During the Viet Nam conflict, The US deployed Navy light patrol vessels to clear and secure the numerous rivers and waterways of South Viet Nam. The US Army in a rare case of looking back on historical precedent decided that future low intensity conflicts and/or peacekeeping operations might require waterborne patrolling capabilities.

In today’s era of cutbacks and drawdowns, all branches are eager to find additional missions to assist in justification for future funding from an increasingly frugal Congress. With this in mind, here we see the Army’s Armor Branch with their attempt at waterborne operations.


Lessons learned include:

(1) Tanks don’t float.

(2) Tanks don’t float.

(3) Tanks don’t float.

With their “Hell on Wheels” attitude, Armor officers throughout the Army are researching the following issues prior to their next attempt at waterborne ops.

(1) Why does a 71 ton piece of steel sink when it enters the water?

(2) If said 71 tons of tank sinks in water is the the Tank Commander required to go down with his tank?

(3) How can this entire operation be classified to such a level that it will forever be hidden from those “damned infantrymen” who will harass and demand free beer from all armor officers and soldiers because they aren’t smart enough to know that TANKS DON’T FLOAT![img][/img][img][/img][img][/img]

Haha, but they will (maybe?) if you strap a tractor tire tube to them (see D-Day armor).

That'd have to be a pretty )#*%)#ing big tractor tire tube to float an M1A1 Abrams. The M4 Shermans fitted to float were helluva lot lighter than M1s.

Naw, they're just prettier.

Idon't think pretty has anything to do with it. The Sherman's great strengths were its simplicity, ease of repair and numbers, but it was at a distinct disadvantage in terms of firepower and protection. Only the Sherman Firefly and Shermans armed with the high velocity 76mm gun being anywhere near equal to the MK IV, MK V and Tiger series in terms of firepower and even the uparmored Shermans still had protection problems.

You can't really say that the Abrams has any of those problems - particularly the M1A2 version.

I was kidding.
From what I've heard, one of the Sherman's greatest selling points was its speed, considerably greater than that of its German adversaries. Sorry I don't have the numbers to back this up off the top of my head, but I'll put them up when I run across them again.
And it seems like the M1 series (especially the M1A2 as you said) are darn near perfect as far as tanks go, so like I said before in another thread, how the heck can they replace a beast like that (even temporarily) with the Stryker of all things?

No they do not float real good..even with the largest of all good year tires. but you know, with as much ammo as those things got..you'd figure they just shoot their way through the water...


Just kidding. Im so glad in the air force, we send the officers out to fight....

Redneck: Sorry - should have known that from the context. Yes, you are correct about the Sherman's superior speed versus most of the German, and most British, tanks (I forget the numbers too - darn it).

In answer to your question of how we can even contemplate replacing the M1A2 with the Stryker it's simple really - all you have to do is believe is that US Forces (or at least the US Army) will always have:

1. Information Superiority and will know what our opponents are going to do before they do it.

2. Air Supremacy, which allows us to eliminate our opponent's air forces, suppress his ADA and devastate his heavy units before they can make contact in serious numbers with the Stryker units.

3. Superior Air Defense capabilities to protect our units from enemy air attacks in the event they can mount a serious air threat.

Thus, a high sided 8 wheeled thing the size of a fracking bus with no more armor than a heavy duty garbage can and less firepower than a M113A3 can pulverize any opposition. I don't doubt the training, dedication or ability of the soldiers in the Stryker Brigades, but I do not have much faith in their equipment - or maybe I'm just getting old and too traditional.

Have your looked at the loss rates between the M1A2, M2/M3 and USMC LAV units? Pretty clear that the LAV (close cousin to the Stryker no matter what anyone says) had a horrible time surviving in Iraq - speed and moderate firepower (25mm cannon versus an M2HB or MK19) were not enough!

I hear you there, brother. (and no worries on the misunderstanding, I'm pretty new to the internet and keep forgetting that the written/typed word doesn't quite carry the expression that the spoken word does)
With a loss of just two M1s to enemy fire in Iraq (correct me if I'm wrong), and in those two instances no tanker was wounded let alone killed, it is kind of hard to justify the replacement. Especially since I don't have that absolute faith in intelligence or any of the other variables you mentioned that some of the powers that be seem to have. It will always be nice to have those extra inches of armor around you, seeing as one of the favored weapons of our opposition is the RPG, which by all accounts will make light work of the Strykers.
Heck, maybe I'm old-fashioned too, and the Strykers have some hidden abilities we're unaware of. Wouldn't be the first time I was off target, but unfortunately I don't think I am in this case.

I think I remember seeing the Stryker in a recent issue of Popular Science. Yeah, I wasn't very impressed with it either. Speed is worthless until you csan outrun the thing that's going to hit you. And that wont happen anytime soon. Give us big guns and plenty of armor and we'll be better off is what I say.