1 posted on
08/02/2003 1:42:17 PM PDT by
kattracks
To: kattracks
unmanned ground and aerial vehicles.![](http://www.tulane.edu/~jhouston/scifi/robot/terminator.jpg)
2 posted on
08/02/2003 2:06:05 PM PDT by
Reeses
To: kattracks
Going to be a disaster. From what I have heard, when armed with a 105, the turret cannot traverse, otherwise it tips over. I have also heard that 12.7 can make mincemeat of the armor.
To: kattracks
Am I the only one who looks at a
Stryker and identifies
BTR-60?
I am all for mobility, and I wish those fine troops the best, but can somebody tell me what a Stryker can do that some variant of the LAV could not?
Back in the 1970's the Soviet Airborne had motorized rifle regiments mounted in air droppable BMD Infantry Fighting Vehicles, with fire support provided by ASU-85 self-propelled assault guns. That was 30 years ago and our Airborne is going to war in GAC's.
I think it is a good thing that we have to go to the other side of the world to get to the bad guys, but how we get there affects how fast we go and what we can take with us. I'm a Stryker skeptic. I wonder if it is just too big and heavy and hard to maintain. Wouldn't we be better off to give the light infantry and airmobile and airborne armored HUMMV's and ATV's and Chenoweth's and an air-droppable Sheridan replacement, and give the Marines more M1A2's and the amphibs to haul them?
Seems to me what we need instead of Strykers is an amphibious armored cavalry regiment.
5 posted on
08/02/2003 2:22:39 PM PDT by
Cannoneer No. 4
("A little more grape, Captain Bragg.")
To: kattracks
>Shinseki often recalls that the Army's only answer to
Iraq's threat to those Saudi oil fields was to send the 82nd Airborne Division
If this new unit
was designed to counter big
incursions, then what
will they be doing
in present-day Iraq, where
troops are mopping up?
If they're not sent in
to kick big butt big time, will
they be told to look
friendly, and do jobs
like neighborhood policing? Am
I missing something?
To: kattracks
19 tons? There's a lot of bridges this baby is going to have to go around - not over.
![](http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/gm_defense/stryker.jpg)
8 posted on
08/02/2003 2:34:21 PM PDT by
Tunehead54
(Support Our Troops!)
To: kattracks
SGT Stryker?
![](http://members.aol.com/fortscott/dukeart/la-04b.gif)
"My name is Stryker, Sgt. John M. Stryker. You're goin' a be my squad, a rifle squad. Three of us have seen action, Cpl. Dunn, Charlie Bass and myself. You're goin' a learn from us. In boot camp ya learned out of a book. Out here you've got a remember the book and learn a thousand things that have never been printed--probably never will be. You got a learn right and ya got a learn fast. And any man that doesn't want a cooperate, I'll make him wish he hadn't been born. Before I'm through with ya, you're goin' a move like one man and think like one man. If you don't you'll be dead. You guys have had a nice easy day. I hope ya enjoyed it because it's the last one you're goin' a get for a long time. You joined the Marines because you wanted to fight. Well, you're goin' a get your chance and I'm here to see that you know how. If I can't teach ya one way, I'll teach ya another. But I'll get the job done. The skipper of this outfit is Capt. Joyce. Platoon leader is Lt. Baker. Platoon Sergeant, Sgt. Ryke. Any questions?--That's all!"
10 posted on
08/02/2003 2:48:52 PM PDT by
Gamecock
(Calvinism, not just a good idea, but Scripturally correct!)
To: kattracks
The Army could have bought LAVS...they seem to work just fine for the Marines, but I guess that would have kept some retired generals/corporate VPs from making the big bucks in R&D cost overruns, etc.
15 posted on
08/02/2003 6:22:02 PM PDT by
MadJack
To: Conservative84
What do you think, Dai Uy?
16 posted on
08/02/2003 7:15:28 PM PDT by
Cannoneer No. 4
("A little more grape, Captain Bragg.")
To: Conservative84
What do you think, Dai Uy?
18 posted on
08/02/2003 7:36:43 PM PDT by
Cannoneer No. 4
("A little more grape, Captain Bragg.")
To: kattracks
To all, lets also not forget that all of these BDEs vehicles have real time C2 and digital comms, to give all levels of command real time situational information. They also are not going into a unprpepared theater, while Iraq is not a mature theater of operations it is far from an unprepared one, there are LOCs in place to allow this BDE which has exceptionally light/austere logistics capability a fairly robust back up support capability. Also they'll leverage all the add-on armor capability for their vehicles which limits deployment timelines again not a consideration for this operation. FYI they kicked both the NTC and JRTC OPFOR's ass even with the new COE enhancements the OPFOR has been upgraded with based on Enduring and IRAQ Freedom lessons learned. I've seen both the offical and the OPFOR's internal AARs. I think they'll do alright.
19 posted on
08/02/2003 7:50:35 PM PDT by
dragon6
(BOWIE 90 Mend the Sword)
To: kattracks
bump
31 posted on
08/03/2003 9:28:15 PM PDT by
VOA
To: kattracks
![](http://rscott3355.homestead.com/files/hsv.jpg)
The Armys newest ship is a Theater Support Vessel (TSV before called a HSV) was bought with the new Stryker Brigades in mind. To learn more about this ship check out the Ft. Eustis web page
To learn more about the Armys watercraft check this out
62 posted on
08/06/2003 4:08:44 AM PDT by
R. Scott
To: kattracks
Are we overlooking something here? Third Brigade, Second Infantry Division. The rest of the division is in Korea and I would think that this unit would be needed to bring that unit up to strength if the balloon goes up over there. Yet we're sending it to Iraq. Also, the mention in passing of the calling up of National Guard units for rotation to Iraq. That's National Guard combat brigades, not support units, and place an even greater burden on those forces than they already have. All this article is showing is that our forces, already stretched to the limit, are being stretched even farther. Yet I hear nothing of any plans to actually increase the size of the military to take on all these additional obligations, as well as the future obligations - Liberia, et. al., that Bush will be getting us in to. What gives?
To: All
99 posted on
08/07/2003 6:51:11 PM PDT by
Bob J
(Freerepublic.net...where it's always a happening....)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson