion of all else?
Its enemies smell blood in the water and like sharks getting gobbled up by seals, you have the hunter being turned into the hunted.
James Hasik is the latest bunny that suddenly has claws and fangs because of Marine Corps ineptitude (just joking...I don't know the guy but the part about a vicious bunny just seemed to fit). Check this out (read the article here).
As separately announced this week by General Odierno, the Army will be cutting a whole Stryker brigade by 2017. Contrasting the service’s plans to add a third line battalion to its remaining tank and infantry brigades, however, the remaining seven Stryker formations already have that third battalion. Some 300 Strykers will soon be excess. So why not save the MPC program by moving a few hundred armored cars from the Army to the Navy Department? It’s not as through the Marine Corps wouldn’t know what to do with an 8x8 from General Dynamics. True, the Stryker doesn’t carry that outsized 13-man squad to which the Marines are so attached, but in this business, no one is going to get everything he wants for a long time. The “reinforced” squad planned for the EFV was 17 men, so split the squad between two vehicles. Don’t have doctrine for that? Write some. You’re Marines: adapt, adjust, overcome. The vehicles are there. In a few years, transferring them and bringing them into the force would just take some bureaucratic initiative.Hasik is talking about the real issue with the MPC and using basic off the shelf vehicles. They don't fit with Marine Corps doctrine. The M113 carries 13 so it accomplishes the basic mission.
Using upgrades provided by IMI and BAE the M113 becomes automotively reliable and simple to fix, it has increased buoyancy and it has the agility and speed to keep up with the M1 Abrams going cross country.
Last but not least its cheaper than the Strykers and would serve as a true interim vehicle without disrupting Marine Corps plans to develop the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.
Make no mistake about it. Once the Marine Corps steps one foot inside the Stryker then you're going to see pressure applied to make that the defacto MPC/ACV replacement. Its not suitable for either role and should NOT be pursued.
Better to replace the LAV-25 with a Stryker then get nothing. M113 is a death trap. Why would you want a 50 year old vehicle? Stryker is more fuel efficient and provides better protection than an old M113. Stryker costs 18$ per mile to operate while a M113 costs about 45$ per mile. Marines adopting the Stryker would have little effect on the ACV if they're hand me downs.
ReplyDeletewhere are you getting your numbers? there is no way in hell a Stryker is cheaper to operate than a M113. as far as protection goes its pretty much a wash. the Styker got mauled in Afghanistan and the LAV-25A2 was only recently procured so it doesn't need a replacement.
Deletehttp://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/10/30/2349414/heavier-tracked-more-tanklike.html
Deletehttp://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=939
There's plenty of other article saying the same thing about cost per mile. Wheeled vehicles usually are easier to maintain. Oh and the M1113 doesnt have steaming pile of shit written all over it. There were plenty of burned down M113s in Iraq. At least a stryker has a v-hull and basic protection against 14.5mm. Are you forgetting that MPC is pending cancellation? Here the Marines can get a better vehicle for a temporary solution until a future replacement comes down the road. I would rather ride in a MRAP into battle than a M113. LAV-25A2 is vulnerable to IEDs and carries less troops than a Stryker.
i wrote many an article about the MPC being canceled. additionally the Stryker didn't come with a V-hull and was modified to have a double v-hull after its debut in afghanistan was such a failure. last there were plenty of burned out everythings in iraq.
Deleteas far as operating costs can't you smell the bullshit? i mean seriously! the M113 is lighter than the Stryker, has a smaller engine and yet somehow a smaller lighter vehicle is more expensive to operate than a much larger and heavier one?
you are caught up in the marketing spin. the Army has gerry rigged some numbers to make a buy seem reasonable.
as far as the LAV-25A2 is concerned, it was never designed to carry an infantry squad so why you keep comparing it to the STyker is beyond me. its a recon vehicle in a recon battalion. so its an apple to oragnes comparison.
Why exactly does the USMC insist on a 13 man squad when almost all.NATO.nations are at an 8 or 9 man squad?
Delete13-man squads established in WW2, comprises 3 fireteams (4 man) and one squad leader. Idea is for up to two teams to be available to lay down fire while at least one maneuvers.
DeleteAll the M113 is a mini AAV. Your suggesting an outdated obsolete vehicle. I'm comparing Stryker to LAV-25 because it meets some of the requirements for the MPC. You just talked about having a vehicle that can carry a reinforced rifle squad in two vehicles. Well, a stryker can do that. Like I said, tracked vehicles need more maintenance, so I smell truth. Good luck convincing a Marine into riding into battle in an M113.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteseriously dude you're a fucking idiot. the stryker can't carry a reinforced squad, second the stryker and the LAV-25 have two totally different jobs, third the m113 has been in production for quite a while...sorta like comparing an early F-18 to a late production F-18, fourth you don't know shit about vehicle maintenance, fifth you don't know shit. get some time in service so you can speak with a bit of knowledge you little piss ant bastard.
DeleteFirst off asshole, I said two strykers carrying a reinforced squad of 17 not one! Secondly you can modify a stryker to do the job of an lav-25 can't you. Thirdly an m113 for the Marines is by far the dumbest idea anyone could have come up with. You should have some good bonding time with Amos and find more ways to get grunts killed. Fourthly I give you a fact about cost per mile and you resort to the old get some time in the military argument. Your the only pissed off ant bastard here.
DeleteMost NATO units ( except SF ) don't let their squad maneuver alone. I.E : in french regular army, a squad never maneuver, only a platoon ! So the squad don't need 3 fire teams for classic maneuver ( assault team / flanking team / support team )...I suppose USMC let more flexibility to his squad to maneuver alone
ReplyDeleteIn Vietnam, soldiers lined the floors of M113s with sandbags to provide some protection against landmines while the soldiers rode exposed atop the compartment. We didn't bother learning those lesson then like the South African's did. We also couldn't afford to have taller vehicles considering we were more concerned about Soviet armored forces than land mines than peasant guerrillas (who we avoided like the plague by tweaking our grand strategy).
ReplyDeleteThe issue with all of the 'legacy' armored systems is that they were not developed to resist the size of mines/IEDs we have encountered. M113, Bradley, Stryker, AAV were all vulnerable to IEDs because of their hull shapes. That hasn't changed.
The vehicles that the MPC program were looking at were designed with protection from IED's in mind.
I guess soldiers and Marines will go into battle with a hope they don't face IEDs again.
Luckily there will be air cover provided by F35s protecting them from IEDs. Oh, wait, on second thought
After 2017, army plants to reduce one more BCT by eliminating one armored brigade and converting another ABCT to Stryker formation, in order to maintain a total number of 32 combat brigades. Therefore, there will be no surplus Strykers for the corps.
ReplyDeleteBTW, army is in the process of divesting her fleet of M113s due to age and obsolescence. Why on the earth marine corps wants to take over those junks? M113's aluminum hull lacks even the basic protection on the modern battlefield, its flat belly is especially vulnerable to IED attacks. Its interior offers no growth for space, weight, and power.
The last time I was in an M113 was the fall of '88. I was discharged from the IDF in early '89 after almost 9 years. I remember the aluminum hull of the M113 burning like a matchbox when hit. Early in our excursion into Lebanon in '82 we were fitting augmentation armor ('baltanim') to the sides which provided good protection from RPG hits, but did nothing for the top or bottom of the vehicle. The addition made the vehicle much wider and therefore a little less maneuverable. I can't imagine the added bulk today to contend with large mines, anti-armor missiles that strike from above, etc. That of course requires engine and suspension upgrades.
ReplyDeleteAs far as space inside goes - I dunno. We worked an 8 or 10 man squad, and there was little room to spare in those things. Fortunately my unit was lighter and didn't use them regularly; but we used them enough to know. I don't see 13 warriors and gear using an M113 on a regular basis. And is that with or without driver and commander? Unless you're just going to pack 'em in tight, and pry them out fast on station, and not do anything at all inside the vehicle. Or maybe I just don't remember them so well...
You just proved my point with even greater knowledge and first hand experience with M113s.
DeleteIt does not prove your point...
DeleteNot only you are dead wrong,but i will prove it to you:
From wikipedia:«The M113 will now be replaced by the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program.[29] Vehicles competing in the program include the Turretless Bradley and the Tracked Stryker.[30] Other possible entries include an upgraded M113 and MRAP-type vehicle. Navistar Defense is also planning to participate in the program.[31]»
So the army is also considering an upgraded M-113...
On more facts on the M-113:http://youtu.be/YroI-GkeprY
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletei am so tired of you. find another place to hangout on the web. you're making blogging a lot less fun and either i get rid of you or i dump this blog. i choose to get rid of you.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteNext you're going to start calling it the "Gavin"...
ReplyDeleteRest assured, Mike Sparks has already nutted off reading this post 50 or so times.