yeah, Of course they can get you out of a bad spot... But it does wreck the vehicle somewhat...
The LAV 3 or the american Stryker (LAV 3 without the turret) does have terrain limitations, the base that i am posted at has brutal terrain and we tested the LAV there... It chewed it up. But warfare is changing and I doubt whether you will see the need for armoured vehicles to cross really bad terrain anymore, I would say that the armoured vehicles of the future will need to be very fast so that they can close the distance to populated areas, where the bulk of the fighting will take place.

The Stryker is great for getting somewhere very quickly with good protection. Its a bit large and cumbersome for a main Urban Fighting Vehicle. Humvees with armor are vunerable to large groups of people because they can be flipped over or broken into easier.

The Stryker is great for getting somewhere very quickly with good protection. Its a bit large and cumbersome for a main Urban Fighting Vehicle. Humvees with armor are vunerable to large groups of people because they can be flipped over or broken into easier.

Interesting theory that an ASLAV/LAV3/Stryker is too big for urban operations. M113's, Bradleys and Abrams are being used in urban situations, now the abrams is way too big. I'd say the ASLAV/LAV is a good compromise.

As for armoured humvees, cut that stuff away for warfare. They are transport really, not fighting vehicles. You can armour it up all you want, its still a 4x4 with seats and steering wheel, and as such has all the inherent weak points.

We have got LAV's in pretty tight spots before... They do fine in urban areas....Haiti for an example... the streets can be very narrow (and covered in garbage and debris) the LAV was great there

My only complaint about the Bradley or the Stryker in Urban Combat is that they present a pretty big target.

I read an article that went on and on about why the Stryker was not well suited for Urban fighting -- most of it was a load of crap. It did make one point that made some sense. In tight streets, turning the Stryker around could be a big problem. You guys would know for certain of course. So that sounds like that would be one less item in that article to believe.

I still think that something lower to the ground and smaller would be worth consideration as a specialized Urban fighter.

Hmmm... is the driving on the Stryker more reminiscent of a large SUV or of a tank? In that I mean that the wheels on each side can rotate in different directions to execute turns without forward motion.

It's like driving a boat... Good vehicle

Tracked by far.

Wheeled APC's if the tires go flat are stuck in the middle of the road as a giant roadbolck with all kinds of enemy fire concentrated on it. The Stryker only has armor 14.5mm of armor, the APC comes standered with 14.5mm but is upgraded with the steel DU plates instead of the crappy aluminum.

Besides why waste money and men on the Stryker when you can get a M113A2 throw a Cadillac Gage turret on it with FCS and a Cockerill 90mm or 105mm cannon.

If you think I'm nuts it was used in the 1070's and was an awesome vehicle, read Modern American Armor by Loop and Zaloga.

Oh ya forgot. I have participated in a MOUT, yes civilians can volenteer at Ft. Knox Zussman Urban Combat Center. Just type in volenteer at Zussman Urban Combat Center.

Anyway, the M113 the SEAL's had worked out great from what I saw.

The Stryker or LAV also has add on armour and a "warchip" to increase the horsepower when it has the armour upgrade on...
As for the M113, we have also upgraded it... The Engineers use it as there main vehicle, the doubled the horse power, put rubber tracks on it, got rid of the tiller bars and put a turret on it... I've seen them passing trucks up hill.