Stryker is a piece of shit! [Archive]

Kevin Brooks

April 26th 04, 11:33 PM

"noname" > wrote in message
...
> According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the Humvee
> situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen.
> Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be
> put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington
> have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers
> are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well as
> the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.

Duh. But the problem you posted was in reference to the HMMWV, not the
Bradley. Given a choice between a HMMWV (even uparmored) and a Stryker, the
Stryker looks very good. And being a wheeled vehicle, it will more than
likely be better in terms of both road mobility and maintenance (easier to
change a tire than a track) when compared to the Bradley which you sort of
slipped in after-the-fact.

>
> According to a well-placed Defense Department source, the Army is so
> worried about the Stryker's vulnerability that most of the 300-vehicle
> brigade currently in Iraq has been deployed up in the safer Kurdish
> region around Mosul. "Any further south, and the Army was afraid the
> Arabs would light them up," he says.

Beware the anonymous source. They are sending HMMWV's into areas where they
are getting killed outised the Kurdish areas--what does *that* tell you
about this Bozo's quote?

Brooks

>
>
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3694498.1082991820.QI0kzMOa9 dUAAC7@Rr0&manuel_call_cat=3&manuel_call_prod=37730&manuel_call_mod=release&modele=jdc_inter
>

phil hunt

April 27th 04, 11:46 PM

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:33:50 -0400, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>"noname" > wrote in message
...
>> According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the Humvee
>> situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen.
>> Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be
>> put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington
>> have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers
>> are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well as
>> the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.
>
>Duh. But the problem you posted was in reference to the HMMWV, not the
>Bradley. Given a choice between a HMMWV (even uparmored) and a Stryker, the
>Stryker looks very good.

Indeed. I wonder how good Stryker's armour is against KE weapons,
however. Would it beat an anti-materiel rifle, or HMG? How about a
23 mm cannon?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

Kevin Brooks

April 28th 04, 02:09 PM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:33:50 -0400, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >
> >"noname" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the Humvee
> >> situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen.
> >> Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be
> >> put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington
> >> have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers
> >> are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well
as
> >> the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.
> >
> >Duh. But the problem you posted was in reference to the HMMWV, not the
> >Bradley. Given a choice between a HMMWV (even uparmored) and a Stryker,
the
> >Stryker looks very good.
>
> Indeed. I wonder how good Stryker's armour is against KE weapons,
> however. Would it beat an anti-materiel rifle, or HMG? How about a
> 23 mm cannon?

It would likely be lousy against a KE weapon of any size, to include
anything of 12.7mm (with SLAP rounds, for example) and above at short enough
range. But IIRC the Bradley would be similarly vulnerable, though maybe not
as much so as the Stryker. Stryker is great compared to an uparmored HMMWV
or a home-reinforced deuce and a half or five ton; but it understandably is
going to come up short compared to the M2 series vehicles. Which is OK--the
missions of the two are a bit different. I have little doubt that we could
have put the better part or all of a Stryker BCT into northern Iraq during
the early phase of OIF had they been available at that time, whereas we were
pressed to get a heavy BN task force (minus) (and I don't know that we got
*any* M1A1's into that package) into the region as was. Stryker is not going
to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than the
HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
support forces better protection.

Brooks

>
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
>
>

Robb McLeod

April 28th 04, 08:45 PM

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:09:18 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:33:50 -0400, Kevin Brooks >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"noname" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the Humvee
>> >> situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen.
>> >> Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be
>> >> put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington
>> >> have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers
>> >> are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well
>as
>> >> the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.
>> >
>> >Duh. But the problem you posted was in reference to the HMMWV, not the
>> >Bradley. Given a choice between a HMMWV (even uparmored) and a Stryker,
>the
>> >Stryker looks very good.
>>
>> Indeed. I wonder how good Stryker's armour is against KE weapons,
>> however. Would it beat an anti-materiel rifle, or HMG? How about a
>> 23 mm cannon?
>
>It would likely be lousy against a KE weapon of any size, to include
>anything of 12.7mm (with SLAP rounds, for example) and above at short enough
>range. But IIRC the Bradley would be similarly vulnerable, though maybe not
>as much so as the Stryker. Stryker is great compared to an uparmored HMMWV
>or a home-reinforced deuce and a half or five ton; but it understandably is
>going to come up short compared to the M2 series vehicles. Which is OK--the
>missions of the two are a bit different. I have little doubt that we could
>have put the better part or all of a Stryker BCT into northern Iraq during
>the early phase of OIF had they been available at that time, whereas we were
>pressed to get a heavy BN task force (minus) (and I don't know that we got
>*any* M1A1's into that package) into the region as was. Stryker is not going
>to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than the
>HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
>support forces better protection.

The LAV series is almost entirely steel, so it does work fairly well
against small-calibre AP ammunition. I know the Canadian LAV III is
proofed for the front quarter against 14.5 mm AP. The Stryker may not
be due to the efforts to stuff them into C-130s. Since almost all 23
mm ammunition is HEI it should deflect that as well.

The real problem with the US Army's LAV is that they messed up on the
applique armour procurement, so they don't have their vehicles
equipped with it. I imagine they would have good protection against
older model RPGs if they were in theatre with their ceramic applique
packages.

Of course the LAV series has long been safe against land mines,
typically losing a wheel or two but suffering no casualties and able
to return to the depot under its own power.

--
Robb McLeod )
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops.
On my desk I have a work station...

robert arndt

April 28th 04, 08:55 PM

Stryker is not going
> to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than the
> HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
> support forces better protection.
>
> Brooks

Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs instead:

http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html

Rob

phil hunt

April 28th 04, 11:36 PM

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:45:03 -0700, Robb McLeod > wrote:
>
>The LAV series is almost entirely steel, so it does work fairly well
>against small-calibre AP ammunition. I know the Canadian LAV III is
>proofed for the front quarter against 14.5 mm AP. The Stryker may not
>be due to the efforts to stuff them into C-130s. Since almost all 23
>mm ammunition is HEI it should deflect that as well.
>
>The real problem with the US Army's LAV is that they messed up on the
>applique armour procurement, so they don't have their vehicles
>equipped with it.

Is the current slated armour intended as a replacemernt for this, or
will both be used when the applique armour is ready? Also, is it
likely that Stryker is planned to use active armour in future?

> I imagine they would have good protection against
>older model RPGs if they were in theatre with their ceramic applique
>packages.

That's my guess too. It seems that modern vehicles are much better
protected against shaped-charge weapons than against KE projectiles.
So it seems that KE is the way to go for AT weapons.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

Kevin Brooks

April 28th 04, 11:42 PM

"Robb McLeod" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:09:18 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:33:50 -0400, Kevin Brooks
>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"noname" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the
Humvee
> >> >> situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command,
Gen.
> >> >> Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles
be
> >> >> put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in
Washington
> >> >> have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire
Strykers
> >> >> are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as
well
> >as
> >> >> the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.
> >> >
> >> >Duh. But the problem you posted was in reference to the HMMWV, not the
> >> >Bradley. Given a choice between a HMMWV (even uparmored) and a
Stryker,
> >the
> >> >Stryker looks very good.
> >>
> >> Indeed. I wonder how good Stryker's armour is against KE weapons,
> >> however. Would it beat an anti-materiel rifle, or HMG? How about a
> >> 23 mm cannon?
> >
> >It would likely be lousy against a KE weapon of any size, to include
> >anything of 12.7mm (with SLAP rounds, for example) and above at short
enough
> >range. But IIRC the Bradley would be similarly vulnerable, though maybe
not
> >as much so as the Stryker. Stryker is great compared to an uparmored
HMMWV
> >or a home-reinforced deuce and a half or five ton; but it understandably
is
> >going to come up short compared to the M2 series vehicles. Which is
OK--the
> >missions of the two are a bit different. I have little doubt that we
could
> >have put the better part or all of a Stryker BCT into northern Iraq
during
> >the early phase of OIF had they been available at that time, whereas we
were
> >pressed to get a heavy BN task force (minus) (and I don't know that we
got
> >*any* M1A1's into that package) into the region as was. Stryker is not
going
> >to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than
the
> >HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
> >support forces better protection.
>
> The LAV series is almost entirely steel, so it does work fairly well
> against small-calibre AP ammunition. I know the Canadian LAV III is
> proofed for the front quarter against 14.5 mm AP. The Stryker may not
> be due to the efforts to stuff them into C-130s. Since almost all 23
> mm ammunition is HEI it should deflect that as well.

Providing only frontal protection is fine against a conventional enemy in
the wide open, but of less value in a street fight. IIRC the manufactirer
kind of screwed up early in the program and claimed 14.5mm protection, which
was not required in the original specs, and then had to make good on the
promise, hence some weight gain and the use of the applique armor panels.
Even if the 23mm is firing HEI, I would not want to vouchsafe for its
survivability against that threat--23mm is going to be lethal against most
light armored targets, except at longer ranges (25mm on LAVs and Bradleys
accounted for MBT kills during ODS).

>
> The real problem with the US Army's LAV is that they messed up on the
> applique armour procurement, so they don't have their vehicles
> equipped with it. I imagine they would have good protection against
> older model RPGs if they were in theatre with their ceramic applique
> packages.

ISTR they *do* have the applique armor; not sure they have enough yet for
the entire force, but then again only the first SBCT is deployed right now.

>
> Of course the LAV series has long been safe against land mines,
> typically losing a wheel or two but suffering no casualties and able
> to return to the depot under its own power.

That depends upon how the landmine is fused, and what kind of landmine it
hits. A full-width attack mine will kill it with a belly shot--there is no
way that puppy is proofed against a kinetic penetrator from below, such as
is used by the M21 AT mine and its brethren. I'd not want to even see it hit
with a large blast-type AT mine in a full-width attack. It goes without
saying that the vehicle is not proofed against mines--that is why the SBCT's
engineer company is getting mine clearance equipment suited to clearing
vehicle lanes through minefields. heck, even the M1A1(HA) is not
invulnerable to the lowly AT mine.

Brooks

>
> --
> Robb McLeod )
> A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train
stops.
> On my desk I have a work station...

Kevin Brooks

April 28th 04, 11:45 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Stryker is not going
> > to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than
the
> > HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
> > support forces better protection.
> >
> > Brooks
>
> Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs
instead:
>
> http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html

LOL! Yeah, at 43 freakin' tons the Puma is a *real* competitor against the
LAV...not. And how many Pumas are in service? None... And how many have been
manufactured? None, again? Sounds like it is a sure fit for the modern
German military...a non-existant vehicle for a force that won't be used.

Brooks
>
> Rob

Paul Elliot

April 29th 04, 03:40 AM

robert arndt wrote:

>Stryker is not going
>
>
>>to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than the
>>HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
>>support forces better protection.
>>
>>Brooks
>>
>>
>
>Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs instead:
>
>http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html
>
>Rob
>
>
YIKES!! At 43 Tons it might as well be an MBT.

Denyav

April 29th 04, 05:03 AM

>Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs
>instead:
>
>http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html

LAV itself is based on a swiss MOWAG design.

robert arndt

April 29th 04, 08:37 AM

Paul Elliot > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> >Stryker is not going
> >
> >
> >>to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than the
> >>HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
> >>support forces better protection.
> >>
> >>Brooks
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs instead:
> >
> >http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html
> >
> >Rob
> >
> >
> YIKES!! At 43 Tons it might as well be an MBT.

Yeah, but it will be state-of-the-art and well protected. Add it up
there with the world's greatest MBT (Leopard 2A6) and SPG (PZH 2000).
Of course the Germans have a wide range of good armor including the
old but useful Luchs, Fuchs, Fenneck, Dingo, Wiesel, Gepard, Buffel,
the new special forces ESK, and the projected 25 ton MRAV 6x6.

Rob

B2431

April 29th 04, 10:21 AM

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 4/29/2004 2:37 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Paul Elliot > wrote in message
>...
>> robert arndt wrote:
>>
>> >Stryker is not going
>> >
>> >
>> >>to replace the Bradley, but it sure does provide a better solution than
>the
>> >>HMMWV's with applique armor in terms of giving early entry and stability
>> >>support forces better protection.
>> >>
>> >>Brooks
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs
>instead:
>> >
>> >http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html
>> >
>> >Rob
>> >
>> >
>> YIKES!! At 43 Tons it might as well be an MBT.
>
>Yeah, but it will be state-of-the-art and well protected. Add it up
>there with the world's greatest MBT (Leopard 2A6) and SPG (PZH 2000).
>Of course the Germans have a wide range of good armor including the
>old but useful Luchs, Fuchs, Fenneck, Dingo, Wiesel, Gepard, Buffel,
>the new special forces ESK, and the projected 25 ton MRAV 6x6.
>
>Rob

Once again you push a German product that doesn't fit the mission. Stryker is
supposed to fill the gap between Hummer and Bradley. Puma's not even in the
same category of vehicles.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

robert arndt

April 29th 04, 08:00 PM

(Denyav) wrote in message >...
> >Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs
> >instead:
> >
> >http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html
>
> LAV itself is based on a swiss MOWAG design.

Shhh... don't tell that to the "Made in the USA/USA Number 1" club who
like to pretend all our stuff originated here. History also proves
that when superior foreign equipment is offered to the US military it
usually is rejected to keep inferior US companies that are facing
possible extinction in business. Those same companies then overbill
the military at the taxpayers expense. A big price to pay for draping
a US flag over military procurement.
I bet the HK XM-8 rifle doesn't get accepted here either... even
though it is clearly superior to anything Colt has to offer and at a
much lower price tag too!

Rob

Kevin Brooks

April 29th 04, 08:14 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> (Denyav) wrote in message
>...
> > >Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs
> > >instead:
> > >
> > >http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html
> >
> > LAV itself is based on a swiss MOWAG design.
>
>
> Shhh... don't tell that to the "Made in the USA/USA Number 1" club who
> like to pretend all our stuff originated here. History also proves
> that when superior foreign equipment is offered to the US military it
> usually is rejected to keep inferior US companies that are facing
> possible extinction in business. Those same companies then overbill
> the military at the taxpayers expense. A big price to pay for draping
> a US flag over military procurement.
> I bet the HK XM-8 rifle doesn't get accepted here either... even
> though it is clearly superior to anything Colt has to offer and at a
> much lower price tag too!

You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta M9,
the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is quite
willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch offered
for a requirement. Just as we are happy to buy US made weapons/systems when
they are the best available--and BTW, how many kills has your "greatest"
German MBT racked up? None? How many times has it been exposed to hostile
fire in a combat envoronment and survived? Never? Gosh, it sure is easy to
declare it the "greatest" when it spends all of its time on the parade
ground or in the motor pool, huh?

Brooks
>
> Rob

B2431

April 29th 04, 08:29 PM

>From: "Kevin Brooks"

>
>"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>> (Denyav) wrote in message
>...
>> > >Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs
>> > >instead:
>> > >
>> > >http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html
>> >
>> > LAV itself is based on a swiss MOWAG design.
>>
>>
>> Shhh... don't tell that to the "Made in the USA/USA Number 1" club who
>> like to pretend all our stuff originated here. History also proves
>> that when superior foreign equipment is offered to the US military it
>> usually is rejected to keep inferior US companies that are facing
>> possible extinction in business. Those same companies then overbill
>> the military at the taxpayers expense. A big price to pay for draping
>> a US flag over military procurement.
>> I bet the HK XM-8 rifle doesn't get accepted here either... even
>> though it is clearly superior to anything Colt has to offer and at a
>> much lower price tag too!
>
>You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta M9,
>the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is quite
>willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch offered
>for a requirement. Just as we are happy to buy US made weapons/systems when
>they are the best available--

<snip>
>
>Brooks
>>
>> Rob
>

The list goes on: the Merlin engine, Canberra bomber, Harrier...etc.

The only rigid airship the U.S. had that didn't crash was the Los Angeles which
was made in Germany.

I remember hearing back in the 1980s F-16 wiring harnesses were being made in
Mexico.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

robert arndt

April 30th 04, 03:31 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Denyav) wrote in message
> >...
> > > >Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma IFVs
> > > >instead:
> > > >
> > > >http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html
> > >
> > > LAV itself is based on a swiss MOWAG design.
> >
> >
> > Shhh... don't tell that to the "Made in the USA/USA Number 1" club who
> > like to pretend all our stuff originated here. History also proves
> > that when superior foreign equipment is offered to the US military it
> > usually is rejected to keep inferior US companies that are facing
> > possible extinction in business. Those same companies then overbill
> > the military at the taxpayers expense. A big price to pay for draping
> > a US flag over military procurement.
> > I bet the HK XM-8 rifle doesn't get accepted here either... even
> > though it is clearly superior to anything Colt has to offer and at a
> > much lower price tag too!
>
> You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta M9,
> the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is quite
> willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch offered
> for a requirement.

Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
example as they are primarily for SFs.

Just as we are happy to buy US made weapons/systems when
> they are the best available--and

BTW, how many kills has your "greatest"
> German MBT racked up? None? How many times has it been exposed to hostile
> fire in a combat envoronment and survived? Never? Gosh, it sure is easy to
> declare it the "greatest" when it spends all of its time on the parade
> ground or in the motor pool, huh?

The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat and we lost 18 of them
then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In Gulf War II we lost more-
this time to ATGWs.
There is no doubt that both the Leopard 2A6 (ranked Number 1) and
Japanese Type 90 (the Leopard clone ranked Number 3) would stand up
well in all hostile environments. Mines, fire, friendly fire, and
top-attack missiles would still present problems but these Western
tanks are superior to the Israeli Merkava 3 and the Merkava kicks ass
even in street fighting. So use your head.
BTW, it is the EXPERTS that rank the MBTs and the Leopard has held the
MBT title since the Leopard 2A5. Right now, the Leopard 2A6 could
remove the L55 gun and replace it with the already German-tested 140mm
gun. The M-1 cannot.
The Leopard 2A6 has superior armor protection, main gun, ammo and less
heat signature, reduced fuel consumption, and all the advantages of a
high-powered turbo diesel that is much more easy to work on and repair
than a gas turbine. And at an incredible 63 tons fully loaded the
Leopard 2A6 can still "fly" over obstacles and reach speeds of up to
49 mph!!!
Side-by-side, the M-1 and Leopard are fierce competitors... but the
Leopard II has taken the lead. Sorry you don't like that and the fact
that Leopards were offered to the US several times.
>
> Brooks
> >
> > Rob

Kevin Brooks

April 30th 04, 03:47 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (Denyav) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > >Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future we should buy German Puma
IFVs
> > > > >instead:
> > > > >
> > > >
>http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html
> > > >
> > > > LAV itself is based on a swiss MOWAG design.
> > >
> > >
> > > Shhh... don't tell that to the "Made in the USA/USA Number 1" club who
> > > like to pretend all our stuff originated here. History also proves
> > > that when superior foreign equipment is offered to the US military it
> > > usually is rejected to keep inferior US companies that are facing
> > > possible extinction in business. Those same companies then overbill
> > > the military at the taxpayers expense. A big price to pay for draping
> > > a US flag over military procurement.
> > > I bet the HK XM-8 rifle doesn't get accepted here either... even
> > > though it is clearly superior to anything Colt has to offer and at a
> > > much lower price tag too!
> >
> > You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta
M9,
> > the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is
quite
> > willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch
offered
> > for a requirement.
>
> Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
> example as they are primarily for SFs.

Yeah, it sucks when you get caught out wrong, so tossing a few of the
offending weapons out of consideration to meet your self-serving criteria is
probably a good choice. And thanks for bringing up that H&K/SOF linkage--I
forgot that various SOF elements also use the MP5 family weapons...

>
> Just as we are happy to buy US made weapons/systems when
> > they are the best available--and
>
> BTW, how many kills has your "greatest"
> > German MBT racked up? None? How many times has it been exposed to
hostile
> > fire in a combat envoronment and survived? Never? Gosh, it sure is easy
to
> > declare it the "greatest" when it spends all of its time on the parade
> > ground or in the motor pool, huh?
>
> The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat and we lost 18 of them
> then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In Gulf War II we lost more-
> this time to ATGWs.

How many of those 18 were "lost", and how many were repaired and returned to
subsequent service? How many crewmembers died? Regardless, it appears that
the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
premature "greatest" acclimation...

Is it hard for you to concentrate on what you are typing, what with the
"Horst Wessel" song ringing in your ears all of the time...?

Brooks

> There is no doubt that both the Leopard 2A6 (ranked Number 1) and
> Japanese Type 90 (the Leopard clone ranked Number 3) would stand up
> well in all hostile environments. Mines, fire, friendly fire, and
> top-attack missiles would still present problems but these Western
> tanks are superior to the Israeli Merkava 3 and the Merkava kicks ass
> even in street fighting. So use your head.
> BTW, it is the EXPERTS that rank the MBTs and the Leopard has held the
> MBT title since the Leopard 2A5. Right now, the Leopard 2A6 could
> remove the L55 gun and replace it with the already German-tested 140mm
> gun. The M-1 cannot.
> The Leopard 2A6 has superior armor protection, main gun, ammo and less
> heat signature, reduced fuel consumption, and all the advantages of a
> high-powered turbo diesel that is much more easy to work on and repair
> than a gas turbine. And at an incredible 63 tons fully loaded the
> Leopard 2A6 can still "fly" over obstacles and reach speeds of up to
> 49 mph!!!
> Side-by-side, the M-1 and Leopard are fierce competitors... but the
> Leopard II has taken the lead. Sorry you don't like that and the fact
> that Leopards were offered to the US several times.
> >
> > Brooks
> > >
> > > Rob

Matt Wiser

May 1st 04, 01:36 AM

(robert arndt) wrote:
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
>in message >...
>> "robert arndt" > wrote in
>message
>> om...
>> > (Denyav) wrote in message
>> >...
>> > > >Ahh, that's so sad. Maybe in the future
>we should buy German Puma IFVs
>> > > >instead:
>> > > >
>> > > >http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezenpanzer/schuetz_puma_content.html
>> > >
>> > > LAV itself is based on a swiss MOWAG design.
>> >
>> >
>> > Shhh... don't tell that to the "Made in
>the USA/USA Number 1" club who
>> > like to pretend all our stuff originated
>here. History also proves
>> > that when superior foreign equipment is
>offered to the US military it
>> > usually is rejected to keep inferior US
>companies that are facing
>> > possible extinction in business. Those same
>companies then overbill
>> > the military at the taxpayers expense. A
>big price to pay for draping
>> > a US flag over military procurement.
>> > I bet the HK XM-8 rifle doesn't get accepted
>here either... even
>> > though it is clearly superior to anything
>Colt has to offer and at a
>> > much lower price tag too!
>>
>> You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt.
>Let's see-- the Baretta M9,
>> the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep,
>it appears the US is quite
>> willing to buy foreign weapons when they are
>the best of the bunch offered
>> for a requirement.
>
>Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered?
>And don't use HK as an
>example as they are primarily for SFs.
>
> Just as we are happy to buy US made weapons/systems
>when
>> they are the best available--and
>
>BTW, how many kills has your "greatest"
>> German MBT racked up? None? How many times
>has it been exposed to hostile
>> fire in a combat envoronment and survived?
>Never? Gosh, it sure is easy to
>> declare it the "greatest" when it spends all
>of its time on the parade
>> ground or in the motor pool, huh?
>
>The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat
>and we lost 18 of them
>then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In
>Gulf War II we lost more-
>this time to ATGWs.
>There is no doubt that both the Leopard 2A6
>(ranked Number 1) and
>Japanese Type 90 (the Leopard clone ranked Number
>3) would stand up
>well in all hostile environments. Mines, fire,
>friendly fire, and
>top-attack missiles would still present problems
>but these Western
>tanks are superior to the Israeli Merkava 3
>and the Merkava kicks ass
>even in street fighting. So use your head.
>BTW, it is the EXPERTS that rank the MBTs and
>the Leopard has held the
>MBT title since the Leopard 2A5. Right now,
>the Leopard 2A6 could
>remove the L55 gun and replace it with the already
>German-tested 140mm
>gun. The M-1 cannot.
>The Leopard 2A6 has superior armor protection,
>main gun, ammo and less
>heat signature, reduced fuel consumption, and
>all the advantages of a
>high-powered turbo diesel that is much more
>easy to work on and repair
>than a gas turbine. And at an incredible 63
>tons fully loaded the
>Leopard 2A6 can still "fly" over obstacles and
>reach speeds of up to
>49 mph!!!
>Side-by-side, the M-1 and Leopard are fierce
>competitors... but the
>Leopard II has taken the lead. Sorry you don't
>like that and the fact
>that Leopards were offered to the US several
>times.
>>
>> Brooks
>> >
>> > Rob
And the U.S will likely never adopt a foreign MBT in the future as long
as we here in the States can design and build our own. And Australia is joining
the M-1 Club-they're buying a battalion's worth of the -A1 version. Bottom
line: the M-1 series is combat tested, the Leopards have not been shot at
except on the test range. I'd take an -A2 over a 2A5 or A6 any day.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

WalterM140

May 1st 04, 03:09 AM

>> The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat and we lost 18 of them
>> then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In Gulf War II we lost more-
>> this time to ATGWs.

I was on Desert Storm and I have more than a passing interest in tanks -- my
recruiter told me I would be a tanker, that lying SOB.

In any case, ISTR that only 4 Abrams were lost on Desert Storm and all were
lost to mines. None was a catostrophic kill and no Abrams crewman was killed.

Walt

Peter Kemp

May 1st 04, 03:34 AM

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:47:38 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>Regardless, it appears that
>the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
>II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
>premature "greatest" acclimation...

I'm not meaning to slag of the M1, which is a damn fine vehicle
(though the gas guzzling turbine could use some work :-)....but IIRC
the Leopard I at least has some combat - IIRC the Dames had a minor
engagement in Bosnia a few years back they won habdily (admittedly
against second line Yugoslav kit.

Peter Kemp

Peter Kemp

May 1st 04, 03:43 AM

On 29 Apr 2004 19:31:38 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
>> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > (Denyav) wrote in message
>> >...

>> You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta M9,
>> the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is quite
>> willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch offered
>> for a requirement.
>
>Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
>example as they are primarily for SFs.

OK, a few more...

81mm Mortar (British)
105mm gun (British)
M777 155 mm gun (British)
Fox NBC vehicle (German)
C-23 Shorts Sherpa (British)
C-295 has just been selected by USCG (Spanish?) who also use the
french Dauphin helicopter
M240 Machine gun (Belgian)
US101 Helicopter (British/Italian)....ok maybe jumping the gun on this
one :-)
AGM-142 (Israeli)
120mm Tank Gun (German)
XM-8 Carbine - developed form the G-36 (German)

Still think the US only buy US weapons?

>The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat and we lost 18 of them
>then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In Gulf War II we lost more-
>this time to ATGWs.

No M1 kills in OIF were lost to ATGW, despite early press reports
about Kornet E missiles leaking in from Syria. There's an unclassified
report on M1 performnce in OIF somewhere on the web - look it up.

Peter Kemp

Kevin Brooks

May 1st 04, 04:19 AM

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Apr 2004 19:31:38 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> >> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> > (Denyav) wrote in message
> >> >...
>
> >> You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta
M9,
> >> the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is
quite
> >> willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch
offered
> >> for a requirement.
> >
> >Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
> >example as they are primarily for SFs.
>
> OK, a few more...
>
> 81mm Mortar (British)
> 105mm gun (British)
> M777 155 mm gun (British)
> Fox NBC vehicle (German)
> C-23 Shorts Sherpa (British)

And the C-27J (Italy) is the most likely C-23 replacement.

> C-295 has just been selected by USCG (Spanish?) who also use the
> french Dauphin helicopter

And the Dassault Falcon jet.

> M240 Machine gun (Belgian)
> US101 Helicopter (British/Italian)....ok maybe jumping the gun on this
> one :-)
> AGM-142 (Israeli)

Ugh. Bad example, though true; last I heard, has a not-so-good reputation
and owed its purchase more to political considerations than operational
capability.

Brooks

> 120mm Tank Gun (German)
> XM-8 Carbine - developed form the G-36 (German)
>
> Still think the US only buy US weapons?
>
> >The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat and we lost 18 of them
> >then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In Gulf War II we lost more-
> >this time to ATGWs.
>
> No M1 kills in OIF were lost to ATGW, despite early press reports
> about Kornet E missiles leaking in from Syria. There's an unclassified
> report on M1 performnce in OIF somewhere on the web - look it up.
>
> Peter Kemp

Kevin Brooks

May 1st 04, 04:19 AM

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:47:38 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >Regardless, it appears that
> >the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
> >II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
> >premature "greatest" acclimation...
>
> I'm not meaning to slag of the M1, which is a damn fine vehicle
> (though the gas guzzling turbine could use some work :-)....but IIRC
> the Leopard I at least has some combat - IIRC the Dames had a minor
> engagement in Bosnia a few years back they won habdily (admittedly
> against second line Yugoslav kit.

MBT versus MBT engagement?

Brooks

>
> Peter Kemp

Brett

May 1st 04, 04:27 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> "Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:47:38 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Regardless, it appears that
> > >the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
> > >II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
> > >premature "greatest" acclimation...
> >
> > I'm not meaning to slag of the M1, which is a damn fine vehicle
> > (though the gas guzzling turbine could use some work :-)....but IIRC
> > the Leopard I at least has some combat - IIRC the Dames had a minor
> > engagement in Bosnia a few years back they won habdily (admittedly
> > against second line Yugoslav kit.
>
> MBT versus MBT engagement?

Serbian 40mm and a couple of mortar positions...

Kevin Brooks

May 1st 04, 05:04 AM

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> >
> > "Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:47:38 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Regardless, it appears that
> > > >the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
> > > >II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
> > > >premature "greatest" acclimation...
> > >
> > > I'm not meaning to slag of the M1, which is a damn fine vehicle
> > > (though the gas guzzling turbine could use some work :-)....but IIRC
> > > the Leopard I at least has some combat - IIRC the Dames had a minor
> > > engagement in Bosnia a few years back they won habdily (admittedly
> > > against second line Yugoslav kit.
> >
> > MBT versus MBT engagement?
>
> Serbian 40mm and a couple of mortar positions...

Heck, that would be about as bad as claiming the MILES fires at NTC combat
qualified the Abrams pre-ODS! :-)

Brooks

>
>

robert arndt

May 1st 04, 06:51 AM

> > > You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta
> M9,
> > > the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is
> quite
> > > willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch
> offered
> > > for a requirement.
> >
> > Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
> > example as they are primarily for SFs.
>
> Yeah, it sucks when you get caught out wrong, so tossing a few of the
> offending weapons out of consideration to meet your self-serving criteria is
> probably a good choice. And thanks for bringing up that H&K/SOF linkage--I
> forgot that various SOF elements also use the MP5 family weapons...

Who's wrong? The US has been offered hundreds of good weapon systems
in all categories for all armed forces historically. You mention 3
small arms???
>
> >
> > Just as we are happy to buy US made weapons/systems when
> > > they are the best available--and
> >
> > BTW, how many kills has your "greatest"
> > > German MBT racked up? None? How many times has it been exposed to
> hostile
> > > fire in a combat envoronment and survived? Never? Gosh, it sure is easy
> to
> > > declare it the "greatest" when it spends all of its time on the parade
> > > ground or in the motor pool, huh?
> >
> > The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat and we lost 18 of them
> > then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In Gulf War II we lost more-
> > this time to ATGWs.
>
> How many of those 18 were "lost", and how many were repaired and returned to
> subsequent service? How many crewmembers died? Regardless, it appears that
> the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
> II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
> premature "greatest" acclimation...

Let's see... hmmm... rating the M-1 based on attacking a Third World
nation with poor quality import stripped-model FSU MBTs... TWICE- how
impressive!
Of the original 18 it was (9 lost plus 9 severely damaged by mines).
In OIF 4 M-1s were lost (2 direct hits by AT-14s and 2 by RPGs that
disabled the engine compartment) plus another 14 severely damaged.
Vunerability of the M-1 criticized in military publications.
>
> Is it hard for you to concentrate on what you are typing, what with the
> "Horst Wessel" song ringing in your ears all of the time...?

Notice how you didn't respond at all to the FACT that the EXPERTS in
rating world MBTs- Jane's and Forecast International- BOTH rate the
Leopard 2A6 the best tank in the world.
Hey Brooks, I'll take their word and historical accuracy over your
patriotic opinion anyday. BTW, I don't think the Germans are eager to
wage war with puny Third World nations. Still, in their peacekeeping
operations their armor is excellent. I haven't heard of one case in
which a Leopard 2, Marder, Wiesel, Fuchs, Luchs, Dingo, etc... has
been knocked out. And YES, the Leopard 2 has FIRED on Serb arsonists
in Orohovac on 6/26/99. Six rounds easily stopped their operations.
This incident wasn't against a MBT... yet you cannot be that stupid to
think the Leo 2A6 couldn't knock out any enemy MBT with one shot,
especially with the new L55 main gun and KE ammo.
I think it is worth noticing that of the top 6 MBTs in the world:
1. Leopard 2A6
2. M-1
3. Type 90
4. Merkava 4
5. Challenger 2
6. LeClerc

Germany ranks number one and the Japanese Leo clone Type 90 is number
3. The M-1 is sandwiched between Germany and Japan and only two steps
ahead of the Israeli Merkava 4 which (let's face it) does BETTER than
Western tanks in ITS environment of heavy street fighting. The
Israelis also have more tank experience than the US post-WW2 and have
killed hundreds of tanks. Merkava 4 also is modified against mines and
top-attack missiles... of which NO Western tank can claim.
One can only guess how Russia's kept-secret T-95 and current Black
Eagle will place in the future.

Rob

>
> Brooks
>
>
> > There is no doubt that both the Leopard 2A6 (ranked Number 1) and
> > Japanese Type 90 (the Leopard clone ranked Number 3) would stand up
> > well in all hostile environments. Mines, fire, friendly fire, and
> > top-attack missiles would still present problems but these Western
> > tanks are superior to the Israeli Merkava 3 and the Merkava kicks ass
> > even in street fighting. So use your head.
> > BTW, it is the EXPERTS that rank the MBTs and the Leopard has held the
> > MBT title since the Leopard 2A5. Right now, the Leopard 2A6 could
> > remove the L55 gun and replace it with the already German-tested 140mm
> > gun. The M-1 cannot.
> > The Leopard 2A6 has superior armor protection, main gun, ammo and less
> > heat signature, reduced fuel consumption, and all the advantages of a
> > high-powered turbo diesel that is much more easy to work on and repair
> > than a gas turbine. And at an incredible 63 tons fully loaded the
> > Leopard 2A6 can still "fly" over obstacles and reach speeds of up to
> > 49 mph!!!
> > Side-by-side, the M-1 and Leopard are fierce competitors... but the
> > Leopard II has taken the lead. Sorry you don't like that and the fact
> > that Leopards were offered to the US several times.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > > >
> > > > Rob

B2431

May 1st 04, 08:53 AM

>From: (robert arndt)

>
>> > > You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta
>> M9,
>> > > the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is
>> quite
>> > > willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch
>> offered
>> > > for a requirement.
>> >
>> > Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
>> > example as they are primarily for SFs.
>>
>> Yeah, it sucks when you get caught out wrong, so tossing a few of the
>> offending weapons out of consideration to meet your self-serving criteria
>is
>> probably a good choice.

Teuton, you anti American stance hasn't changed. Do a little research and you
will see the U.S. has used weapons systems from small arms to aircraft since
1776. Did you know the PT boat was a British design? How about Harrier,
Canberra and the Merlin engine? British small arms were used by the U.S.
military for 100 years after the Revolutionary war.

You still haven't explained why the U.S. should by weapons systems from a
country who might stop shipments if they disagree with U.S. policy. Did that
ever occur to you?

Are you still upset we kicked your butt in WW1 and WW2 and could do it again if
needed?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Kevin Brooks

May 1st 04, 04:51 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> > > > You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the
Baretta
> > M9,
> > > > the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US
is
> > quite
> > > > willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch
> > offered
> > > > for a requirement.
> > >
> > > Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
> > > example as they are primarily for SFs.
> >
> > Yeah, it sucks when you get caught out wrong, so tossing a few of the
> > offending weapons out of consideration to meet your self-serving
criteria is
> > probably a good choice. And thanks for bringing up that H&K/SOF
linkage--I
> > forgot that various SOF elements also use the MP5 family weapons...
>
> Who's wrong? The US has been offered hundreds of good weapon systems
> in all categories for all armed forces historically. You mention 3
> small arms???

Do I have to repeat the list given to you by Peter in this thread? You have
already been given a plethora of examples of the US military procuring
foreign weapons. The range of the purchases over the years have stretched
from the Harrier to the CASA 212, the M9 pistol to the M119 light gun, etc.,
ad nauseum. Are you really so utterly pig-headed that you can't grasp the
facts?

> >
> > >
> > > Just as we are happy to buy US made weapons/systems when
> > > > they are the best available--and
> > >
> > > BTW, how many kills has your "greatest"
> > > > German MBT racked up? None? How many times has it been exposed to
> > hostile
> > > > fire in a combat envoronment and survived? Never? Gosh, it sure is
easy
> > to
> > > > declare it the "greatest" when it spends all of its time on the
parade
> > > > ground or in the motor pool, huh?
> > >
> > > The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat and we lost 18 of them
> > > then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In Gulf War II we lost more-
> > > this time to ATGWs.
> >
> > How many of those 18 were "lost", and how many were repaired and
returned to
> > subsequent service? How many crewmembers died? Regardless, it appears
that
> > the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
> > II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
> > premature "greatest" acclimation...
>
> Let's see... hmmm... rating the M-1 based on attacking a Third World
> nation with poor quality import stripped-model FSU MBTs... TWICE- how
> impressive!

ISTR the T-72 was considered to be rather well into the "first line"
category in 1990. How many of even what you call "poor quality" tanks has
the leopard family actually faced in combat? Eh? None. Zilch. Nada.

> Of the original 18 it was (9 lost plus 9 severely damaged by mines).

There is lost, and there is lost. How many went through BDA and repair and
were returned to service? Even an idiot like yourself should be able to
realize that in tank warfare the subsequent repair and return to service of
damaged vehicles is a common occurence. And how many Leopards have even been
*engaged* by valid AT systems? None. Zilch. Nada. So your comparison would
be based upon...? If you are willing to make light of the threat faced by
the M1A1, what does that say about the utter lack of any realistic threat
faced by your vaunted Leopard family of MBT's? They must *really* suck, eh?

r your
> patriotic opinion anyday. BTW, I don't think the Germans are eager to
> wage war with puny Third World nations.

It is obvious that the Germans can't be counted on to wage war, period.

Still, in their peacekeeping
> operations their armor is excellent. I haven't heard of one case in
> which a Leopard 2, Marder, Wiesel, Fuchs, Luchs, Dingo, etc... has
> been knocked out. And YES, the Leopard 2 has FIRED on Serb arsonists
> in Orohovac on 6/26/99. Six rounds easily stopped their operations.

LOL! Oooh! So a Leopard fired on some nasty dismounts armed with what,
Molotov cocktails? Wow, now *that's* an achievement worth crowing about...

> This incident wasn't against a MBT...

So then you would rank it below even those MBT's that have faced "poor
quality" (in your words) MBT's, right?

yet you cannot be that stupid to
> think the Leo 2A6 couldn't knock out any enemy MBT with one shot,

I don't know, being as you are saying it took them six whole rounds to
discourage some "arsonists"...

> especially with the new L55 main gun and KE ammo.
> I think it is worth noticing that of the top 6 MBTs in the world:

In your feeble little mind, that is...

Brooks

> 1. Leopard 2A6
> 2. M-1
> 3. Type 90
> 4. Merkava 4
> 5. Challenger 2
> 6. LeClerc
>
> Germany ranks number one and the Japanese Leo clone Type 90 is number
> 3. The M-1 is sandwiched between Germany and Japan and only two steps
> ahead of the Israeli Merkava 4 which (let's face it) does BETTER than
> Western tanks in ITS environment of heavy street fighting. The
> Israelis also have more tank experience than the US post-WW2 and have
> killed hundreds of tanks. Merkava 4 also is modified against mines and
> top-attack missiles... of which NO Western tank can claim.
> One can only guess how Russia's kept-secret T-95 and current Black
> Eagle will place in the future.
>
> Rob
>
> >
> > Brooks

Denyav

May 1st 04, 05:38 PM

>It is obvious that the Germans can't be counted on to wage war, period.
>
>

Thats good,otherwise,as history proves,you would "again" need no less than
whole world as allies to defeat small country Germany.

robert arndt

May 1st 04, 07:19 PM

> Are you still upset we kicked your butt in WW1 and WW2 and could do it again if
> needed?

Not at all Dan since the wars elevated the US from a regional power to
a Superpower and gave US armed forces technology that was integrated
into our battle strategy (which is just a form of modern Blitzkrieg).
Your branch, the USAF, benefitted the most ;)
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Rob

Alistair Gunn

May 1st 04, 08:21 PM

Peter Kemp twisted the electrons to say:
> OK, a few more...
> Still think the US only buy US weapons?

There's also the Land Rover Defender 110 ... Used by, IIRC, the Rangers?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Peter Kemp

May 1st 04, 09:41 PM

On 1 May 2004 19:21:11 GMT, Alistair Gunn >
wrote:

>Peter Kemp twisted the electrons to say:
>> OK, a few more...
>> Still think the US only buy US weapons?
>
>There's also the Land Rover Defender 110 ... Used by, IIRC, the Rangers?

Good point, IIRC it's due to the Humvee being too wide to be held as
internal cargo on a CH-47 (or was it CH-53?).

Peter Kemp

Brett

May 1st 04, 09:41 PM

"Alistair Gunn" > wrote:
> Peter Kemp twisted the electrons to say:
> > OK, a few more...
> > Still think the US only buy US weapons?
>
> There's also the Land Rover Defender 110 ... Used by, IIRC, the Rangers?

It's called the Ranger Special Operations Vehicle.

> --
> These opinions might not even be mine ...
> Let alone connected with my employer ...

Paul F Austin

May 1st 04, 11:25 PM

"Peter Kemp" wrote
> "Kevin Brooks" wrote:
>
> >Regardless, it appears that
> >the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
> >II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
> >premature "greatest" acclimation...
>
> I'm not meaning to slag of the M1, which is a damn fine vehicle
> (though the gas guzzling turbine could use some work :-)....but IIRC
> the Leopard I at least has some combat - IIRC the Dames had a minor
> engagement in Bosnia a few years back they won habdily (admittedly
> against second line Yugoslav kit.

MTU currently makes diesel power packs whose output matches the requirements
of the M1 in a lot smaller volume. That wasn't true when the M1 was
designed. If we were designing a heavy MBT now, significantly smaller volume
under armor (which is more important than fuel mileage) and lower all up
weight would be the result. We're_not_designing a heavy MBT now so a backfit
into the M1 would have to be justified in terms of reduced total life cycle
cost which with the up front investment in a new power pack, would be nearly
impossible. Yeah, there's some utility in better fuel economy but the
investment dollars have to compete with other goods (like a heavy-fuel APU
for starters) and the logistics burden of the M1's fuel requirements is
bearable. Especially since the two times we've used the M1 in large numbers,
it's been right next to the Mother of All Gas Stations.

Alan Minyard

May 1st 04, 11:54 PM

On 1 May 2004 11:19:13 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>> Are you still upset we kicked your butt in WW1 and WW2 and could do it again if
>> needed?
>
>Not at all Dan since the wars elevated the US from a regional power to
>a Superpower and gave US armed forces technology that was integrated
>into our battle strategy (which is just a form of modern Blitzkrieg).
>Your branch, the USAF, benefitted the most ;)
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Rob

Hitler lost, get over it. German scientists provided no more than any other
countries scientists to US supremacy. I see that you think that the Nazi's
"blitzkrieg" was a good thing. That will not surprise anyone.

Al Minyard

Kevin Brooks

May 2nd 04, 12:13 AM

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On 1 May 2004 19:21:11 GMT, Alistair Gunn >
> wrote:
>
> >Peter Kemp twisted the electrons to say:
> >> OK, a few more...
> >> Still think the US only buy US weapons?
> >
> >There's also the Land Rover Defender 110 ... Used by, IIRC, the Rangers?
>
> Good point, IIRC it's due to the Humvee being too wide to be held as
> internal cargo on a CH-47 (or was it CH-53?).

You had it right; the vehicle had to be transportable in the MH-47/CH-47.

Brooks

>
> Peter Kemp

Paul J. Adam

May 2nd 04, 06:30 PM

In message >, robert
arndt > writes
>Paul Elliot > wrote in message news:<CW
>...
>> YIKES!! At 43 Tons it might as well be an MBT.
>
>Yeah, but it will be state-of-the-art and well protected.

And unable to be airlifted, which was one of the key requirements for
the Stryker: so the Puma is irrelevant since it can't be lifted in a
C-130.

The US *has* a capable and proven heavy IFV, they opted for the Stryker
because they sought a lighter, more mobile vehicle that could be put
into a theatre faster.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

May 2nd 04, 06:43 PM

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta M9,
>the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...

Don't forget the M240, both main guns for the M1 tank, the HUDs and
ejection seats in a lot of US military aircraft... oh, why bother, he's
not listening anyway (even if the second tank gun *was* German)

>yep, it appears the US is quite
>willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch offered
>for a requirement.

Having tried to sell into the US, there's a significant skew towards
domestic product, but it can be overcome if the competition is good
enough: and you get a second chance if the domestic offering
subsequently falls over. (Archerfish and M240 are examples). That's just
life.

>Just as we are happy to buy US made weapons/systems when
>they are the best available--and BTW, how many kills has your "greatest"
>German MBT racked up? None? How many times has it been exposed to hostile
>fire in a combat envoronment and survived? Never? Gosh, it sure is easy to
>declare it the "greatest" when it spends all of its time on the parade
>ground or in the motor pool, huh?

I'm sure he can run off a long list of reasons why the LeoII (by all
accounts a solid and effective tank) is incredibly superior to both the
M1 and Challenger families.

Trouble is, the Abrams and Challenger have gained combat experience
during their development and more combat since... the LeoII has yet to
be tested, and there's nothing like sitting out of a fight to enhance a
reputation. "Oh, *our* tank would never have that problem!" No, it
wouldn't, it would discover an entirely new and interesting set of
troubles instead - but until you actually put it to the test you don't
know.

Is the M1A2 better than CR2 and where does a current Leopard 2 sit? All
three are damn good vehicles, with different design priorities, which
get you different results: but only two have been used in combat. The
third has yet to be fully tested.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

phil hunt

May 2nd 04, 08:20 PM

On Sun, 2 May 2004 18:30:11 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, robert
>arndt > writes
>>Paul Elliot > wrote in message news:<CW
>...
>>> YIKES!! At 43 Tons it might as well be an MBT.
>>
>>Yeah, but it will be state-of-the-art and well protected.
>
>And unable to be airlifted, which was one of the key requirements for
>the Stryker: so the Puma is irrelevant since it can't be lifted in a
>C-130.

Germany is buying the A400M and is probably more concerned with
whether it can be airlifted by that plane. Which it can.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

Paul J. Adam

May 2nd 04, 09:32 PM

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Sun, 2 May 2004 18:30:11 +0100, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwlyn
>ch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>And unable to be airlifted, which was one of the key requirements for
>>the Stryker: so the Puma is irrelevant since it can't be lifted in a
>>C-130.
>
>Germany is buying the A400M and is probably more concerned with
>whether it can be airlifted by that plane. Which it can.

Surely: but one of the key Stryker requirements was to be able to
shoehorn it into a C-130 because that's the US tactical airlifter. If
the Puma won't fit into a Herk then it's not in the running.

Easy to be "better" when you conveniently set the rules aside.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

phil hunt

May 2nd 04, 10:13 PM

On Sun, 2 May 2004 21:32:36 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>>On Sun, 2 May 2004 18:30:11 +0100, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwlyn
>>ch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>And unable to be airlifted, which was one of the key requirements for
>>>the Stryker: so the Puma is irrelevant since it can't be lifted in a
>>>C-130.
>>
>>Germany is buying the A400M and is probably more concerned with
>>whether it can be airlifted by that plane. Which it can.
>
>Surely: but one of the key Stryker requirements was to be able to
>shoehorn it into a C-130 because that's the US tactical airlifter. If
>the Puma won't fit into a Herk then it's not in the running.
>
>Easy to be "better" when you conveniently set the rules aside.

Indeed; the USA and Germany have different airlift requirements.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

B2431

May 2nd 04, 10:30 PM

>From: "Paul J. Adam"

>I'm sure he can run off a long list of reasons why the LeoII (by all
>accounts a solid and effective tank) is incredibly superior to both the
>M1 and Challenger families.
>
>Trouble is, the Abrams and Challenger have gained combat experience
>during their development and more combat since... the LeoII has yet to
>be tested, and there's nothing like sitting out of a fight to enhance a
>reputation. "Oh, *our* tank would never have that problem!" No, it
>wouldn't, it would discover an entirely new and interesting set of
>troubles instead - but until you actually put it to the test you don't
>know.
>
>Is the M1A2 better than CR2 and where does a current Leopard 2 sit? All
>three are damn good vehicles, with different design priorities, which
>get you different results: but only two have been used in combat. The
>third has yet to be fully tested.
>

During WW2 Panther and Tiger tanks were superior, on paper, to anything fielded
by the allies. The problem is paper tanks never win wars. Neither Panther nor
Tiger were capable of being produced in the numbers required nor were they
reliable enough in the field. Panther and Tiger were fine machines but too
maintenance intensive for field use.

Perhaps the same can be said for the current German MBT. The only way to prove
otherwise is to put a significant number into actual combat.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Andrew Chaplin

May 3rd 04, 12:19 AM

B2431 wrote:
>
> During WW2 Panther and Tiger tanks were superior, on paper, to anything fielded
> by the allies. The problem is paper tanks never win wars. Neither Panther nor
> Tiger were capable of being produced in the numbers required nor were they
> reliable enough in the field. Panther and Tiger were fine machines but too
> maintenance intensive for field use.
>
> Perhaps the same can be said for the current German MBT. The only way to prove
> otherwise is to put a significant number into actual combat.

I doubt it. I spent a good deal of time in Shilo working alongside the
German Army Training Establishment. Their AFVs (Marders and Leos I &
II) were beautifully maintained and skilfully operated (especially
considering it was almost all being done by conscripts) and one rarely
ever heard of recovery requests once they went on their battle group
live fire ex, BLACK BEAR. A power pack change on the Leo I takes 17
minutes, and I gather Leo II is similar.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Kevin Brooks

May 3rd 04, 04:00 AM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Sun, 2 May 2004 18:30:11 +0100, Paul J. Adam
> wrote:
> >In message >, robert
> >arndt > writes
> >>Paul Elliot > wrote in message news:<CW
> >...
> >>> YIKES!! At 43 Tons it might as well be an MBT.
> >>
> >>Yeah, but it will be state-of-the-art and well protected.
> >
> >And unable to be airlifted, which was one of the key requirements for
> >the Stryker: so the Puma is irrelevant since it can't be lifted in a
> >C-130.
>
> Germany is buying the A400M and is probably more concerned with
> whether it can be airlifted by that plane. Which it can.

No, which it *should* be able to do. The Puma only exists right now as a set
of drawings--first prototype is not scheduled to be made until 2005. I'd
reserve that assurance regarding A400 lift capability until after the final
shoe falls--armored vehicles have a nasty habit of gaining weight during
development.

Brooks
>
>
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
>
>