Not really.
Posted on 09/30/2003 4:08:04 AM PDT by SLB
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:14 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
The Klintoons keep striking.
Not really.
You're likewise welcome to cut-and-paste the Stryker ping list from my FReeper profile page [if you can find it in all that goulash!] but be sure it's the Stryker list that you copy and use- I've got a couple of others in there that I maintain.
So long as they're not abused, I'll keep 'em publicly accessable and usable. If there are problems, they go between < carets. > and go invisible.
-archy-/-
Stryker would be a great convoy escort gun truck.
Remember, the idea is to fly the Strykers in by C130 [click here to see what the C130 guys think about that!] so as to avoid en-route ambushes and mines.
And with only a .50 Browning or Mark 19 aboard, and plans are to replace that with an even slower firing .50 cal since the M2 .50 would only handle 25-45 rounds without a jam from the Remote Gun System, the 25mm gun equipped Marine LAVs are a MUCH better choice, as are Army M113's with .50s and a TOW missile launcher. Good news: the new XM312 .50 can be fed from either side, and will likely turn up in twin-gun mount arrangements. But there goes the light weight.
In Vietnam, a quad .50 in the back of an M35A2 or M54 truck, often with another pair of .50s or M60s at the front corners were not at all uncommon; neither was the practice of pulling off the tracks of an M113 A-cav track with a .50 and a pair of M60s covering the sides, and dropping the whole [un]tracked vehicle into the back of the truck.
Compared to firepower like that, or the Marine Ontos with six 106mm recoilless rifles in the back of a Deuce-and-a-half, the Stryker's jammamatic .50 mount looks pretty puny, indeed. A vehicle meant for combat escort ought to be better equipped and more survivable than a dump truck fitted with a quad fifty, not less. Even the proposed 4-wheel MP ASV armored car carried both a .50 M2 AND a 40mm Mark 19 grenade launcher, and at least it really was C-130 transportable. Kind of reminiscent of the MP V-150s used for convoy work in Vietnam....
Well fellows, this upbeat note from HQ certainly answers all of my questions! You see, we were wrong to question those whom Christ and Bill Clinton hath placed above us. Everything is going to be all right.
Question: Does the tinfoil go inside my Shinseki cap, or on the outside? Is Reynolds Wrap OK, or should I use leadfoil, or mU metal? How about a test? We put Clark and Shinseki in the thing, and a couple of Freepers I know give it a go with a COMBLOC 14.5 HMG loaded 2-1 AP and Incendiary.
First the beret, then the stryker. The only thing Shitsaki forgot was to issue our troops MRE's containing cheap red wine, a roll of french bread, and a wedge of cheese...
Thanks for the offer. I have a Finnish L/39 Lahti semiauto AT gun with an accessory barrel chambered for the 14.5x mm cartridge of the Soviet ZPU-1/14.5mm Vladimirov (KPV) heavy machinegun, to include the B32 armor-piercing incendiary projectile rounds and BZT armour-piercing-tracer ammo.
Others have reworked the Soviet PTRD bolt-action rifle from its 14.5mm chambering to the 20mm round of the M61 Gatling gun. Just imagine what happens to Stryker armor if the Russians should go the other direction, or worse, up to their 23mm Zsus-4 AA gun cartridge.
At $30 per round, I'm not real inclined to use up my supply of Russian dinosaur rifle ammo shooting at tin cans, which is essentially what a Stryker is. But if the targets you propose would care to stand on the far side of the vehicle, I have no doubt of the ability of the Russian AP ammo to go in one side [or end- how they going to up-armor that crew ramp in back???] and zip right out the other, retyaining plenty of energy to deal with any living targets on that other side.
Nevertheless, the Russians are upgunning their BTR-60 and -70 wheeled armored cars that mount the 14.5mm with a turret with a 30mm autocannon, a 100mm main gun tube, and a PK machinegun. And Kornet AT rockets roughly equal to our Javelin.
Not all of 'em. The early M113 with the gasoline GMC engine and plastic bag between the sidewalls for a fuel tank had hinged crew benchs that folded from the walls downward, not as big a deal since the M113 had an open crew compartment hatch that could be opened. And not all versions had the ports for the M231 firing port weapons, either.
But by the time the M113A3 had come out, we'd pretty well wised up. And in conditions like we're facing in Iraq, count on troops who know what they're doing to ride on the outside top of their vehicles, whether wheeled or tracked. Hitting two or three TM-46 antitank mines stacked atop each other eliminates any minor concerns as to whether wheeled or tracked. But count on a Stryker to overturn anyway- the Russian BTRs are longer, and more stable. But they don't have to be moved aboard C130s, and they can swim.
I especially liked this quote: The Ontos carried the beehive round that sent out a hundred darts per firing to clean out a jungle of its enemy. There was no other weapon that could clear a jungle for a depth of a ¼ mile like the 106mm recoilless rifle using the beehive round.
But this quote I found disturbing: Vietnam was run by our politicians; with rules of engagement that totally distracted the military commander. Our air power was forbidden to knock out the surface to air missile sites that depleted their ranks. In early Vietnam, the enemy could retreat to areas forbidden to US forces. These rules as applied to the Ontos crews decreed that all major calibre weapons had to secure Battalion authority before being loaded or fired. The early Ontos crews were expected to go into combat areas unloaded. Later, they could have 106 rounds in the guns, but had to secure authority to fire.
Are you kidding me? I knew the politicians tried running the war, but that is totally assinine!
The Marines had no other weapon that could clear out a jungle for a depth of a ¼ mile, maybe, though the *green can* rounds with 8500 steel flechettedarts and *Black can* loads for the M48A3 tank's main gun with a 1000 5/16" roller bearings in each round came pretty close.
But the Army had the M551 sheridan, with that big ole 6-inch, 152mm gun. And the M625 canister/fleshette load for it. Ten thousand little steel nails in those darlin's.... At 200 meters range, they simply shredded anything within a path 50 meters wide. You didn't even need a gunner aboard, most track commanders just *fired from the hip* from the commander's cupola, using it like a giant shotgun. Which it was.
Have to disagree with you on the STUG III series-the Germans fielded it with the sole purpose of infantry support-hence why the early models had low velocity guns with primary loads of HE shells. The tank destroyer/killer role evolved later after combat experience taught what you pointed out in your critique-it was poorly suited for such support ops. Hence the later versions with the longer 75/76mm AT guns.
If you live anywhere near VA., go check out the Army transpo museum at FT. Eustis-they have a Vietnam era gun truck on display-seriously up armored and heavily armed-again a perfect anti ambush weapon.
Again, great info, thanks for posting it, take care
I just read the book
"Black Hawk Down." The only times
Hummer "armored" doors
stopped bullets was when
the troops inside had rolled down
their tempered windows.
And Archy, right now in Iraq it is much safer inside the vehicles than on top. Riding on top protects you better from mines, but there has so far been very little of that. Since most of the threat has been from small arms fire, frag & blast effect of roadside improvised explosives, and RPGs; being inside the vehicle is currently a much better deal!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.