"Hillbilly Armor"

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-12-13 08:52am

Good articleon the whole armor issue that's hit the fan lately. Especially pertinent is why the US Army's thousands of M113s haven't been sent into the fight yet.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-13 09:17am

In a way this is old news, kinda-- its just become big and obvious with that soldier pinning Rummy with the question that is indeed on all our minds here... where's the armor?

That billions are devoted to high-tech, sooper-sexy LGS Bombs and similar items is no secret, and that distinctly 'un-sexy' items like ordinary trucks and armor is shortchanged because of it, is also no secret. I'm just glad someone brought it up in such a public way and now the Admin has to face it.

I am surprised to hear that the M113 would be cheaper to up-armor, although logically it should be no shock, considering the vehicles has been around for 30+ years and has had a lot of bugs worked out of it.

Billions for Buck Rogers, not a penny for dirty grunts. Rumsfeldt should write 'the letter' to every single family with his own hand.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-12-13 09:31am

So do you call it HillBilly armor because a hillbilly came up with the idea, or just because it looks like Jed Clampett put it together?

Gunhead · Post by **Gunhead** » 2004-12-13 09:44am

No surprise on the M113, it's one of the sturdiest APCs around, and will handle up armouring without too much modification. It's also simple to maintain, something I hear the hummer is not, wouldn't know though, haven't really seen one, or taken one apart.

Anyways, hopefully you get to go home in one piece Coyote.

-Gunhead

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-12-13 11:06am

I noticed the article slammed the Stryker somewhat calling it untested and unproven. Thats a lie. The Stryker has proven itself under fire and is universaly loved by the troops.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-13 11:16am

There is truth to that, the Stryker guys love their machines, but for the cost of those vehicles we could easily upgrade a large number of M113s or Humvees, and probably do just as good or better.

The useful nature of the Strykers is still undecided-- they work, sure, but do they work efficiently enough to justify themselves? They cost more, weigh more, and require more modifications (RPG birdcages) than existing vehicles, all for trade off of still questionable value.

I am back to being open-minded about the Stryker, but I admit there are criticisms to be faced.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-12-13 12:37pm

Part of the reason the troops like the Stryker is because its fast AND quiet. They can get behind the enemy or move about easily without being heard and do it quickly. That’s something the M113 can’t do. The Stryker also has some other advantages. The M2, MK-19, and M-240 guns can be fired remotely from inside the vehicle. This means no exposed gunner. It can run on 8 flat tires. An M-113 that throws a track is stuck. The Stryker has proven to survive some pretty heavy enemy hits. Sure they needed to add some birdcage armor, but its still pretty cheap. Also the M113 is rather old and wearing out. The Stryker isn’t.

Gunhead · Post by **Gunhead** » 2004-12-13 01:24pm

Still the M113 beats the hummer as an escort vehicle, although it would seem that the future of light armor is wheeled. Light wheeled APCs also have a good survivability rate against mines, because the chassis is high off the ground.

-Gunhead

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-13 01:33pm

It can run on 8 flat tires

Actually, the original LAV-III design can run on 8 flat tires, but since the stryker is several tons heavier while riding on the same chassis and suspension, it can only run on 4 flat tires...

The Stryker has proven to survive some pretty heavy enemy hits.

What makes you think an up-armored M113 couldn't survive the same hits, considering the basic armor package for the M113 is equal or superior to that of the Stryker. Also, you can add some pretty heavy applique armor to the M113 chassis, as demonstrated by the Israeli Zelda 2 variant.

An M-113 that throws a track is stuck.

This is true, but tracked vehicles have superior cross-country mobility to wheeled ones. Armored vehicles patrolling Iraq rarely leave the roads, so that isn't an issue there: however, it would be foolish to assume that that would always be the case.

the Stryker also has some other advantages. The M2, MK-19, and M-240 guns can be fired remotely from inside the vehicle.

There are versions of the M113 with enclosed power turrets, such as the MTVL upgrade package Canada is applying to some of it's M113 fleet...

However, none of this has any bearing on the original objectives of the Stryker program, which was simply to produce a vehicle that could be transported by C-130 fully loaded: it failed that objective. The M113, OTOH, already meets that criteria...

If the Army wanted a wheeled APC, they should have just picked up the same LAV IIIs the Marines are using.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-12-13 01:36pm

Ma Deuce, I've read reports specificaly stating the Stryker can run on and has run on 8 flats. It also turns our the Stryker is LIGHTER then some of the LAV models out there. The LAV used by the Canadians is heavier then the Stryker and has a better armor package.

Not all LAVs and Strykers are the same. As it stands the soldiers swear by the Stryker due to its speed, stealth (ie not noisy) agility, improved armor protection over a Humvee, and much safer fire support.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-13 02:58pm

Well, lets compare and M113 to a Stryker by the numbers: both have similar basic armor protection, but the M113 can carry more grunts (11 vs 9) even though the Stryker is about 50% longer, 50% taller, and about 20% wider (much bigger target): also the M113A3 has a combat weight of 13.5 tons vs. 21 tons for the Stryker: Remember the Stryker program was supposed to produce a vehicle so light that it could be transported combat loaded by C-130, an objective it has failed miserably, because it would be imposible to achieve anyway on a 8x8 chassis without producing something with even thinner skin than a BTR-70.

Still, there is a place for both wheeled and tracked APCs, but there are some jobs that tracked vehicles can fill that wheeled vehicles will never be able to: For example, tracked vehicles are definately better for airborne forces, because a tracked vehicle can be smaller and lighter than a wheeled vehicle with similar protection and carrying capacity. Look at the Russians' excellent BMD series of airborne APCs, as well as the defunct XM8 Buford (a program that died directly because of the Stryker).

The US Army's airborne forces are dangerously lacking in air-droppable armored vehicles, and modified M113s could fill at least part of this niche.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-13 04:15pm

I understand the German Fuchs (Fox), the one currently used in its NBC recon variant by the US, would make a decent wheeled armored car-- a little extra armor, or some spaced-armor plates, and an electro-operated turret might be just the thing. It's small and light, and a six-wheeler.

It would not be a proper armored slugging vehicle-- but as a highway escort and town patrol car, it might be just right for what we're encountering here. At least, the Army should run some tests to see the feasability before dismissing it out of hand.

The Stryker works as a straight-up heavy armored transport, but its mission goal was light air transportability, and it can't meet that requirement. That doesn't make it a reject as a concept, but go ahead and classify it as a "heavy", and leave it at that...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-12-13 05:19pm

Alyeska wrote:Part of the reason the troops like the Stryker is because its fast AND quiet. They can get behind the enemy or move about easily without being heard and do it quickly. That’s something the M113 can’t do.

Actually when fitted with rubber band tracks its nearly as quiet and fast, not to mention over a million dollars cheaper per unit.

The Stryker also has some other advantages. The M2, MK-19, and M-240 guns can be fired remotely from inside the vehicle. This means no exposed gunner.

The same system can easily be mounted on an M113. However the M113 can also easily support a remote weapons station that is actually stabilized (fire on the move is real nice when your escorting a moving convoy I would think, and Stryker doesn't have it to save weight) not to mention full turrets with much heavier armaments. You can go so far as to put the turret from an M2 Bradley on a M113, and even heavier packages exist with 30mm automatic cannon and Hellfire missiles.

It can run on 8 flat tires. An M-113 that throws a track is stuck.

In theory a Stryker can run with all wheels flat.. if it has run flat tires on all the wheels. However the US Army in all its glory decided to mount only four run flats on each vehicle as standard in ordered to save weight and its up to the crews to obtain a full set.

Then we have the issue that Stryker cannot beat an obstacle consisting of cars (somthing we have encountered more then once in Iraq), while the M113 can, not to mention the Stryker vs. M113 mobility trials in which the M113 spent most of its time pulling the Stryker out of mud holes it had easily traversed. The Strykers uber self recovery winch meanwhile utterly failed to recover it. When the first Stryker brigade when to the National Training center, the winches failed every single time they where used and recovery vehicles are now included on the Stryker brigade, despite one of Strykers selling points being that such dedicated specialist vehicles would be necessary.

The Stryker has proven to survive some pretty heavy enemy hits.

Same story for the M113. Course, the M113 can support real anti RPG armor easily, unlike Stryker which becomes massively overloaded when fitted with either the anti RPG cage or dedicated armor for the same purpose. The M113 also doen't run out of fuel after a mere 60 miles.

Sure they needed to add some birdcage armor, but its still pretty cheap.

Cheep on a vehicle which is otherwise absurdly expensive.

Also the M113 is rather old and wearing out. The Stryker isn’t.

The US Army's vast M113 reserve stockpile would be just fine for another couple decades of service if given an upgrade package. And that package costs a fraction of what a new Stryker costs, even when you include fitting new armor, weapons and communications and networking gear all of which can be easily equal or superior to what Stryker has. Even when you cut them in half for streching to the MTVL configuration its still cheeper.

Read the Stryker vs. Reality of War PDF. Stryker is a peice of overpriced junk, even if it isn't a deathtrap. The money would have and still would be, many Strykers are yet to be built, spent on various M113 upgrades.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-13 06:15pm

Coyote wrote:I understand the German Fuchs (Fox), the one currently used in its NBC recon variant by the US, would make a decent wheeled armored car-- a little extra armor, or some spaced-armor plates, and an electro-operated turret might be just the thing. It's small and light, and a six-wheeler.

Well, as I understand, the ASV-150 would have been an ideal armored car for the convoy escorst missions: Why was it cancelled anyway?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-12-13 06:27pm

[quote="Ma Deuce"]

Well, as I understand, the ASV-150 would have been an ideal armored car for the convoy escorst missions: Why was it cancelled anyway?[/quote

It wasn't canacled, the requirement simply wasn't that big, and with production being 94 units. But anyway, a vast number of 4x4 and 6x6 armored car designs exist which could work quite well for the job. But on the other hand, few of them have any better armor then against 7.62x51mm AP fire (the M1117 has protection against 12.7mm, but only for the crew, not the whole vehicle) and anti RPG protection isn't too feasible on such light chassis.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-13 06:49pm

The Fuchs, as a six-wheeler, offers better chances at self-extraction after a hit than a four-wheeler like the 150. Not that the 150 is a bad vehicle, and that would be nice to have if the powers that be won't consider anything else, after all, the M-1114 is also a 4 wheeler...

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-12-13 07:03pm

Alyeska wrote:I noticed the article slammed the Stryker somewhat calling it untested and unproven. Thats a lie. The Stryker has proven itself under fire and is universaly loved by the troops.

I think "universally loved" is an exaggeration- I've heard of criticism of the Stryker from some who have used them more than once in the past. The Strykers in Iraq are also up in the north- i.e. the safest part of all Iraq. Hardly the place for serious combat testing. Why weren't they put in Fallujah?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-12-13 07:17pm

Strykers were used in Faluja, just like LAV-25s were.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2004-12-13 07:19pm

Vympel wrote:
Alyeska wrote:I noticed the article slammed the Stryker somewhat calling it untested and unproven. Thats a lie. The Stryker has proven itself under fire and is universaly loved by the troops.
I think "universally loved" is an exaggeration- I've heard of criticism of the Stryker from some who have used them more than once in the past. The Strykers in Iraq are also up in the north- i.e. the safest part of all Iraq. Hardly the place for serious combat testing. Why weren't they put in Fallujah?

Because the troops would realise they are grossly unsuited for high intensity enviroments in a hostile city filled with light infintry, all of who carry an RPG launcher?

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-12-13 09:48pm

Alyeska, I fought the war from a Marine Corp LAV. They are not universally loved at all. In fact there are a good number of troops who hate the damn things. Fuck I spent more time trying to drag LAV's out of mud holes then I did actually fighting, they're a mobility nightmare in my book.

Yeah, they're nice and quiet, if you're on a road. Get them on to cross country and no such luck, they were loud enough for us to get ambushed twice.