There are two argument's going on here, neither of which are particularly Marine related, but they're fun, so let's continue them! 1. M113 vs Bradley. The Bradley is clearly the more superior vehicle. It's faster, heavily armoured and well armed. I'm not a soldier, but if I was I would much more prefer to go into conflict with it rather than those thinly armoured M113's. In todays environment it does have some "flaws" in that it could carry more dismounts and have a larger main gun. Even considering this it's a superb machine. As a Brit I don't even really understand a M113 vs Bradley debate. The equivalent would be talking up the FV432 versus the Warrior, and if you were to do that, you would be completely laughed at. 2. Col D Bolger. Horsesoldier, I think you're being a bit unfair on him. His main argument was that he wanted to see more infantry across the board. He did think that Mech Units would die out, but that was because of lack of strategic mobility, rather than not being good at what they do. His main mistake IMO was not to suggest replacing heavy Badley's and Abrams with lighter more deployable vehicles. You can understand why he didn't do that in the cash-strapped mid-1990's - he would have come across as a right nutter if he suggested creating a new family of vehicles at a cost of $112 billion!

hs keeps thinking I am saying the m-113 is better and he keeps doggin the m-113 and keeps refering to the basic version all I was doing was stating the upgraded m-113 is not as bad as he lets on-though he "knows" all about them. I said several times that the bradley was better, but the newest model m-113 was close to it. Infact, it is just as fast. The top speed you see is the ideal speed. actual top (operating) is not as high and with the 400hp engine, the newest m-113 can keep up and with a better suspension and transmission, it is either as, or almost as good a ride, and I would surmise HS hasnt used the new model, only the early A1 or A2... As far as protection...well baseline, both suck-m2 being a little better (but not the 23mm he states) the uparmoured m2/3 is better, but in a GENERAL troop carrying environment, the m-113 is just as effective as the bradely in iraq. both take hmg fire(though few incidents of hmg) both can take basic rpg rounds and even ap rounds-though the bradley will come out better. I can go on, but to end it. The newest m-113 is not as bad as everyone thinks. It is also not as expensive as the critics say-perhaps 1/3 the cost to upgrade as a new bradely-a definite benifit...esp if the roll is just transport and not mech operations....which the bradley is superior....

The M113 is nowhere near as cheap as you claim. Most M113A3s are already in service, you'd have to pull out A2s from depots and refit them to A3 standard, THEN start your MTVL conversions on top of that.

yeah, and if it was bidded properly, then the new suspension, turrent, armour, and updated electronics might run you 1-1.1m-hence 1/2 the price.... people have gotten use to 1b bombers, 120m fighters, $30 icetrays, $30000 dormstyle refrigators(well, to their credit, modified)and $2-$3 screws/bolts... it does not have to be expensive to be good or done right..

>>Bottom line. You hate the m-113. << Hardly. That's kind of like saying I hate the M1 Garand because I would not take one onto a modern battlefield. Circa 1942 I'd have been all about having one. Circa 2005, I'll pass, thanks. Same with the M113 -- it was a good system in its day, but now its a tired, old platform suitable only for ancilliary support roles of Bradley and M1 formations. As for the C-130 transport role, it lost out to Stryker. Kind of like it lost out on the mech role to the Bradley. Do you see a trend here? As for the Army spending 84 million to up-armor M113s . . . wow. Pardon my non-impressed reaction. Hardly means it is getting a new lease on life, since you're talking about a conflict where *everything* that was lacking in armor protection is getting applique slapped on it. I bet the Army has spent more uparmoring hum-vees than it has spent on M113s, but that hardly means that the Hum-vee should replace the Bradley, either. And the guiding logic is the same -- rational decisions makers recognize the limitations of the M113 and would just as soon not p*ss away the lives of soldiers in an outdated vehicle with quite the same relish as armchair experts who seem to generally want to see us fight a modern war with state of the art for 1962 . . .

>>2. Col D Bolger. Horsesoldier, I think you're being a bit unfair on him. His main argument was that he wanted to see more infantry across the board. He did think that Mech Units would die out, but that was because of lack of strategic mobility, rather than not being good at what they do. His main mistake IMO was not to suggest replacing heavy Badley's and Abrams with lighter more deployable vehicles. You can understand why he didn't do that in the cash-strapped mid-1990's - he would have come across as a right nutter if he suggested creating a new family of vehicles at a cost of $112 billion! << Perhaps so. As I noted, I've been a non-fan of his since "Dragons at War" in the 80s (I think I read it in the early 90s) and so may have taken an overly negative view into Death Ground and some of his conclusions . . .

>>and I would surmise HS hasnt used the new model, only the early A1 or A2...<< No. The only M113s I ever served on were M113A3s. Had I served on earlier versions I rather suspect that my opinion would be less flattering.

And just how do you see that the cost will be cheaper? There is no reason that United Defense (the only folks currently who are upgrading M113A2s to M113A3s) would agree to modify the current contract....and why should they? Mainz and Red River are no longer doing the work. Anniston is the only place doing the work by UDLP. I have served in both type units. M113 FOV is a good support vehicle bu tit is not an effective IFV. That is what the M2 is, an excellent IFV.

I have my price problems with the stryker, but the strker is much, much faster than the bradley and m-113..it was designed to be. few tracked vehicles have been able to travel that fast....the benifits of the wheel. the m-113(not base) is better armoured....and perhaps armed/capable of upgunning/variants, but.............the stryker is much more agile and though the m-113 can go places that wheeled veh. have trouble, there are more places that the stryker is superior and more agile, plus, drivers/operators of both state in general that the stryker CAN go those places the m-113 can and almost as good(tracked vs wheel) and that over all, its is a better ride and much faster... and that coincides with the armys new lighter and faster desires.. I dont know enough about the stryker to continue...so that is all

well, I think that is enough about the bradley and m-113. we all know eachother's opinions and beliefs...besides, this is a different thread SEMPER FI