Replies

While Cebrowski doesn't want to eliminate tanks altogether, he clearly believes Stryker is the centerpiece of the military's future, giving the forces necessary nimbleness and speed in urban areas such as Baghdad.

Hmmm...The 8 wheel Stryker will have a hard time turning around in a city, while a tracked vehicle can pivot on it's own axis. The remote fifty-cal is reliant on a clear view from the commander, which he generally won't have in a city.

Though the tanks proved effective in protecting their crews from artillery or missile fire, for the transformation director, the new high-tech vehicles give troops better awareness of where the enemy is located so that troops can avoid danger - or speed out of harm's way.

How is the Styker high-tech? Because of the stupid non-stabilized remote 50 cal? And the Styker's big advantage is that it can run away from the enemy faster?? I even question that...give me a Bradley or M1 anyday over cross country.

"Anyone that doesn't like speed, or says that speed isn't required, has never been shot at," he said.

Anyone who doesn't like ARMOR or says that ARMOR isn't required, has never been shot at, you f-in idiot.

But but but.. Shinseki says that Wheels are more manueverable!
He says so, so it must be true!
*chuckle*
Shinseki has never been stuck up to his axles in Fort Drum sand while tankers, Bradley crews, and Paladins drive on by with a smile, wave, finger pointing, and outright laughter..

The Stryker is unstable on cross country moves, it will flip like an MF if it hits rolling lumpy ground.
And you mentioned that the treadheads can spin on it's centerline in it's own bodylength.
Wheel vehicles can't do that..
More manueverable?
On paved highways like what we have here in the US maybe.

Anyone who doesn't like ARMOR or says that ARMOR isn't required, has never been shot at, you f-in idiot.

The point that seems to escape many who have responded on this thread is that heavy armor is becoming obsolete. Not for ideological or doctrine reasons, but for technological reasons. Cheap, portable anti-armor weapons have started to become good enough that no practical amount of heavy armor provides protection against them. For the military to bury their head in the sand and not deal with this reality would be foolish.

Now, I don't know about the guy in the article, but the strategy for future war has been to go to lighter faster vehicles that provide just enough armor to stop shrapnel and bullets, but which don't bother to provide protection against real anti-armor weapons, primarily because they can't build a system that will withstand them. It is quickly coming to the point where the best defense really is a good offense. Be faster, more lethal, smarter, and see the enemy before he sees you. Heavy armor is very quickly being eliminated as a useful tool.

We see these kinds of anti-armor systems in the field today, and crappier countries are starting to have them as well. We have anti-armor systems in field testing with more range than an Abrams and which could eat the Abrams frontal armor for breakfast. There are physical material limits to what you can do with armor, and anti-armor weapons are starting to breach this limit such that there is no direct solution to it.