Stryker is a piece of ****!

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

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 ...

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

"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 ...

"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.

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

"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

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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)