Stryker is a piece of ****!

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

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)

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

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.)

"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)

On Sun, 2 May 2004 23:00:57 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


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.

And the airlift capabilities of cargo aircraft have a nasty habit of
shrinking during development.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 2 May 2004 23:00:57 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


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.

And the airlift capabilities of cargo aircraft have a nasty habit of
shrinking during development.

True enough.

Brooks


Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

La r=E9ponse de la berg=E8re au berger, ici je crois...

"Nemo l'Ancien" wrote in message
...
La réponse de la bergère au berger, ici je crois...

"The response of an easychair to an easychair, here I cross...?" Up your
meds, and learn english, which is the language used in this group.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Nemo l'Ancien" wrote in message
...
La réponse de la bergère au berger, ici je crois...

"The response of an easychair to an easychair, here I cross...?" Up your
meds, and learn english, which is the language used in this group.

You're mixing "bergère" with "berceuse" and the noun "cross" with the verb
to believe, "croire". "The response of the shepherdess to the shepherd here,
I believe..." Now, I wonder if that's anything like what the actress said to
the bishop.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)