Stryker is a piece of ****!

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

http://www.kmweg.de/english/Schuezen...a_content.html

LAV itself is based on a swiss MOWAG design.

Paul Elliot wrote in message om...
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/Schuezen...a_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

From: (robert arndt)
Date: 4/29/2004 2:37 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Paul Elliot wrote in message
. com...
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/Schuezen...a_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

(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/Schuezen...a_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

"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/Schuezen...a_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

From: "Kevin Brooks"


"robert arndt" wrote in message
. com...
(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/Schuezen...a_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

"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/Schuezen...a_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

"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/Schuezen...a_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

(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/Schuezen...a_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!

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