[Finding People Online]

I'm considering picking this game up. How difficult is it to find people online? And is the newest version stable?

[Are Shermans THAT bad?]

Just throwing my own $.02 in here. I haven't really heard this particular aspect discussed, but then I also haven't read through the entire thread yet. One thing that would tend to slew the numbers a bit is the very fact that the Germans were on the defensive and gradually losing ground. A certain number of knocked out tanks can be returned to service. I mean, even within the CM series we see tanked gettings M-killed, and the crew bailing out. I would suspect that probably at least half of tanks 'knocked-out' can be fairly rapidly returned to service. Basically any tank that doesn't burn should have a very good chance of being repaired. But when you are the Germans and you are losing the actual battlefield terrain as you retreat, you also lose all those tanks sitting out there in no man's land. That would tend to limit actual allied tank losses and increase those of the German's.

Also, air power. While I know there is still a dispute going on regarding the actual effectiveness of allied tactical air power, especially against armored vehicles, that COULD end up increasing German armor losses, and thus further slewing the actual rates of losses on both sides in tank-vs-tank duels.

[Israeli ground tactics in S. Lebanon]

Sort of related;

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep15reuters.pdf

and then;

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1644639.htm

[Back to the future!? WWII Mod in the Wings]

I want to refight my Civilization battles in first person! You know, the ones where the cavalry dudes killed your M1 Abrams with sabers!

[Helicopters?]

Hmmm, I don't have the game, but you need an atmosphere to use a helo, right? And given the huge difference in atmospheres on different planets, I can't see the utility of a helo;

'What's tomorrow's objective?'

'Pluto.'

'What are the helo guys doing?'

'Playing spades.'

[Mortars!]

I don't have the game put I thought these might be of interest to you guys. This might be something they could think about incorporating;

SADARM;

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/sadarm.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SADARM

or;

http://www.global-defence.com/2000/pages/mortar.html

I think there was a project for an optically guided mortar round. The round had a video camera in the nose and the operator used a joystick and a video screen to guide it to its target. I think that would be neat in a computer game.

But they would have to keep the number of rounds on board to a minimum as these could be too effective. On the flip-side, I can't see 'dumb' munitions still being used this far in the future. On the flip-flip-side, you can't jam a 'dumb' weapon.

[The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan? Analysis please.]

The Northern Alliance was pretty much a Western invention. There were a number of groups that opposed the Taliban, but like just about everything in Afghanistan, describing them as a single, cohesive and unified group is a bit of a stretch. They are sort of an off shoot of something called, I think, the Five Parties. That Wiki article is particularly bad, I hope that is a rough draft as it makes little sense. I mean, look at the beginning;

"After the overthrow of the Taliban government by the USA, Afghanistan had a UN recognized government led by Burhanuddin Rabbani. When it was dislodged from the capital, Kabul, it continued leading the war against the Taliban from the northern mountains of the country."

What the heck does that mean? Rabbani's government was in place AFTER the Soviet withdrawal. The Taliban seized Kabul FROM Rabbani. So the timeline in this part of the article is wrong.

Anyways, the NA was sort of an offshoot of the Five Parties that controlled Kabul for a brief period of time before the Taliban took over. However, not all groups participated. Hekmatyar, in particular, a member of the original Five Parties, allied himself with the Taliban and actually fought the Five Parties. His group, Hezbe Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), is now one of the insurgent groups fighting against the new government.

And your comment about the NA not receiving a significant amount of aid during the resistance to the Soviet occupation is a little flawed. At the time the NA didn't exist. The NA was really invented after the Taliban took over, long after the Soviets were gone.

In regards to aid provided to the various groups during the Soviet occupation, Hekmatyar received the most aid. This was due to his close relationship with the Pakistani ISID (Inter Service Intelligence Directorate, sort of their CIA). The ISID controlled where all of the aid went. They preferred the ISID to equally effective groups such as Massoud's group, as they felt they had some measure of control. Massoud, though a devout Muslim, was a nationalist. Hekmatyar was more of a Marxist-Muslim. The ISID felt they would have more control over Afghanistan through Hekmatyar.

[ April 03, 2006, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

[Fascinating S.L.A. Marshall commentary]

Both Hackworth and Dr. Roger Spiller, founder of the Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, both state that Marshall made his numbers up. The interviews didn't take place, and the resulting data is complete fabrication. Add in the fact that Marshall didn't even reach France until July 1944, the interviews COULDN'T have taken place in the time frame he states in the book.

[Syrain knowledge of US tactics.]

According to several authors of OIF books and in the media, there have already been a number of clashes between Syrian and US forces along the border, and in some cases within Syria proper. Some are reported to have been quite large, including in one reportedcase where an AC-130 hammered some Syrian forces within Syria.

[Battle video]

Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

I think Steve said there would be an imbedded CNN camerman with the US forces and we will be able to rewatch the battle from his perspective.

So there will be this huge battle going on between Syrian and US forces, and we will get repeated shots of the same two Syrian soldiers carrying AKs, all taken from different perspectives and with the same two guys alternately changing their clothes, and changing the color of their bandanas, demonstrating that the Syrians control the area. That will be followed by file footage of Abu Gharaib and then file footage from Al Jazeera. Great!

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

The conversation keeps changing. We were talking about whether the MGS was the right fit for infantry fire support, given the 105mm and the limited ammo supply. Someone pointed out that it was ALSO do provide anti-tank support. Myself and several others said we thought an ITOW version would be better for anti-tank support, and now you are evaluating the TOW Stryker for infantry support.

I think it breaks down to this;

1. They have the TOW version, and it is for anti-tank support, not for infantry support.

2. They need a gun platform for infantry fire support.

3. The MGS is supposed to fill the role of infantry fire support.

4. The MGS was fitted with a high power tank gun, which due to a number of reasons adversely affects its ability to provide infantry fire support.

5. MGS supporters point out that the gun is a compromise citing its ability to provide anti-tank support.

Return now to #1.

This is now officially a cyclical argument.

[British Somaliland]

The Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection at UofTX is pretty well known, but this is where I usually start;

Perry-Castañeda Library

and here is some info on the campaign;

http://stonebooks.com/history/somaliland.shtml

and here;

http://www.comandosupremo.com/KerenBattle.html

[ February 16, 2006, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

Well, BF and Steve, you guys have your work cut out for you. We can look back at WWII and over the course of a number years, and through a myriad of engagements, you can extrapolate enough data to reasonably portray the vehicle and the equipment in the game. Now you got a much tougher nut to crack. Now you get to try and model the LAV, the Stryker, the M113, and the litterally dozens of varients of each. And how do you model Chobham? ERA? MCLOS vs SACLOS? IR Jammers, top attack munitions, etc. I predict huge arguments on the modelling of vehicles, some of which have never faced each other;

'Hey, that BTR killed my MGS, there is no way that COULD happen in real life.'

'Hey, that T-72M just took out my M1A2, there is no way that could happen. I mean, it has never happened, what gives?'

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I think that Stryker needs a AT missile system instead of the big-bore gun, and maybe a 25mm or 30mm as infantry support, or a MK19 mounted in a remote turret

The Stryker ICV does have a Mk-19 mounted in a remote turret. And it has been a big problem. Can't hit anything on the move, constant jams that require leaving the vehicle to clear, and only 200 rounds in the gun, and you gotta get out of the vehicle to reload it. It is just a Mk-19 in a roof mount with a remote trigger.

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

My understanding is the M900 was the original AP round for the M1, but I may be wrong.

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I do agree that the MGS, as it exists now, shouldn't have been developed. As I understand it, the initial decision to go with the 105 was because there was ample supply/production of the rounds. However, that changed over time and undermined the basic premise. Whether that is true or not is probably a secondary thing.

You are exactly right. They had 105s and ammo in the inventory, so they sold the gun as a money saving option. And then they decided the 105 ammo was too unstable (The HEP rounds had been made in the mid-60s), so they developed new ammo as well.

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

...and a reactive armor package may weigh in at 8 tons instead of the slat cage's 2 tons. Ouch! Goodbye mobility!

Basically, the U.S. purchased Stryker because they had looked on with envy as Canadian LAVs led the march into Kosovo while they were struggling to bring their heavies in-theater.

I (rather foolishly) believe the Army's worked out the recoil issues for Stryker. Late Stryker photos look like the recoil system's had a major overhaul. But maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. That angle-iron thing on th Stryker's side in the shot up top does look suspiciously to me like a brace to keep the vehicle from rocking!

Did you hear Belgium's got the opposite controversy! They just ordered a bunch of new LAV-IIIs mounting a Cockrill 90mm medium pressure gun turret, and some commentators are complaining because they didn't go for a standard NATO 105mm! One complaint was that the Cockrill 90mm gun costs twice as much as a 105. Maybe we're looking at an economy-of-scale thing on that issue. Perhaps 150 90mm gun tubed produced vs 80,000+ 105s over the life of the gun system. But I'd bet a conventional 90mm gun turret does NOT cost more than a 105 overhead with autoloader.

Here's a sort of neat Stryker video;

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/154844.php

Real short in content, but maybe you'll like it.

In regards to the 90mm, they aren't facing fighting an insurgency in MOUT conditions. I think I'd rather have an ITOW version rather than the 105 for anti-tank work anyways. But if you are supporting infantry you want HE. And I would take the 120mm mortar like the LAV-M(S). Almost 3 times as many rounds, more for a Stryker version because it is bigger, and a direct and indirect firing ability. But that's just me. It will be a while more before the MGS is ready anyways, so we will have to see.

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

mikey,

While I am not a physics major, the blast still has to go somewhere. They eliminated the muzzle brake, and then they ended up with a very severe recoil problem. And now the MGS has been delayed again.

The MGS was designed to bring more firepower to urban terrain, period. As the Stryker, in all its variants, is road bound, it is thus going to be fighting primarily in urban terrain. So they brought the gun to the city (Though the wrong gun, IMHO), they gave it decent on-road mobility, again, for the city. But they didn't provide it with survivability. And the MGS is so heavy it can no longer fit in some aircraft, and its weight has restricted the range that it can be air deployed. And on the Stryker only 2 axles are equipped with run flat tires. And the MGS is too heavy to move on 2 axles, so it's even more vulnerable than the regular Stryker vehicle.

And just in the last week the Army finally decided that the Stryker was too vulnerable, and they are now fitting them with reactive armor. But, due to the angular shape, and the fact that it is wheeled, only about 60% of the vehicle can be protected with reactive armor.

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Originally posted by civdiv:

The difference in terms of infantry support is you can sand right next to an LAV when it is firing, but you'll probably be killed by the overpressure from the 105mm if you are anywhere near it.

Would you want to stand next to any tank, while it fired its main gun? So what's the difference here?

It's not a tank, is it? That's the point. It's supposed to be an infantry fire support vehicle. If it is an infantry support vehicle, then it stands to reason that infantry will be in close proximity.

Infantry Squad Leader; 'Hey, we got this bunker holding us up. We need you to drive way over there, and then engage it.'

MGS TC; 'I can't see the bunker from way over there.'

ISL; 'Ok, you stay here and we will go way over there, and then you can fire.'

MGS TC; 'Well, from over there you can't see the bunker.'

ISL; 'Ok, we'll go over there, you fire, and then we will come back here, and then you go over there and cover us.'

MGS TC; 'Ok, but if I go over there I can't see you so I can't cover you.'

Sounds like that scene from Monty Python in 'Holy Grail'. You know, the one with the two guards;

FATHER; "Make sure the Prince doesn't leave this room until I come and get him."

GUARD; "Not ... to leave the room ... even if you come and get him."

FATHER; "No. Until I come and get him."

GUARD; "Until you come and get him, we're not to enter the room."

FATHER; "No ... You stay in the room and make sure he doesn't leave."

GUARD; "... and you'll come and get him."

FATHER; "That's Right."

GUARD; "We don't need to do anything, apart from just stop him entering the room."

FATHER; "Leaving the room."

GUARD; "Leaving the room ... yes."

FATHER; "Got it?"

(FATHER makes to leave.)

GUARD; "Er ... if ... we ... er ..."

FATHER; "Yes?"

GUARD; "If we ... er ..." (trying to remember what he was going to say)

FATHER; "Look, it's simple. Just stay here and make sure he doesn't leave the room. Right?"

GUARD; "Oh, I remember ... can he ... er ... can he leave the room with us?"

FATHER; "(carefully) No .... keep him in here ... and make sure he doesn't ..."

GUARD; "Oh, yes! we'll keep him in here, obviously. But if he had to leave and we were with him."

FATHER; "No ... just keep him in here."

GUARD; "Until you, or anyone else ..."

FATHER; "No, not anyone else - just me."

GUARD; "Just you ... Get back."

FATHER; "Right."

GUARD; "Okay. Fine. We'll remain here until you get back."

FATHER; "And make sure he doesn't leave."

GUARD; "What?"

FATHER; "Make sure he doesn't leave."

GUARD; "The Prince ... ?"

FATHER; "Yes ... make sure ..."

GUARD; "Oh yes, of course! I thought you meant him!" (he points to the other GUARD and laughs to himself)

"You know it seemed a bit daft me havin' to guard him when he's a guard ..."

FATHER; "Is that clear?"

GUARD; "Oh, yes. That's quite clear. No problems."

(FATHER pulls open the door and makes to leave the room. The GUARDS follow.)

FATHER; "Where are you going?"

GUARD; "We're coming with you."

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

Originally posted by Moronic Max:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What you identified in the red box is the instrumentation cables used to manual fire the gun and collect data. Other photos show the same cables as well.

This is probably a really dumb question, but I think my handle means I can get away with asking dumb questions. Anyway, are those cables part of the production model stryker (as opposed to being there for tests), and if so, are they vulnerable to small arms fire? </font>

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

civdiv,

If you look at Russian SP guns, they all fire a variety of anti tank rounds,( and anti personnel flechettes) that doesn't mean that they are substitute tanks, but the Russians took the smart choice of giving there long range artillery the secondary capacity to directly engage armour or infantry in an emergency.

Is the MGS designed to engage enemy armour.... No

Does enemy armour know that and won't do it......No

Is it therefore a good idea to give it some AT rounds......YES.

As to M102,s or M-8's etc, thats another two types of vehicles with yet another bundle of spare parts to add to the logistics train.

Peter.

The 105 is just a bad idea. It puts too much stress on the turret, it's recoil is right on the edge of destabilizing the vehicle, and because of it being a tank gun, it then carries too little ammo. The gun was built to combat other tasnks, period. It was built for kinetic penetrators, period.

The HEP round (The so-called 'bunker buster' round) has roughly the same penetration as the 25mm bushmaster mounted on the Bradley and LAV. The 25mm can penetrate 12-20 inches of reinforced concrete and 36" of sandbags. The only difference is the 105mm HEP round will make a hole big enough for infantry to fit through, while the 25mm will rmove the concrete, but usually won't remove 3/4" rebar if it is present. The difference in terms of infantry support is you can sand right next to an LAV when it is firing, but you'll probably be killed by the overpressure from the 105mm if you are anywhere near it. I mean, look at the firing tests;

Do you want to be standing anywhere nearby when that thing goes off?

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

It's been a couple of years since I really went into the weeds in regards to USMC issues (My last duty station was away from the USMC). But IIRC, the EFSS is that like automatic mortar, right? You just set it up and it aims and fires on its own?

I don't know, seems like too much stuff to go wrong. I remember IFSAS and AFATADS, what a nightmare that was (Sort of computerized artillery C2 systems.). I know technology is the way to go, but within reason. I've always criticised the Army as being to reliant on tech stuff. I watched a Paladin (SP arty) demo once. In the middle of the demo the Army crew killed the battery on their vehicle. So we were like, use charts and darts now (Manual Fire Direction Control, calculators, whiz wheels, etc.). They looked at us like we were talking in Chinese. They didn't know how to compute artillery firing data manually.

I have never been as lost as with a 2nd Looey with a GPS. But then again I once used a GPS to keep my company from going into Iraq in 1995 when the CO was trying to read a map.

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

Steve, your points are valid, to a degree. And obviously I cannot effectively defend viewpoints that are anecdotal to me. However, all three of these guys are senior SNCOs (Or senior NCOs in Army parlance). And I'm not going to go into details in regards to their correspondence as I don't want to throw them under the train, but there is more going on than meets the eye in regards to the Stryker evaluation.

Yes, every new pice of equipment has its problems. But personally, I think the whole concept is flawed. Yeah, you ask some guy from the 25th ID who was ground pounding all over Afghaniland how he likes having an armored vehicle, sure, they love it.

In regards to body armor, goto US Armor's website and read a bit about Zylon. There are whole law firms being set up just to litigate body armor issues. But I've gotta go, I'm rewatching the whole Pink Panther series now that I saw the latest movie.

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

And I still despise the MGS. They say they don't want it to be a tank killer, that it's not supposed to fight like a tank, but then they give it a tank cannon with tank APFSDSDU rounds. I think if anything an old 105mm M102 howitzer tied to the chassis with 550 cord would have been a better choice for an MGS than what we're getting. Even better would be a 120mm gun/mortar like the AMOS. An M68 with 18 rounds is not useful, IMHO.

I agree completely. Why give the thing a weapon designed for armor if that's not its purpose? When you say the AMOS I guess you are talking about that neat 120mm direct fire/indirect fire mortar that is mounted on the LAV, right? The Corps was supposed to get it and I really loved the idea. But then they decided against it, because, IIRC, they didn't want to add another ammo type to the logistical train. I did see one though, I think they ended up selling some to the Kuwaitis. Neat concept. I would have loved to have had that extra HE capability, but the 25mm on the existing LAVs are pretty good for buildings and bunkers and stuff. And dang, those things are so accurate even without all the high speed sights the Bradley has. I once watched our LAVs nailing vehicles from like 2000 meters in Somolia on the second burst.

["New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Oh, and here's a good Stryker vs. M113 article:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113-iav.htm

Now before I begin, these aren't my opinions, just those that I have heard from people within the Stryker Bdes. People whom I know personally. But in terms of the article, they have answered many of the points that have been brought up. And the first thing that comes to mind from the article is that the comparisons are ALL being made versus the stock M113 of 1960's vintage. Again, these are not my arguments, and I definately respect your views as you used to live with an M113;

M113 Gavin vs Stryker

The Army says the Stryker family of vehicles are considered less vulnerable to small arms and weapons fire than the M113 family of vehicles. The crew and engine compartments of the Strykers are fully protected up to 14.5mm armor piercing (AP) rounds while the crew and engine compartments of the M113s are protected only up to 7.62mm AP rounds. Although a 14.5mm armor design was developed for the M113s, the armor was never produced and fielded.

There are several armor kits available for the the M113, and several make the M113 more resistant to small arms, crew serves, RPGs, IEDs, etc, than the Stryker. And several of the Stryker vehicles that have been destroyed or damaged have been penetrated by stuff that the armor was supposed to stop. In particular, because of the body shape and the fact that it is wheeled, only about 60% of the vehicle can be fitted with reactive armor, whereas about 90% of the 113 can be. And the 113, even with the extra armor, is 6 tons lighter than the Stryker.

For vehicles weighing 10-20 tons, tracked vehicles have better cross-country mobility in sand, mud and snow than wheeled vehicles, while wheeled vehicles have much better speed and ride quality over primary and secondary roads than tracked vehicles.

The Stryker has HORRENDOUS offroad mobility because it is overweight even before they added the 3 ton RPG screen.

The experiences of Afghanistan and Iraq appeared to confirm the belief in the wisdom of transformation to meet the threats of the 21st century. For instance, both the Army and Marine Corps found the need for more armor. In particular, the need arose for medium-armor units; those with armored vehicles heavier than the Humvee and M-113 Armored Personnel Carrier, but lighter than the Abrams Main Battle Tank or Bradley Fighting Vehicle. A first step in that transformation is the creation of medium-weight combat brigades built around a new fighting vehicle, the Stryker.

That part is just a self-licking ice cream cone. 'Oh, the Stryker is heavier than the M113, and we need a heavier vehicle!' What does weight, in and of itself, provide you besides poorer off road mobility? If you have the same carrying capacity, the same armament, the same protection, why do you need an extra 6 tons?

During and after the American Civil War, many military leaders looked at cavalry differently. The idea was that a horse was there for transportation and that was it. Even cavalry leaders such as Gen. Philip Sheridan believed horses were for nothing but transport. The M-113 was a part of that. Designed in the 1940s and 1950s, the M-113 was an armored personnel carrier. It was a full-track vehicle and hundreds of thousands of them were built. Variants of the vehicle are still in service as emergency vehicles.

I'm not sure how that fits into the argument. The Stryker has the exact same role.

But wheeled vehicles offer many advantages. While other military organizations had a wheeled armored personnel carrier – most notably the Marine Corps' light armored vehicle – the US Army did not, until the Stryker. The Stryker vehicle is an eight-wheeled infantry carrier. The vehicle is designed to get light infantry from point A to point B on the battlefield. Upon arrival, the troopers dismount the vehicle and fight on foot.

So what are these advantages besides moderately better road movement and a smoother ride? And in regards to the smoother ride, the USMC stuck the Bradley suspension on their AMTRACs, and it was a HUGE improvement!

The difference between a Stryker and an M-113 is like the difference between a Yugo and a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost.

In price tag maybe. $10 billion for the Stryker.

The first thing you notice about the Stryker is that there is a steering wheel. The M-113 had two sticks coming up from the floor, with each one controlling a track. Visibility out of the driver's hatch is good. It's a 2,000 percent improvement over the M-113, most notably because you are buttoned up. There is also a video camera that helps the driver.

The controls on the M113 can be changed. I mean, the M-60 had two sticks, the M1 has sort of a flight yoke. And the M113 can rotate in place while the Stryker turns like a bus.

And I have heard many complaints that the visibility from the Stryker just plain sucks. I'm not sure what models we are talking about, but I have heard in one varient the gun sight, or maybe the drivers view, is almost totally blocked by an equipment upgrade (I can't remember the specifics). The cupula is also vulnerable and crews reinforce it with ammo cans full of sand. And in one varient the TC has to fully expose his entire upper body to see the road.

And I've also heard that you can't hit the side of a barn with the gun while moving. The gun is highly prone to jams (all Mk-19s are prone to stoppages, and then you have to manually cycle the weapon, I'm not sure if this is what they are talking about.), and the vehicle has to be exited to reload the weapon, or to clear the jam. The vehicle is also top heavy and prone to rollover, and this has happened with fatalities on at least several occassions.

In regards to the MGS, the gun is so loud that if the crew comparetment is not properly sealed you can kill the crew with the overpressure. I've read that it produces 200db when it fires. I read in one place that dismounted personnel need to be 450 meters away. Now that sounds a bit extreme. Maybe 450 meters to meet OSHA standards or something. Plus the troops in Iraq have been screaming for the MGS for almost 2 years now, and it keeps getting delayed.

Handling characteristics of the Stryker are good, even up to 50 mph. Drivers might have been able to get an M-113 up to 50 if you were going downhill with the wind behind them. But if they did, their fillings would rattle out.

Where are you going to be driving so fast? Only if your whole unit is driving down a paved road can you go that fast.

The Stryker is bigger and has a higher profile and better armor than the M-113.

It doesn't have better armor and the higher profile is a vulnerability.

The tracked M113 has, as it happens, 28% less volume under armor than the Stryker so one might reasonably expect Stryker to be bigger externally. However, the wheeled Stryker is, in fact, over 63% bigger in exterior volume. Note. The M113-Stryker ratios are 257 versus 330 cubic feet internally, and 870 cubic feet versus 1,420 cubic feet externally.

Maybe to a stock M113, but not to a MTVL. Again, they are comparing it to a different vehicle than is being proposed as a replacement.

The Stryker can't go as many places as a fully tracked vehicle like the M-113. But those who have driven both say they can go through pretty much the same terrain.

From EVERYTHING I have heard, that is total BS.

Plus the Stryker can run with four tires shot out. Try to keep moving if the track comes off on an M-113.

The Stryker can do about 5 mph with 2 tires shot out. And you cant shoot a track out, you can only blow it off. And because the Stryker has wheels, it has tie rods. And a burst from an AK can take them out.

Maintenance is easier on the Stryker, but there was initially a shortage of parts in the system because the vehicle is so new.

Agreed. But there has been a huge shortage of tires, rims, axles, transfer cases, and tie rods because the vehicle is much heavier than it is supposed to be.