Replies

You protest too much sir. If it was unstable and had a high center of gravity when it rolled off the shop floor, the Army could NOT have helped it by bolting on 5,200 pounds of more armor above the axels.

Another thing. RPGs debuted in the 1960s. I handled many of them in Vietnam and shot a few. That was over 40 years ago. How is it that General Dynamics presented a plan for a modern armored vehicle that made it through the entire Army acquisition process and nobody thought of RPGs until they got to Kuwait? That is odd!

BTW, the slatted armor meant to "catch" the RPGs does not cover the big wheels. The front two wheels on each side must be free to steer so none of them are covered.

Vetvoice,

I didn't say anything about RPGs. I agree that in this day and age we need to design and build vehicles to handle that most obvious threat.

Nor did I say I was in love with the Stryker. I have always maintained it is an "interim" vehicle meant as a stop gap using basically off the shelf technology to give us a medium capability. Nor have I ever said Archy and SLB and Cannoreer #4 and any others were wrong to say a tracked vehicle would be better.

I am just saying too many take every little thing that happens and try and say ..."therefore, this vehicle is a boondoggle" prior to really knowing all the facts.

I am really on your side as far as wanting to know the truth and getting the best to our soldiers...I am just not as convinced as others that this program should be scrapped. I humbly say I think I am watching their performance in Iraq with a little less prejudice than some...for and against. I am convinced that we must do better in the long run, and that tanks and bradleys will be needed for many, many years...perhaps decades and longer. I am a tanker/cav trooper after all!