US Army to deploy new deathtraps to replace Abrams.....

[Pablo Sanchez]

At least it's not a Sgt. York. And if the pols want pork barrel, then why for the love of Dog don't we have a maglev from coast-to-coast??

Fucking A, man. We need a Magnetic Bullet Train system that links every state capital in the United States, and every major vacation city. So If I want to, say, go from Portland, Maine, to Las Vegas, I could hop on the bullet train and be there by the end of the day.

[oberon]

We seem to be getting a city monorail system

[MKSheppard]

Against Samed Q. Taliban, who typically has nothing more substantial than a few AK-47s, PKMs, and some RPGs, it's a reasonably effective weapons platform. Against a better equipped enemy, it's a deathtrap. I'm getting a faint pork-barrel smell from this project, where is it going to be produced?

Even against the Taliban, it's still a deathtrap. I don't see any method
of defeating even RPGs, which are everywhere. Actually, the whole reason
the Army is getting saddled with the STRYKER is because of internal army
politics.

The whole Interim Brigade Combat Team concept while beginning life
as a worthwhile concept, has quickly turned into another Black Beret
fiasco, with the IBCT incapable of deploying anywhere in the world
in 96 hours, which was the original criteria.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ ... 9;t=003694

Lots of talk on it over there, and some cogent points:

• Stryker can't even fit onto a C-130, which was the whole point of the Interim Brigade Combat Team. It's 4,000 pounds overweight, even with
  the light armor.
• It has a high profile and has an even smaller wheelbase than the
  comparable german wheeled AFVs that toppled over in Bosnia, killing
  several crewmembers.

[Meghel]

Can't they just produce an improved version of this baby? Just enlarge the tracks, fit it out with better armour and a better 75mm Gun and you have quite the infantry support tank.

Small and light. Add automatization and it might be a good thing.

http://www.geocities.com/tank_toaster/hetzer.htm

Ok, I know that it is a Tank Destroyer.


Meghel

[General G]

That things almost as bad as the Matilda I ( Total Armarment: 1 machine gun). I don't know what they were thinking any T-55 would smash those things.

[MKSheppard]

nice to see you've matured

The in depth replies on the battleship thread gave you away

[oberon]

Heh. Ooops, I mean, I'm TJ.

[Sea Skimmer]

Against Samed Q. Taliban, who typically has nothing more substantial than a few AK-47s, PKMs, and some RPGs, it's a reasonably effective weapons platform. Against a better equipped enemy, it's a deathtrap. I'm getting a faint pork-barrel smell from this project, where is it going to be produced?

Even against the Taliban, it's still a deathtrap. I don't see any method
of defeating even RPGs, which are everywhere. Actually, the whole reason
the Army is getting saddled with the STRYKER is because of internal army
politics.

The whole Interim Brigade Combat Team concept while beginning life
as a worthwhile concept, has quickly turned into another Black Beret
fiasco, with the IBCT incapable of deploying anywhere in the world
in 96 hours, which was the original criteria.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ ... 9;t=003694

Lots of talk on it over there, and some cogent points:

• Stryker can't even fit onto a C-130, which was the whole point of the Interim Brigade Combat Team. It's 4,000 pounds overweight, even with
  the light armor.
• It has a high profile and has an even smaller wheelbase than the
  comparable german wheeled AFVs that toppled over in Bosnia, killing
  several crewmembers.

More then a death trap. Years into the campagin the Russians are still loseing seveal BTR's and BMP's in Chechenya each day, and those have up to twice the armor of the Stryker.

I'm not advocating Tank-APC conversions, but we definitely need something with at least the upgraded Brad's armor, 30mm frontal protection and 23mm all round.

As for armament, the Stryker has 30 rounds total, not much if the plan is for infantry support.

A heavy auto cannon like a 40mm Bofors or 50mm bushmaster would be much better. Kill tanks with a rack of Javelins on the room. And make em dismountable if not needed to reduce the fire danger.

[Soulman]

A heavy auto cannon like a 40mm Bofors or 50mm bushmaster would be much better. Kill tanks with a rack of Javelins on the room. And make em dismountable if not needed to reduce the fire danger.

I think that the whole concept revolves around something with a quite large gun that is air-mobile. What would probably be better is a large recoiless rifle on a low motorised chassis.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I think I need to build a seriously bad ass tank and name it "Fluffy" they they will either laugh themselves to death, critically underestimate it, or soil them selves.

[Akm72]

A few more points;

From http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/C_130_Hercules.html

Maximum Allowable Payload: C-130E, 45,050 pounds (20,434 kilograms); C-130H, 43,550 pounds (19,754 kilograms); C-130J, 46,631 pounds (21,151 kilograms); C-130J-30, 46,812 pounds (21,234 kilograms)

Maximum Normal Payload: C-130E, 36,720 pounds (16,656 kilograms); C-130H, 35,220 pounds (15,976 kilograms); C-130J, 38,301 pounds (17,373 kilograms); C-130J-30, 38,812 pounds (17,605 kilograms)

So the C130 can carry the Stryker, though only just.

I'm not advocating Tank-APC conversions, but we definitely need something with at least the upgraded Brad's armor, 30mm frontal protection and 23mm all round.

The problem is if you put M2 level of protection on the vehicle, it won't be transportable by the C130 (any more than the M2 is).

As for armament, the Stryker has 30 rounds total, not much if the plan is for infantry support.

I agree that 30 rounds is not enough, I'd have put the minimum acceptable at 50 rounds. Are you sure it's not 30 rounds in the hull, AND 18 rounds in the autoloader? (grasping at straws here )

[Pablo Sanchez]

The best option for this sort of problem, IMO, is something like the Soviet Airborne support vehicles (I like the Soviet vehicles? what a surprise ) The BMD-1/2/3 and ASU-85 are both very air-mobile, and are much more survivable* than that box-o-death. Granted, neither of them has a 105mm gun, but every AFV is a balance between mobility, armor, and firepower.

* (the BMD series and the USA Death-trap probably have similar levels of armor, both being incapable of resisting 14.5mm fire, but the BMD has a much lower profile. I don't know enough about the ASU-85's protection to comment on it, but also has a low profile)

[Stuart Mackey]

Yeah ok. This is the fire support vertion of the LAV3 I have heard about. They are ok so long as you realise the limitaions of the vehicle.
Despite the Main gun they are not battle tanks and should never be used as such.
They are reasonably mobile on solid ground/roads but are a lot less versitile than tracked vehicles in rough terrain and you must be carefull on slopes. Always approch a ditch on a angle.
They are *very* limited in builtup areas due to wheels, it takes a lot of point turns to turn around.
These vehicles are quite expensive for what they are, and a probably a weathy nations toy.
I have seen peoples objection on armour and transportability, please remember that there is always a trade of fire/armour/speed. A airtransportable vehicle is always going to be vulnrable to comparitivly light fire, there is no avoiding it. this is the trade of you pay for fire support.