Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/28/2006 5:27:18 PM EST

Modern Marvels

Engineering Disasters 18

The Army's Stryker Light Armored Vehicle;
Salton Sea;
China's Sunjiwan coal mine. CC


Huh

Link Posted: 10/28/2006 5:34:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Modern Marvels

Engineering Disasters 18

The Army's Stryker Light Armored Vehicle;
Salton Sea;
China's Sunjiwan coal mine. CC


Huh



Disaster, WTF? Seems to be doing well in Iraq. I saw a brand new 105mm gun Stryker on a flat bed today headed for Lewis, looked badass.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 5:43:18 PM EST
I'm waiting for the segment to come up. I'll post a brief when I get the info.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 6:11:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2006 6:11:26 PM EST by Da_Bunny]
If there was a segment, I missed it. Had a huge crane disaster at Miller Field, though.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 6:12:13 PM EST
I think somebody at Comcast made a mistake with the whole "Striker" part of the show, I don't seem to remember any major problems with the Striker. Seen quite a few of the 105 version running around base, they do look bad ass, and will be nice to have that kind of fire-power behind me when I head back to Iraq. The 120 on the Abrams is awesome, but sometimes the tanks are kind of hard to get.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 6:22:44 PM EST
Missed the show on the stryker (7-8), Husky game was on, but did catch part of a show called MAKING THE TEAM on VH1..........turns out its tryouts for the Dallas Cowgirls Cheerleaders.

Link Posted: 10/28/2006 6:42:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 7:36:51 PM EST

Who gives a fuck what the Washington Compost says?
They fielded a new piece of gear, and found stuff in the field that hadn't shown up in testing. Whoop-tee-doo.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 8:37:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By DW_Drang:

Who gives a fuck what the Washington Compost says?
They fielded a new piece of gear, and found stuff in the field that hadn't shown up in testing. Whoop-tee-doo.


I think part of the complaint, as alluded to in the article, is the lack of testing. It was deployed before testing was complete.

I think I saw something about this on Discovery or History or one of those channels a while ago. There were other failings IIRC. I believe the current mission of the vehicle has changed drastically from what it was supposed to be designed for. I think there are other shortcomings that were not mentioned in that article. I'm thinking fuel economy might be one of the other things that was mentioned. I think on the show they mentioned something about pound for pound it gets worse mileage than heavier equipment. There is more but I do not remember it very well.

Anyway, that article is what drives the title of that segment, I'm sure. If not the article then the internal armed services reports.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 3:42:21 AM EST
The slat armor is wearing out the running gear and works half the time. The grenade launcher misses....that's no surprise, the ammo is slow in flight and everybody still alive knows better than to behave predictably...zigzag, change direction/speed.

The 105 gun will certainly give Stryker units more of what they need....fire power.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 9:42:03 AM EST
The frustrating thing is that the Stryker (more-or-less) fills a need Army has been trying to fill for 26 years, at least--they (we) were trying to field a combat vehicle that would fit between the Light Infantry LPCs (Leather Personnel Carriers) and tanks/APCs when I was in BTC.
The money was never there.
It was not foreseen that RPGs would be such a big deal on the battlefield. People with no imagination always kvetch because "No one forsaw this!" Well, did you? Sometimes the complaints are legitimate, sometimes they are stupid, and sometimes they are based on a lack of information and/or understanding.
And sometimes they are just narrow-minded, mean-spirited sniping at people and organizations the whiners neither understand nor like...
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 4:29:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2006 4:37:51 PM EST by Da_Bunny]

Originally Posted By DW_Drang:
The frustrating thing is that the Stryker (more-or-less) fills a need Army has been trying to fill for 26 years, at least--they (we) were trying to field a combat vehicle that would fit between the Light Infantry LPCs (Leather Personnel Carriers) and tanks/APCs when I was in BTC.
The money was never there.
It was not foreseen that RPGs would be such a big deal on the battlefield. People with no imagination always kvetch because "No one forsaw this!" Well, did you? Sometimes the complaints are legitimate, sometimes they are stupid, and sometimes they are based on a lack of information and/or understanding.
And sometimes they are just narrow-minded, mean-spirited sniping at people and organizations the whiners neither understand nor like...


The NVA shit-canned M-48s & M-60 tanks and M-113 APCs all over Vietnam with RPGs. Hundreds, if not thousands. We knew they were a problem in the sixties. We all wanted them, since LAWS had a 40% failure rate.

In 1967, the Israelis captured buttloads of RPGs and issued them to their troops. They killed shitloads of arab tanks and APCs with them.

When the Bradley was developed, the Air Force insisted that the Army test a combat loaded Bradley against an RPG (the Army had avoided that test!). It burned and blew the fuck up. That is how they got stuck with the slab armor.

The solution for the RPG was Chobham armor. It worked, but then the Russians built newer standoff warheads, so the Army had to upgrade to DU armor.


They knew....they knew....
Top Top