"Why all the wheels?" Topic

Stryker, LAV-3, Giat VBCI, Steyr-Daimler-Puch Pandur II, ARTEC Boxer, IVECO Centauro VBC. Why the sudden enthusiasm for wheeled APC/IFV's? Is it cost of aquisition? Cheaper running costs? Air transportability?

I would imagine redundancy, independent suspension, and ease of repair. Speed could be a factor as well…but the torque versus horsepower stuff is out of my league math wise.

I have to believe that a tire is cheaper than tracks and alot easier to replace in the field too.

I think primarily maintenance issues as "low intensity" becomes the in thing; tracks were seen as essential for World War 3, but against less well-equipped opposition the easier and cheaper maintenance and repair gets the priority. Also more likely to still be drivable after hitting a modest landmine, which is a regular threat in many current conflicts.

Dom.

Cost. Both in maintenance, and in transport. Tracked vehicles are more time consuming when it comes to maintainance. As well, tracked vehicles weigh more, which limits the ways it can be carried to a conflict (by sea, by air, etc).

With the trade off being, that wheeled vehicles can go almost anywhere a tracked on can go…

Well, that's the theory…

link
"Team Trackless" is on body that is comparing the differences.

And if you don't like it, "blame" this guy US Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki.
link
As well, he spearheaded a lot of other changes.

F.YI. he lost most of one foot to a land mine in Vietnam, and when the army tried to force him out, he fought & won to stay in.

link

A few years ago they did a wargame in the desert of fast wheeled vehicles with rocket launchers on them vs. tanks. The small wheeled vehicles lost a lot but won. I imagine that this was some motivation.

Sounds like the Toyota Wars in Chad.

Yep; forget wargame, they did the war, and in the match-up of T-54 versus Toyota Hilux and Milan, tracked did not do well….

Actually, I invariably play that way in AK47 Republic; mighty armoured regiments quake at the prospect of my hordes of pink Land Rovers…. ;-)

Dom.

On the tactical level, wheeled vehicles are a good bit quieter than tracked.

Now if I could just find a 1:48/28mm Centauro…

I'm pretty sure it's maintenance, speed, cost and the fact that wheels are lighter than tracks which goes to that whol air-portability thing. You have enough wheeles you can pretty much go anywhere a track will take you and with the improvements in wheeled suspensions and tire-pressure control you don't have a loto f the drawbacks that the wheeled vehicles has had in the past.

All of the above, plus almost anything with tracks is thought of as being a tank by the media, and wheeled vehicles are seen as being more acceptable/less provocative than tanks on the streets.

Generally, all of the above apply, but I think the number one issue is cost. Wheels are cheaper, from an initial cost as well as maintenance standpoint.

Plus, now, a lot more fighting is done in built up, or suburban areas with decent road networks, as opposed to more open terrain, so there is less need for true, cross-country performance.

Being quicker is better, since you can get in and out of a hot zone fast. Of course, if you are caught in one, and under fire, no doubt you would wish for heavier armor.

@NVDoyle:

Schuco in Germany does a Centauro in Die.Cast:

link

And CarloBardelli in Italy does them in 1:50th scale:

link

Cheers,

Burkhard

I was watching a special on the Military Channel or Discovery about AFVs and the preference of going to wheeled vehicles.

Much of it has to do with the areas that battlefields are going, and wheeled vehicles are better and quicker and as stated, easier to repair.

Wheeled vehicles are also much quieter than a tracked vehicle.

I guess there are some plans and tests in the works for a vehicle that is wheeled normally, but can be fitted with tracks over the wheels for when they are needed in mudier or sandier terrain.

Gracias, Burkhard!

I guess it is a combination of things, but interesting how many wheeled APC/IFV's are starting production. Of course the Russians and South Africans have used them for years – in SA's case in some very hostile terrain so they must be ok for some things! Can be hard to sort out the facts from the hype when 2 groups of supporters for rival machines start going! Seems to have more to do with where lucrative defence jobs will be going than any rational arguement. Certainly many of the "deficiencies" quoted by detractors of the Stryker seem to apply equally to its rival the M113A3.

I would also guess that the huge amount of paved roads everywhere comes into it also… Tracked vehicles were made to move through the torn-up muddy fields of the trench warefare days.. these days, everyplace has good roods, and tired vehicle suspensions are much better equiped for off road travel. So why keep to tracks for light and medium armor?

"A few years ago they did a wargame in the desert of fast wheeled vehicles with rocket launchers on them vs. tanks. The small wheeled vehicles lost a lot but won. I imagine that this was some motivation."

If you're referring to the 9th Infantry Division's (High Technology Light Division testbed) rotations at the NTC with their Fast Attack Vehicles---well, they didn't go nearly as well as the proponents would like to have you believe.

The problem is that wonderful results can be achieved in computerized combat developments simulations, when the proponents can "hand-wave" away any factors which keep you from attaining those wonderful results. But when you put the same organization and equipment in a realistic simulated combat environment--that's when you find out that things don't work as advertised. And that's why we don't have a High Technology Light Division, or a Sergeant York, or quite a few other things that the defense contractors would have loved to sell the American public. Back then, we had some integrity in our development and procurement sytems. A little. Now and then.

But with Stryker, the decisions had already been made before the vehicle was ever field tested or put through its paces at the NTC, and the fact that its performance there was abysmal was swept under the carpet. So now the troops have Stryker instead of a proper combat vehicle, and many more will die on it.

Allen

We're generalizing, so I'll make it worse…

Remember that we're comparing apples to oranges. The Stryker and most of those other wheeled things are infantry support vehicles, not main battle tanks. They weigh half or less what an M-1A1 or Leopard II weighs. That makes them easier to get to where you need them quickly. I believe you can drive two Strykers into a C-5, while you can only get one M-1A1 in there, and that only if you take off everything that's not bolted down and a few things that are.

Wheeleed vehicles are cheaper to maintain, cheaper to operate, and cheaper to buy, easier to transport, and they do a great job supporting infantry. They're quieter, they do less damage to roads, and you can drive them on softer surfaces. If the enemy has no tanks, or very few tanks, or older tanks, I'd rather have two Strykers than a single M-1A1, and the two strikers would cost less in every way. But if the enemy has modern tank, I'd take the M-1A1 over a half-dozen Strykers.

Having made several assertions and offered some opinions, I await the inevitable torrent of disagreements…

Andrew

"But with Stryker, the decisions had already been made before the vehicle was ever field tested or put through its paces at the NTC, and the fact that its performance there was abysmal was swept under the carpet. So now the troops have Stryker instead of a proper combat vehicle, and many more will die on it."

Given that the choice was between the Stryker and the M113A3 what is it about the M113A3 that would have made it more survivable Allen?

The real point is that the Stryker/M113a3 are basically APC's. It was felt that the cost of maintaining heavy Divisons with MBT's was cost prohibitive in a projected world where the only hoped for projected conflicts are to be low intensity. No Cold War, no need for the troops to fight large scale conventional war. Being deployable in the global world became the main concern. So, Styrkers will replace tanks. Being a tanker will be a specialty, the focus will be on ensuring every soldier can function as an infantry man/MP first and foremost.
I feel that too little attention was payed to the fact of the proliferation of man portable anti-tank weapons, with the RPG being the most prominent. It is made to destroy a tank, an APC does not stand a chance. As the warhead is based upon chemical reaction, some steps can be taken to reduce the risk to the APC, but, it still will be an overmatch if those steps can be bypassed.
So, if the Stryker is to be a replacement or substitute for tracked APC's, I'm ok with that as the maintenance and wear and tear on the system will be at a lower cost than a tracked vehicle. If it's to replace the MBT, it will be a failure with the cost paid for by the crew. Pity it was taken over the alrady approved M8 AGS.

The experience of both wars with Iraq showed that the Bradley could not keep up with the Abrams. The M-113's were way behind that! The Army needed a vehicle family that could keep up with the MBT! This, the Striker is capable of doing.

May not be the ultimate solution, but was the best choice and could be made available quickly! From what "I" have been hearing, their speed, installed electronics and quietness is proving the system in use in Iraq.

Yes, we like our "tracks", but for lower intensity wars, peacekeeping duties and counterinsurgency use, wheeled armored vehicles will remain "the" choice for sometime….or until something better comes around that is less expensive to keep in the field.

Tom Dye
GFI

I was in Bosnia from Dec 95 to Nov 96, we definitely could have used an armored car. Lots of patroling roads and urban areas and check points. We left 1/2 of our tanks in Germany and picked up alot of the "up armored" humvees. One big problem with tanks is that they DESTROY roads. They are also very wide and not very traffic friendly. Our tanks ended up not being needed and parked at airfields and bases almost like pill boxes. Tanks are also VERY expensive to operate. An M1A1 can burn about 400 Gallons of fuel in 4-5 hours of operation. Plus the tracks need to be replaced every 3000 or so miles. Which is very expensive and labor intensive.

All that being said, armored cars are MUCH more vulnerable to enemy infantry and light vehicles. A .50cal could neutralize a Stryker by blowing the wheels off. I don't think tanks and APCs will ever be replaced by armored cars, but they both have a roll and when used appropriately both can be effective. The big problem comes about when you try to make an all purpose vehicle.

Ed G.

As templar72 indicated, we don't need a vehicle to keep up with the speed of an M1 in some situations.

I'm not a believer in using combat infantry in a policing role, but that's another loooong story. But if you're going to give them that crappy constabulary job, they need an effective vehicle. And they need it when they're put in the situation, not months or years later. The result in Iraq: relying on sandbags and late-arriving, clunky add-on kits for HMMWVs for far too long.

That's my problem with the Stryker. The Army, or a certain faction of the Army, bought into the Stryker as a multi-purpose vehicle, but I have yet to see that it does much of anything well, except roll over and expose troops to danger.

What we already had when we put troops in harm's way in Iraq was lots and lots of mothballed 113s. They required no additional procurement cost (unless you wanted to do power turret modifications, which have been designed and proven for thirty years or so); were already supported in the logistical system; and the add-ons needed for RPG and mine protection had been worked out almost 40 years ago, in another little undeclared war we were involved in.

But instead of using something proven, familiar, and paid for, we had to push to accelerate acquisition of something new and shiny--and very expensive--but unproven (well, proven that there were serious flaws, but these were quickly hidden). Never a good idea when the bullets are already flying, as history ought to have informed us.

It all depends what your objectives really are: to give the troops something that works, or to make money for your corporate clients. With the Stryker, the government chose "B".

Another consideration: is it really true that there's no need to be able to fight a conventional campaign, now that the Cold War is over? By my count, we've fought two already. And the world isn't feeling a whole lot safer. Keeping tracked APCs in the system and improving them incrementally just might be something we would be thankful for, down the road.

Allen

Howdy, Allen,(et All)

All I can comment on is that there are some good reasons why we no longer use M-4 Sherman tanks anymore! They, too, required very little additional procurement costs when they were phased out. IIRC, like the M-113 family, the M-4 was replaced with something that had better speed, armor and protection.

The Bradalac, while tracked, sexy looking and also has several varients, just was not capable of keeping up with the M1's. Just because the Stryker is wheeled should not be seen as being "inferior" for this role. Let us allow time to prove which of us is correct on that one. So far, it seems to be well liked by it's crews.

From a logistics point of view, by having multiple vehicles based upon the same automotive components, great savings and easier maintenance and support can be had. Come to think of it, I cannot recall any ground vehicle weapons system that hasn't had varients, can you?

As for keeping old systems soldiering on, lets look at the B-52. (Which I have some first-hand knowledge of.) This airframe looks like it will be flying for nearly 100 years! (Indeed, the USAF has plans to keep it in the air till the 2050's!) Here is a case where, during times of austerity, it was cheaper to spend a few hundred million to nearly remanufacture the old bird than to replace it with a new airframe design. Do this about 100 times (yes, the B-52 has had over 100 upgrades over the years) and you end up with an airframe that you cannot afford to retire!!!! />(

Just like you and I are "experts" in what we do for a living, we have to expect that so are the tekkies making the procurement decisions in the military. In the past, they made some big blunders, but, hopefully, they have learned from F-107's and Sgt. Yorks!

Best,
Tom Dye
GFI

IMHO the all wheel propoenents have their point, like the trackheads… the problem is that sometime they go too far in their crusades and put things where they havent' to be put…

look at the italian Centauro. It is big, bad, well armed (a 105 high velocity gun) and fast, but is dead meat agaianst anything bigger than a .50 . Yet many people are advocating using similar vehicles as frontline tanks. It would end in a lot of dead crewman (No light wheeled vehicles would have survived the hail of RPG-ATGM experienced my the IDF in lebanon). Yes, of course we can uparmored them until they are MBT, but then all the wheeled vehicle advantages would be lost to the excessive weight.

The problem with these vehicles is that some "theorists" are using them as holy grail to solve any problems. The Stryker is a good vehicle, but yet it is overpriced and some want it as replacement for the Bradleys (a thing it isn't designed to do). In addition, while wheels are more road friendly in urban high intensity combat their lightness will be a disavantage. After Grozny the russian have started to take old T55 chassis to manufacture the heavy BTR-T (inspired by the Nagmashot, Puma and Aczarit). The thunder run in Bagdad, Grozny and Falujiah have demonstrated the need of MBT in high intensity urban combat, combats that would have been too intensive for any wheeled vehicle.

I fully agree that we need armored cars for some of the current operations, but we have also to resist the temptation to buy armored cars and to use it as IFV…

About the stryker (that today is a sore point for both sides). In Iraq they are doing their duty well, but yet their price tag is proportionate? The moynt only a .50 and while the weapon is remotely controlled the gunner has to going exposed to change the ammo box… The stryker is good, but is doing only some of the things its proponent have advertised. And only some versions are in service the MGS isn't yet ready and this one will probably spell the success or the failure of the entire SBCT concept.

In addition the strykers havent' solved the hummer problem. I think that using the monthballed M113 as stop gap measure would have been more cost effective. Using ACAV for convoy escort would have been better than resorting to hummers and gun trucks.