User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:38:55 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's why they have all those hard points for stuff like Hellfires, bombs and such. Warthog will get them one way or another. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So...a GAU-8 doesn't seem to have a problem fucking up a tank, and it's 30mm... Actually, GAU-8's effectiveness on modern tanks (not half-rusted T72s and older) is highly questionable. If said modern tanks are around, however... Stryker really shouldn't be... 30mm or not. Not without Abrams escort anyway. That's why they have all those hard points for stuff like Hellfires, bombs and such. Warthog will get them one way or another. And if they didn't have the cartoon cannon, they could carry a lot more of that useful stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:40:28 AM EDT
[#2]
Sounds like Bradley 2.0
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:41:04 AM EDT
[#3]
So they basically made a more expensive LAV-25? Makes sense....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:42:07 AM EDT
[#4]
I loved the stryker, I was a driver.. but, the stryker itself is very flawed with a flat bottom it absorbs all of an ied blast and totally wrecks it.. the new designs have V shaped hulls to direct the blast away from the vehicle. very fast vehicles strykers are,,, very fast.. they eat turbos like candy
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:43:26 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasn't there Strykers equipped with the 25mm Bushmaster? Or is the M242 in 30mm? 
It makes sense as there are plenty of Bradley Gunners out there so transition training wouldn't much more than refresher training...and I can personally attest to the fact that APFSDS can tear some shit up, and that the HE will skull fuck a BMP. Our allies don't want us to have depleted uranium rounds in their country or shot on their ranges,... 'cause - URANIUM! Increased bore size is partially to compensate for less effective rounds. Same reason a lot of countries are looking at longer tube or 140mm tank cannons - or both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:43:30 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The A-10 cannon would rip apart the thin, 1" plain steel, top armor of the Abrams Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So...a GAU-8 doesn't seem to have a problem fucking up a tank, and it's 30mm... Why is the Stryker's 30mm considered useless? Too slow? No expert but a A10 shoots at the top of a tank where he armor plate is thin And it still isnt effective against modern armor. The A-10 cannon would rip apart the thin, 1" plain steel, top armor of the Abrams The A10 does engage tanks at perfect perpendicular to their top. Even in the 80s the Maverick was the anti tank weapon for tge A10. The gun has always been marginal at best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:43:36 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Stryker concept was flawed from birth. Lots of Soldiers died because of that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Gay. I wonder how many soldiers had to lose their jobs so the army could have the budget for that. The Stryker concept was flawed from birth. Lots of Soldiers died because of that. How do you figure? I'm. Not fully up on the Striker, I'm assuming the Army uses it like the Marine Corps uses the LAV25? ETA- meaning as a reconaissance vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:45:08 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So they basically made a more expensive LAV-25? Makes sense.... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/LAV-25_USMC.JPG In 97 I was on the Stryker unit design team. I kept calling it a LAV. Everyone kept getting mad at me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:46:24 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you figure? I'm. Not fully up on the Striker, I'm assuming the Army uses it like the Marine Corps uses the LAV25? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gay. I wonder how many soldiers had to lose their jobs so the army could have the budget for that. The Stryker concept was flawed from birth. Lots of Soldiers died because of that. How do you figure? I'm. Not fully up on the Striker, I'm assuming the Army uses it like the Marine Corps uses the LAV25? No it was made to recreate a Soviet motorized regiment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:46:35 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And if they didn't have the cartoon cannon, they could carry a lot more of that useful stuff. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So...a GAU-8 doesn't seem to have a problem fucking up a tank, and it's 30mm... Actually, GAU-8's effectiveness on modern tanks (not half-rusted T72s and older) is highly questionable. If said modern tanks are around, however... Stryker really shouldn't be... 30mm or not. Not without Abrams escort anyway. That's why they have all those hard points for stuff like Hellfires, bombs and such. Warthog will get them one way or another. And if they didn't have the cartoon cannon, they could carry a lot more of that useful stuff. A-10 is not a CAS airframe. It is a deep attack/strike airframe with a secondary CAS capability. 30mm is for ripping up convoys of trucks, HQs, artillery, SCUD launchers, ADA sites, logistics centers, truck convoys. (You said "trucks" twice...) Maverick missile is what the A10 is supposed to use against tanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:48:45 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it was made to recreate a Soviet motorized regiment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gay. I wonder how many soldiers had to lose their jobs so the army could have the budget for that. The Stryker concept was flawed from birth. Lots of Soldiers died because of that. How do you figure? I'm. Not fully up on the Striker, I'm assuming the Army uses it like the Marine Corps uses the LAV25? No it was made to recreate a Soviet motorized regiment. That's fucking stupid. Soviet doctrine is also fine with significant casualties.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:50:31 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it was made to recreate a Soviet motorized regiment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gay. I wonder how many soldiers had to lose their jobs so the army could have the budget for that. The Stryker concept was flawed from birth. Lots of Soldiers died because of that. How do you figure? I'm. Not fully up on the Striker, I'm assuming the Army uses it like the Marine Corps uses the LAV25? No it was made to recreate a Soviet motorized regiment. It was made to be C-130 deployable - despite USAF never committing to actually provide C130 sorties to haul it. Unfortunately, if you put anything more than a removable machine gun on it, it weighs a lot more, and takes up more space - making it harder or impossible to deploy with C130s. Hard to believe, but back in the Borda/Shinsecki days, the emphasis was on rapidly deployable. Took a lot of emphasis of the artillery, too. Never mind that you can't do much or live very long after you rapidly deploy .... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:51:53 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I loved the stryker, I was a driver.. but, the stryker itself is very flawed with a flat bottom it absorbs all of an ied blast and totally wrecks it.. the new designs have V shaped hulls to direct the blast away from the vehicle. very fast vehicles strykers are,,, very fast.. they eat turbos like candy Former VC here. There are newer double V hulled variants out there but none in Germany where these Strykers are headed. A bigger gun is cool but where are you going to put extra ammo, rucks, equipment, etc that you would normally put on top of the truck? What about the paper thin armor? Is the Army going to pay to maintain these or are they going to be treated like current Strykers and get circle Xed just to field a platoon's worth of dudes?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:53:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A-10 is not a CAS airframe. It is a deep attack/strike airframe with a secondary CAS capability. 30mm is for ripping up convoys of trucks, HQs, artillery, SCUD launchers, ADA sites, logistics centers, truck convoys. Which means that M61 would have been just as good and not so damn big and heavy.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 11:54:37 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When the Stryker was in development there were variants out the wazoo. Mortars, TOW, Chapparals, drone launchers, 105mm, They even stuck a twin 40mm turret on the things. I saw a video of the 105 on a Stryker fired broadsides. The entire vehicle ROCKED. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 12:01:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Sounds like what the Army needs is an IFV with tracks and armor designed specifically to fight alongside the Arbams in Europe against Russian armor.
Oh, wait. What the hell is the Army doing sitting on ~6k Bradleys? Make it the 2d ACR again and put it in Poland. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 12:06:46 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like what the Army needs is an IFV with tracks and armor designed specifically to fight alongside the Arbams in Europe against Russian armor. Oh, wait. What the hell is the Army doing sitting on ~6k Bradleys? Make it the 2d ACR again and put it in Poland. If I had my way I'd take a bunch of them, swap the dismounts for a shitload of ammo, and make them Fire Support Vehicles. Replace M242 with GAU-12, replace TOW launcher with a CROWS-like "weapon arm" capable of mounting Javelin, or 2.75" rocket pods, or 81/120mm mortar system, or other goodies according to operational requirements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 12:09:48 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you figure? I'm. Not fully up on the Striker, I'm assuming the Army uses it like the Marine Corps uses the LAV25? ETA- meaning as a reconaissance vehicle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gay. I wonder how many soldiers had to lose their jobs so the army could have the budget for that. The Stryker concept was flawed from birth. Lots of Soldiers died because of that. How do you figure? I'm. Not fully up on the Striker, I'm assuming the Army uses it like the Marine Corps uses the LAV25? ETA- meaning as a reconaissance vehicle. It was the wrong vehicle procured for the wrong mission for the wrong reasons. The Army wanted wheeled vehicles since Panama, once they saw the LAV. Then it believed that Major Combat Operations were over forever, so it needed a vehicle to operate in peacekeeping operations, but it needed to be air deliverable, because expeditionary was the future. Then, once all of these mistakes were made, which put huge design constraints on actual eventual vehicle, the vehicle that actually won the contest (unsurprisingly so, as it was the product of a country that had been doing high intensity combat operations for decades) was killed by the Black Congressional Caucus because it was built by racist Nazis, so we got a compromise vehicle. Well, it turned out that we do major combat operations, and even our "stability" and "COIN" operations face considerable danger from IEDs and EFPs (as there is nothing "improvised" about a Formed Penetrator.) The value of "expeditionary" was HUGELY oversold, because we maintain two and half forward deployed or quickly mobilized motorized infantry with organic tanks, arty and FW/RW air support already, plus two divisions of strategic mobile light infantry. So the requirement was for regular Army units NOT to do "expeditionary" because the Marines and Airborne can't do sustained, by design. So, the entire design premise behind the Stryker turned out to be wrong. Wonk-wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. But, we've got a ton of them, and we've already made all of the reefs we need out M60s that we should have turned into Achzarits and reengined the entire Army mechanized fleet for the cost of the Stryker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 12:11:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw a video of the 105 on a Stryker fired broadsides. The entire vehicle ROCKED. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When the Stryker was in development there were variants out the wazoo. Mortars, TOW, Chapparals, drone launchers, 105mm, They even stuck a twin 40mm turret on the things. I saw a video of the 105 on a Stryker fired broadsides. The entire vehicle ROCKED. And its a low velocity gun, to boot. Its an infantry support weapon, not an anti-tank one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 12:12:44 PM EDT
[#20]
That would make a nice mobile radio shack!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 12:13:21 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: is it still C-130 transportable and can't stop a 23 mm? When you polish a turd, you just smear shit everywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 12:24:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's fucking stupid. Soviet doctrine is also fine with significant casualties.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gay. I wonder how many soldiers had to lose their jobs so the army could have the budget for that. The Stryker concept was flawed from birth. Lots of Soldiers died because of that. How do you figure? I'm. Not fully up on the Striker, I'm assuming the Army uses it like the Marine Corps uses the LAV25? No it was made to recreate a Soviet motorized regiment. That's fucking stupid. Soviet doctrine is also fine with significant casualties.... Even the Russians gave us the "Not Sure if Serious" look when we re-created the Motor Rifle Regiment. Seriously, there are articles where the Russians say "we built MRRs because that's what we could afford, not because it was optimum. A MRR has enough ass to start a fight, but not enough to finish one." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 12:27:08 PM EDT
[#23]
Made me think of this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 12:27:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even the Russians gave us the "Not Sure if Serious" look when we re-created the Motor Rifle Regiment. Seriously, there are articles where the Russians say "we built MRRs because that's what we could afford, not because it was optimum. A MRR has enough ass to start a fight, but not enough to finish one." They make for cool photo ops driving across the Baltics, but until there is at least a heavy bct in place its just that, a photo op. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 12:42:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So...a GAU-8 doesn't seem to have a problem fucking up a tank, and it's 30mm... Why is the Stryker's 30mm considered useless? Too slow? Angle. The GAU8 is hitting the top armor, not the front armor. The top armor of a tank is usually really thin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 1:17:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gay. I wonder how many soldiers had to lose their jobs so the army could have the budget for that their lives in IED strikes riding around in those pieces of shit. FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 1:29:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Okay a dumb question....An allied country (Bosnia) or some where else is going to have a fit over depleted uranium shells,when facing extinction by
the Russian Bear??That seems trivial compared to facing Russian dominance and occupation? Do they think an aggressor such as the Bear will use environmentaly safe weapon systems when they enslave them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 1:42:19 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Finally a bigger bore to replace the 50 cal. Funny by 2 c.m. was pretty standard on the German ACs of WW II. Talked to a classmate whose father was in an Armored Recce unit equipped with M-8 Greyhounds. They ran whenever they saw a Sdkfz 222 AC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 1:48:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Pair em up with A-10s
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 1:50:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
is it still C-130 transportable and can't stop a 23 mm? When you polish a turd, you just smear shit everywhere. not if you freeze it first |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 2:14:21 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FIFY Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Gay. I wonder how many soldiers had to lose their jobs so the army could have the budget for that their lives in IED strikes riding around in those pieces of shit. FIFY Not to piss on the new army shit hate parade. But as someone who served and deployed with these vehicles I can say from experience they are not as bad as you describe. Most strykers were incredibly survivable under IED attack. Most of the armor everyone describes as better seriously suck. Bradley's and Abrams' are horrible vibration boxes. The stryker was practically a Cadillac by comparison. Which is the real problem the comparison. The Stryker isn't a tank and was never meant to be one. It's biggest problem is that is even though it was designed as a quickly deploy-able up amored LMTV everyone including soldiers themselves see it as a damn tank. So it gets put in a tank role which it was never meant to handle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 2:17:40 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before Dport. Using account #3 or 4 now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 2:22:15 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WAG - too slow and no DU rounds? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So...a GAU-8 doesn't seem to have a problem fucking up a tank, and it's 30mm... Why is the Stryker's 30mm considered useless? Too slow?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 2:27:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
actually the primary problem with the stryker is that the AF had its dick beaters in on it from the beginning. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So... the Pentagon wars are still raging, eh? actually the primary problem with the stryker is that the AF had its dick beaters in on it from the beginning. Just point to the area where the mean Air Force touched you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 2:34:19 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to piss on the new army shit hate parade. But as someone who served and deployed with these vehicles I can say from experience they are not as bad as you describe. Most strykers were incredibly survivable under IED attack. Most of the armor everyone describes as better seriously suck. Bradley's and Abrams' are horrible vibration boxes. The stryker was practically a Cadillac by comparison. Which is the real problem the comparison. The Stryker isn't a tank and was never meant to be one. It's biggest problem is that is even though it was designed as a quickly deploy-able up amored LMTV everyone including soldiers themselves see it as a damn tank. So it gets put in a tank role which it was never meant to handle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gay. I wonder how many soldiers had to lose their jobs so the army could have the budget for that their lives in IED strikes riding around in those pieces of shit. FIFY Not to piss on the new army shit hate parade. But as someone who served and deployed with these vehicles I can say from experience they are not as bad as you describe. Most strykers were incredibly survivable under IED attack. Most of the armor everyone describes as better seriously suck. Bradley's and Abrams' are horrible vibration boxes. The stryker was practically a Cadillac by comparison. Which is the real problem the comparison. The Stryker isn't a tank and was never meant to be one. It's biggest problem is that is even though it was designed as a quickly deploy-able up amored LMTV everyone including soldiers themselves see it as a damn tank. So it gets put in a tank role which it was never meant to handle. Stryker: The perfect combat vehicle when no fighting is required. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 2:35:42 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just point to the area where the mean Air Force touched you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So... the Pentagon wars are still raging, eh? actually the primary problem with the stryker is that the AF had its dick beaters in on it from the beginning. Just point to the area where the mean Air Force touched you. As a taxpayer or as an infantryman? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 2:40:18 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a taxpayer or as an infantryman? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So... the Pentagon wars are still raging, eh? actually the primary problem with the stryker is that the AF had its dick beaters in on it from the beginning. Just point to the area where the mean Air Force touched you. As a taxpayer or as an infantryman?  I guess both...I bet the USAF has spies in congress making taxes go up too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 2:41:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stryker: The perfect combat vehicle when no fighting is required. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gay. I wonder how many soldiers had to lose their jobs so the army could have the budget for that their lives in IED strikes riding around in those pieces of shit. FIFY Not to piss on the new army shit hate parade. But as someone who served and deployed with these vehicles I can say from experience they are not as bad as you describe. Most strykers were incredibly survivable under IED attack. Most of the armor everyone describes as better seriously suck. Bradley's and Abrams' are horrible vibration boxes. The stryker was practically a Cadillac by comparison. Which is the real problem the comparison. The Stryker isn't a tank and was never meant to be one. It's biggest problem is that is even though it was designed as a quickly deploy-able up amored LMTV everyone including soldiers themselves see it as a damn tank. So it gets put in a tank role which it was never meant to handle. Stryker: The perfect combat vehicle when no fighting is required. Hey man the vehicle cant fight or take a hit, but its a smooth ride, so it must be better at stopping Russians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 2:42:40 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As a taxpayer or as an infantryman? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So... the Pentagon wars are still raging, eh? actually the primary problem with the stryker is that the AF had its dick beaters in on it from the beginning. Just point to the area where the mean Air Force touched you. As a taxpayer or as an infantryman? Apply JCIDS liberally for maximum expenditure of funds.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 2:55:32 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They make for cool photo ops driving across the Baltics, but until there is at least a heavy bct in place its just that, a photo op. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Even the Russians gave us the "Not Sure if Serious" look when we re-created the Motor Rifle Regiment. Seriously, there are articles where the Russians say "we built MRRs because that's what we could afford, not because it was optimum. A MRR has enough ass to start a fight, but not enough to finish one." They make for cool photo ops driving across the Baltics, but until there is at least a heavy bct in place its just that, a photo op. Non-concur. Once an outside NATO country, and ideally one with an independent nuclear deterrent, is in position, the stakes and the game has changed. We aren't driving on Moscow, nor holding a Fires CALFEX with the 1st Tank Army. But, the reality is that Americans have and always will represent a tripwire that most other NATO allies do not. I will say that I've heard multiple people say that the NATO of last 24 months isn't the NATO of the last 20 years. The level of political and military will in Europe is far more solid than is credited according to the people on the ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 2:56:46 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apply JCIDS liberally for maximum expenditure of funds. http://67.media.tumblr.com/90b7e85a3adf93b4ec1c1670493551fc/tumblr_mwsx17luyb1rrmtkro1_1280.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So... the Pentagon wars are still raging, eh? actually the primary problem with the stryker is that the AF had its dick beaters in on it from the beginning. Just point to the area where the mean Air Force touched you. As a taxpayer or as an infantryman? Apply JCIDS liberally for maximum expenditure of funds. http://67.media.tumblr.com/90b7e85a3adf93b4ec1c1670493551fc/tumblr_mwsx17luyb1rrmtkro1_1280.jpg Of course, Stryker predates JCIDS... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 3:01:19 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess both...I bet the USAF has spies in congress making taxes go up too.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So... the Pentagon wars are still raging, eh? actually the primary problem with the stryker is that the AF had its dick beaters in on it from the beginning. Just point to the area where the mean Air Force touched you. As a taxpayer or as an infantryman? I guess both...I bet the USAF has spies in congress making taxes go up too.
This is now a B-32, B-36, B-58, F-111, F-102, F-35 thread? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 3:06:52 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's actually kinda true, but a separate matter entirely. Besides, the Lada Niva is dead, long live the Chevy Niva: http://i63.tinypic.com/w9y8nc.jpg The US Army decided it wants a 30mm gun for its bronetransporters. That's good! Everyone can applaud the decision, because if they are ever going to be used in anything other than COIN, a HMG ain't shit. So rather than picking up the phone and saying Oh hey Israel how about you license that Samson RCWS to us, we decide to pick an unproven new 30mm gun and run with that. It's not like everyone from Finland to Italy and on to Israel don't already have modern 30mm WITH ATGM RWS designs (the American design is 30mm gun OR Javelin) that we could have just licensed and started building TODAY, we need to extract maximum dollars to wind up with something not quite as good as what he rest of the world has. See Stryker MGS for a perfect example. Modern American defense procurement exists to transfer money. It certainly doesn't exist to make the best product at reasonable prices. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A Jeep Wrangler costs 4 times as much as a Lada Niva. American car production is broken beyond all measure. That's actually kinda true, but a separate matter entirely. Besides, the Lada Niva is dead, long live the Chevy Niva: http://i63.tinypic.com/w9y8nc.jpg The US Army decided it wants a 30mm gun for its bronetransporters. That's good! Everyone can applaud the decision, because if they are ever going to be used in anything other than COIN, a HMG ain't shit. So rather than picking up the phone and saying Oh hey Israel how about you license that Samson RCWS to us, we decide to pick an unproven new 30mm gun and run with that. It's not like everyone from Finland to Italy and on to Israel don't already have modern 30mm WITH ATGM RWS designs (the American design is 30mm gun OR Javelin) that we could have just licensed and started building TODAY, we need to extract maximum dollars to wind up with something not quite as good as what he rest of the world has. See Stryker MGS for a perfect example. Modern American defense procurement exists to transfer money. It certainly doesn't exist to make the best product at reasonable prices. Sort of want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 3:20:52 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lulz. Well played. I'm going to rush out and get a Lada said no person with a choice, ever. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A Jeep Wrangler costs 4 times as much as a Lada Niva. American car production is broken beyond all measure. Lulz. Well played. I'm going to rush out and get a Lada said no person with a choice, ever. Cost and price are not the same thing. I doubt the Jeep costs 4x as much to make on the material and engineering side, even with our inflated .gov tech mandates. That just goes to show how inflated the prices on them are. American military leadership isn't serious about fighting anyone. They're serious about their pensions and post-retirement paychecks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 3:25:20 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Non-concur. Once an outside NATO country, and ideally one with an independent nuclear deterrent, is in position, the stakes and the game has changed. We aren't driving on Moscow, nor holding a Fires CALFEX with the 1st Tank Army. But, the reality is that Americans have and always will represent a tripwire that most other NATO allies do not. I will say that I've heard multiple people say that the NATO of last 24 months isn't the NATO of the last 20 years. The level of political and military will in Europe is far more solid than is credited according to the people on the ground. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Even the Russians gave us the "Not Sure if Serious" look when we re-created the Motor Rifle Regiment. Seriously, there are articles where the Russians say "we built MRRs because that's what we could afford, not because it was optimum. A MRR has enough ass to start a fight, but not enough to finish one." They make for cool photo ops driving across the Baltics, but until there is at least a heavy bct in place its just that, a photo op. Non-concur. Once an outside NATO country, and ideally one with an independent nuclear deterrent, is in position, the stakes and the game has changed. We aren't driving on Moscow, nor holding a Fires CALFEX with the 1st Tank Army. But, the reality is that Americans have and always will represent a tripwire that most other NATO allies do not. I will say that I've heard multiple people say that the NATO of last 24 months isn't the NATO of the last 20 years. The level of political and military will in Europe is far more solid than is credited according to the people on the ground. Oh ~2k deployed strategic warheads means things will likely never go anywhere as long as U.S. troops are in-country. Or arguably NATO troops in general, for that matter. But this relies on a theory of massive retaliation that was rendered a hilarity by Korea. Would we have unlocked the WS3 lockers at Aviano in the 80s if the 1st Tank Army came through the Fulda Gap? Probably. Are we going to do the same for little green men in Estonia? Like I said, this is an astronomically unlikely event, but there is probably a corner of the Russian mind that thinks the Balkans Baltics can be slowly boiled without the frog jumping out of the pot. ETA: Freudian slip? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 3:26:33 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before Dport. Everyone will be in before Dport. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 3:28:20 PM EDT
[#47]
So it only took ~15 years before somebody decided to make a LAV-25 on a Stryker chassis?
Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 3:32:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw a video of the 105 on a Stryker fired broadsides. The entire vehicle ROCKED. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When the Stryker was in development there were variants out the wazoo. Mortars, TOW, Chapparals, drone launchers, 105mm, They even stuck a twin 40mm turret on the things. I saw a video of the 105 on a Stryker fired broadsides. The entire vehicle ROCKED. Not a BFD. Try firing the 152mm gun/launcher broadside from a M551 Sheridan. It would lift the road wheels and track off the ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 3:34:18 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When the Stryker was in development there were variants out the wazoo. Mortars, TOW, Chapparals, drone launchers, 105mm, They even stuck a twin 40mm turret on the things. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't there Strykers equipped with the 25mm Bushmaster? Or is the M242 in 30mm?
It makes sense as there are plenty of Bradley Gunners out there so transition training wouldn't much more than refresher training...and I can personally attest to the fact that APFSDS can tear some shit up, and that the HE will skull fuck a BMP. When the Stryker was in development there were variants out the wazoo. Mortars, TOW, Chapparals, drone launchers, 105mm, They even stuck a twin 40mm turret on the things. Isn't there a 105mm version currently in service? Thought I read something about one being introduced a few years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 3:36:27 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So...a GAU-8 doesn't seem to have a problem fucking up a tank, and it's 30mm... Why is the Stryker's 30mm considered useless? Too slow? A: The GAU-8 isn't gonna be that effective against current Russian armor. B: Even with the older Russian tanks, there is a world of difference between 30mm rounds with the added velocity of an aircraft striking the thinner top and rear armor of a tank, and an IFV firing at the thing from ground level. |
|
|
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.
