User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:47:38 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:48:42 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:48:49 PM EDT
[#2]
why
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:49:14 PM EDT
[#3]
It might be a viable replacement to the m113, but Im wondering how on Earth do you add 20 tons just by switching to tracks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:49:32 PM EDT
[#4]
So...a less survivable BFV?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:50:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Doesn't this somewhat defeat the Sryker's advantages in speed, stealth and a handful of other specs? Isn't this just another Bradley?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:50:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
It might be a viable replacement to the m113, but Im wondering how on Earth do you add 20 tons just by switching to tracks. Has to have more armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:51:35 PM EDT
[#7]
I thought the Bradley was the replacement for the 113.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:51:36 PM EDT
[#8]
Dont want to buy a Merkava and too cheap to research anything else. Put tracks on a stryker. Sure, fuck it, why not?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:04:06 PM EDT
[#9]
Thats it. Its time to start firing people.
You can put the same god damned .50 cal CROWS mount on an M113A3, and the 113 already has add-on armor kits developed. Or if you don't want to use the M113 because you "replaced it" with the M2/M3, you could always do what BAE is suggesting and convert M2/M3 hulls into M113 replacements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:06:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:07:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:13:56 PM EDT
[#12]
At 42 tons, and with tracks, it doesn't seem to have much in common with the Stryker. This is a completely different class of vehicle, and calling it a Stryker is silly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:15:17 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:16:00 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
At 42 tons, and with tracks, it doesn't seem to have much in common with the Stryker. This is a completely different class of vehicle, and calling it a Stryker is silly. I'll bet they kept the cramped interior and paper thin armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:17:57 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? Doesnt the M113 have aluminum armor? I read here soviet dushkas rape the shit out of them |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:19:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? I have heard people raving about how awesome the strykers are, that those are the only vehicle they want to go outside the wire in. I hear survivability is awesome. Sounds like a success to me! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:20:40 PM EDT
[#17]
Jesus H. Christ, people, this is General Dynamics pitching an idea. The M113 and Bradley are made by BAE, a competitor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:21:46 PM EDT
[#18]
go with the MTLV (stretched M-113A3) with add-on armor and band tracks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:24:54 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? Doesnt the M113 have aluminum armor? I read here soviet dushkas rape the shit out of them so does the Bradley. the base armor of the M-113 was only ever meant to stop 12.5mm from the front and 7.62 AP all-around––which iirc, is also what the base hull of the bradley protects against before tons of add-on armor are applied |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:25:25 PM EDT
[#20]
I thought the whole point to the Stryker was that it DIDN'T have tracks...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:27:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? Doesnt the M113 have aluminum armor? I read here soviet dushkas rape the shit out of them Yes, the base armor on the M113 series and the M2/M3 Bradley is aluminum. The ODS upgrade kits on the M2 and M3 added steel to the outsides to toughen them up a bit. You have plenty of capability to add armor to the M113 though. 
Or you could even add more armor, and a 30mm RWS. 
Just remember though that pretty much the only way you'll ever get an APC or IFV with armor comparable to a tank is if you start with a tank and then convert it into an APC, like the Namer or Achzarit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:27:32 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
I thought the whole point to the Stryker was that it DIDN'T have tracks... GD wants to play with the heavy boys. These kinds of prototypes show up every year at the AUSA convention - they are essentially no different than the concept cars at car shows, and mean diddly and squat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:30:56 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? I have heard people raving about how awesome the strykers are, that those are the only vehicle they want to go outside the wire in. I hear survivability is awesome. Sounds like a success to me! IIRC, five of the six Stryker brigades used to be regular old foot-mobile infantry units. I'm pretty sure they were happy to get anything with a combination of an engine, wheels, and armor plating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:38:45 PM EDT
[#24]
Light infantry has some significant advantages over mech under many circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:43:12 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? I have heard people raving about how awesome the strykers are, that those are the only vehicle they want to go outside the wire in. I hear survivability is awesome. Sounds like a success to me! IIRC, five of the six Stryker brigades used to be regular old foot-mobile infantry units. I'm pretty sure they were happy to get anything with a combination of an engine, wheels, and armor plating.  Just stop Hans.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:45:40 PM EDT
[#26]
I saw it yesterday at AUSA. My first thought was "WTF?" and after I looked it over my final thought was "WTF?". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:48:38 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? I have heard people raving about how awesome the strykers are, that those are the only vehicle they want to go outside the wire in. I hear survivability is awesome. Sounds like a success to me! IIRC, five of the six Stryker brigades used to be regular old foot-mobile infantry units. I'm pretty sure they were happy to get anything with a combination of an engine, wheels, and armor plating. A-Have you ever been in combat with a stryker? B-How about been blown up or seen your friends blown up in a stryker? C-Were you in a unit that used strykers stateside or OCONUS If you answered no to one or more of these...stfu. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:49:52 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? I have heard people raving about how awesome the strykers are, that those are the only vehicle they want to go outside the wire in. I hear survivability is awesome. Sounds like a success to me! IIRC, five of the six Stryker brigades used to be regular old foot-mobile infantry units. I'm pretty sure they were happy to get anything with a combination of an engine, wheels, and armor plating. A-Have you ever been in combat with a stryker? B-How about been blown up or seen your friends blown up in a stryker? C-Were you in a unit that used strykers stateside or OCONUS If you answered no to one or more of these...stfu. I knew guys blown up in an Abrams. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 3:52:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Well isn't that special.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 4:00:10 PM EDT
[#30]
That is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 4:04:20 PM EDT
[#31]
tracks are so old school...
they need to drop the wheels AND tracks and just turn it into a hovertank
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 4:24:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? I have heard people raving about how awesome the strykers are, that those are the only vehicle they want to go outside the wire in. I hear survivability is awesome. Sounds like a success to me! IIRC, five of the six Stryker brigades used to be regular old foot-mobile infantry units. I'm pretty sure they were happy to get anything with a combination of an engine, wheels, and armor plating. You recall... Incorrectly... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 5:04:23 PM EDT
[#33]
Cute
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 5:14:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Shit if you mated that to a Super Tucano, and added all kinds of Ford shit, making sure nothing GM is in it, most here would have a massive, collective ejaculation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 5:21:49 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? Doesnt the M113 have aluminum armor? I read here soviet dushkas rape the shit out of them Yes, the base armor on the M113 series and the M2/M3 Bradley is aluminum. The ODS upgrade kits on the M2 and M3 added steel to the outsides to toughen them up a bit. You have plenty of capability to add armor to the M113 though. http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M113A3_Modified_in_Iraq_lg.jpg http://www.combatreform.org/m113gavininiraqdanisharmy.jpg Or you could even add more armor, and a 30mm RWS. http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6652/a52sh2.jpg Just remember though that pretty much the only way you'll ever get an APC or IFV with armor comparable to a tank is if you start with a tank and then convert it into an APC, like the Namer or Achzarit. Once you add all that armor to the M113 it stops working. It's historically one of the least reliable armored vehicles as is, once that armor goes on it starts blowing motors. IIRC from the HQ77 track we had in Iraq with the add on package you could only open the ramp 5-6 times before the hydraulic motor blew. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 8:37:16 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
It might be a viable replacement to the m113, but Im wondering how on Earth do you add 20 tons just by switching to tracks. Especially when an entire M113A3 weighs around 12 tons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 8:43:33 PM EDT
[#37]
an american BMP
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 8:49:18 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Am I wrong or does it look like there is a lot of extra armor on that thing? The 20 tons comes from new drivetrain, engine, electronics, armor, power generation, weapons and survivability upgrades An off the shelf M113A3 weighs in at a little under 15 tons. an M2A2 ODS is just over 30 tons, IIRC. IMHO, they would be better off purchasing new M113A3s complete with the existing, in production, off the shelf survivability kits and weapons upgrades, or doing the BAE modification that turns existing M2/M3 hulls into essentially large M113 type vehicles by removing the turret, externalizing the fuel tanks, and adding roof hatches. Lets face it. The Stryker program was and is a FAILURE. The M2/M3 is a great vehicle as is, but it's NOT a suitable replacement for an APC. Why pay more money to get an even heavier version of something that we already know sucks? I have heard people raving about how awesome the strykers are, that those are the only vehicle they want to go outside the wire in. I hear survivability is awesome. Sounds like a success to me! Opinions on the stryker seem to be split between "Best thing ever!" and "Sucks donkey balls!" with very little in between. I'm not sure what the mission of a tracked stryker is that isn't something that the M-2/M-3 or current wheeled stryker does. I'm far from certain that the idea of "survivability at all cost" really enhances survivability, if this is where this is going.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 8:51:37 PM EDT
[#39]
They should call it a Gavin II.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 8:51:47 PM EDT
[#40]
looks badass as hell...but.. the FIRST thing i thought was "Pentagon Wars"
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 8:52:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Doesn't the bradly fit that role already? I'm ignorant when it comes to the mechanized world.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 8:58:13 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
looks a lot like the German "Marder".
an american BMP |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 9:02:43 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
They should call it a Gavin II. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 9:07:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Fuck you guys that looks smexy
Wouldn't want to be in it though 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 9:08:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Basically, our mech infantry can't accept the fact that the whole point of infantry is having boots on the ground. Bradleys are great, but they are also completely un-necessary. They bring nothing to the table that a real tank can't do, except carry 6 very cramped, poorly protected infantry. A HMMWV can also do that, or a 113 if you want to stop shell fragments. There are also a million cheaper wheeled APCs that can do most of what a Stryker can, in terms of carrying a squad of grunts to where the fight is. We need to accept that if we want to protect the infantry from most of what the battlefield has to offer, they effectively need to be in something as heavy as, and nearly as expensive aas, a tank. Arguably, we could afford this, but I don't see it happening any time soon. Putting slat armor on a Stryker doesn't stop anything but RPGs, adds weight and size, and needs to be installed after airlifting. Most ATGMs will still blast it handily, and all tank rounds (even a T-55) will go clear through.
By the way, I have never even been in a Stryker, but all my buddies who have called them rolling deathtraps, and their units patrolled dismounted whenever possible...that tells me all I need to know about their survivability, when 11Bs would rather rely on IOTVs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 9:12:05 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Basically, our mech infantry can't accept the fact that the whole point of infantry is having boots on the ground. Bradleys are great, but they are also completely un-necessary. They bring nothing to the table that a real tank can't do, except carry 6 very cramped, poorly protected infantry. A HMMWV can also do that, or a 113 if you want to stop shell fragments. There are also a million cheaper wheeled APCs that can do most of what a Stryker can, in terms of carrying a squad of grunts to where the fight is. We need to accept that if we want to protect the infantry from most of what the battlefield has to offer, they effectively need to be in something as heavy as, and nearly as expensive aas, a tank. Arguably, we could afford this, but I don't see it happening any time soon. Putting slat armor on a Stryker doesn't stop anything but RPGs, adds weight and size, and needs to be installed after airlifting. Most ATGMs will still blast it handily, and all tank rounds (even a T-55) will go clear through. By the way, I have never even been in a Stryker, but all my buddies who have called them rolling deathtraps, and their units patrolled dismounted whenever possible...that tells me all I need to know about their survivability, when 11Bs would rather rely on IOTVs. Landraiders for the mother fucking win 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 9:13:39 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Basically, our mech infantry can't accept the fact that the whole point of infantry is having boots on the ground. Bradleys are great, but they are also completely un-necessary. They bring nothing to the table that a real tank can't do, except carry 6 very cramped, poorly protected infantry. A HMMWV can also do that, or a 113 if you want to stop shell fragments. There are also a million cheaper wheeled APCs that can do most of what a Stryker can, in terms of carrying a squad of grunts to where the fight is. We need to accept that if we want to protect the infantry from most of what the battlefield has to offer, they effectively need to be in something as heavy as, and nearly as expensive aas, a tank. Arguably, we could afford this, but I don't see it happening any time soon. Putting slat armor on a Stryker doesn't stop anything but RPGs, adds weight and size, and needs to be installed after airlifting. Most ATGMs will still blast it handily, and all tank rounds (even a T-55) will go clear through. By the way, I have never even been in a Stryker, but all my buddies who have called them rolling deathtraps, and their units patrolled dismounted whenever possible...that tells me all I need to know about their survivability, when 11Bs would rather rely on IOTVs. Landraiders for the mother fucking win http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s117/tylarius/inquisition/landraider.jpg Can we get the Tactical Dreadnought Armour and storm bolters too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 9:17:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Those of you suggesting we could have stuck with the M113s are fuckin' high.
We had a name for them (and M577s) when I was in Iraq... Gates
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 9:18:18 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Basically, our mech infantry can't accept the fact that the whole point of infantry is having boots on the ground. Bradleys are great, but they are also completely un-necessary. They bring nothing to the table that a real tank can't do, except carry 6 very cramped, poorly protected infantry. A HMMWV can also do that, or a 113 if you want to stop shell fragments. There are also a million cheaper wheeled APCs that can do most of what a Stryker can, in terms of carrying a squad of grunts to where the fight is. We need to accept that if we want to protect the infantry from most of what the battlefield has to offer, they effectively need to be in something as heavy as, and nearly as expensive aas, a tank. Arguably, we could afford this, but I don't see it happening any time soon. Putting slat armor on a Stryker doesn't stop anything but RPGs, adds weight and size, and needs to be installed after airlifting. Most ATGMs will still blast it handily, and all tank rounds (even a T-55) will go clear through. By the way, I have never even been in a Stryker, but all my buddies who have called them rolling deathtraps, and their units patrolled dismounted whenever possible...that tells me all I need to know about their survivability, when 11Bs would rather rely on IOTVs. Landraiders for the mother fucking win http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s117/tylarius/inquisition/landraider.jpg Can we get the Tactical Dreadnought Armour and storm bolters too? Only DEVGRU would get it |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 9:19:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Tracks suck!
I will never forget the worst night of my life trying to replace a thrown ITV track stuck in 2 feet of mud in Hoehenfels. Those things would break down sitting in the motor pool for a week. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
