[Cannoneer No. 4]

Thanks for posting this, kattracks. You have motivated me to educate myself. I've been googling Strykers and finding all kinds of disquieting stuff. Apparently a number of people with knowledge of the program are voicing their concerns on the Internet.

WHEELED ARMORED CARS: FAILURES NOT THE "FUTURE" OF WARFARE

Tofflerian "RMA" Firepower versus Heinlein/Fehrenbachian/Van Crevaldian "4GW" Maneuver: which is right for 21st century combat?

Air-Mech-Strike

Transformation Lies and Deceits come home to roost

Wheeled Stryker, FCS, bite the dust

Most of these links are also heavily linked, you could spend entire days reading them all.

[Conservative84]

The M113A3 has always been something the Army should have purchased in quantity. Instead, they chose the Bradley. The Bradley is a bigger target than an M-1 tank. It also costs a LOT more than the M113A3 would have. I wouldn't have wanted to face hostile fire in a Bradley, an M113A3, a LAV-25, or a Stryker - I'm a heavy armor type. Didn't have to face hostile fire in anything, though. I was so good, enemies of the US were too afraid of me to try anything while I was in. :-)

M113A3 Advantages: True cross country mobility, very flexible armament selection, decent armor protection, air transportable . . .

Disadvantages: Costs a lot less (less Pork to bring home), not a sexy-looking wheeled thingy, doesn't emply enough constituents 'cause it's an upgrade versus a new vehicle.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Links