Comments on: US Army’s New Combat Vehicle http://defensetech.org/2009/12/08/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:25:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: FOOTMAN,DAVIDhttp://defensetech.org/2009/12/08/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle/#comment-191187 FOOTMAN,DAVID Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:19:35 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5155#comment-191187 I've been quite interested in starting an e-store and such. Thanks for your site! It is now in my favorites I’ve been quite interested in starting an e-store and such. Thanks for your site! It is now in my favorites

]]> By: William C.http://defensetech.org/2009/12/08/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle/#comment-190518 William C. Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:21:46 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5155#comment-190518 Dammit Byron. Are you a "M113" fanboy too? Don't tell my you call it the G***N, do you? Dammit Byron. Are you a “M113” fanboy too? Don’t tell my you call it the G***N, do you?

]]> By: timhttp://defensetech.org/2009/12/08/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle/#comment-190514 tim Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:21:13 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5155#comment-190514 Byron you are right. Stryker units have a tradition to serve in safe AOs like Mosul, Baqubah and Bagdad. And now it is Helmand. I guess that is simply another vacation for principal skinner. Where else do you expect Strykers? Patrolling the Hindu Kush? Byron you are right. Stryker units have a tradition to serve in safe AOs like Mosul, Baqubah and Bagdad. And now it is Helmand. I guess that is simply another vacation for principal skinner. Where else do you expect Strykers? Patrolling the Hindu Kush?

]]> By: Ranger 39erhttp://defensetech.org/2009/12/08/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle/#comment-190497 Ranger 39er Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:27:02 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5155#comment-190497 The Stryker: it boils down to tracks vs wheels coupled with firepower, mobility and armour protection. tThe LAV/ Stryker fails on items 2 and 3. The next iteration is the MGS: what a piece of junk. Trying to be all things to all people. If you want a tank, get one, if you want an APC get one with a decent gun ssytem and tracks so it can get off road and thereby dodge the mines. Stick to the roads so your vvehicle will not get stuck and you get killed. Fairly simple process. (Armour 101 circa 1939-45 etc) The LAV/ Mowag was designed to fight Russians in Europe where there are lots of roads and tracks. Not in dusty places with no roads. They bog in the mud, sink in the sand and are bloody uncomfortable. It might just be easier to get out and walk, accompanied by great beastly tanks that can kill people. Oh, and hang some farm implements off them so they can preform route clearence and also kill things! Did I say tanks can kill things? Cheers, The Stryker: it boils down to tracks vs wheels coupled with firepower, mobility and armour protection. tThe LAV/ Stryker fails on items 2 and 3. The next iteration is the MGS: what a piece of junk. Trying to be all things to all people.
If you want a tank, get one, if you want an APC get one with a decent gun ssytem and tracks so it can get off road and thereby dodge the mines. Stick to the roads so your vvehicle will not get stuck and you get killed. Fairly simple process. (Armour 101 circa 1939–45 etc)

The LAV/ Mowag was designed to fight Russians in Europe where there are lots of roads and tracks. Not in dusty places with no roads. They bog in the mud, sink in the sand and are bloody uncomfortable. It might just be easier to get out and walk, accompanied by great beastly tanks that can kill people. Oh, and hang some farm implements off them so they can preform route clearence and also kill things! Did I say tanks can kill things?
Cheers,

]]> By: JimboJoneshttp://defensetech.org/2009/12/08/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle/#comment-190432 JimboJones Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:36:44 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5155#comment-190432 "Did anyone else notice that the lead Stryker in the picture has it right hand suspension blown out? To much weight." I think you'll find its a little thing called 'turning' that has caused the front right side to dip.. “Did anyone else notice that the lead Stryker in the picture has it right hand suspension blown out? To much weight.”

I think you’ll find its a little thing called ‘turning’ that has caused the front right side to dip..

]]> By: Byron Skinnerhttp://defensetech.org/2009/12/08/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle/#comment-190391 Byron Skinner Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:37:34 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5155#comment-190391 Good Evening Folks,To sorry. Well I wasn't exactly referring to the TO&E of the 2ACR vs. an Infantry BCT but to the tactical doctrines which is very different, but now that you mentioned it, yes there will be a change, at least in one squadron of the 2ACR when it deploys to Afghanistan to relieve 5-2ID. At least some platoons (9-12) with have three Stryker with an M2HB or a Mk. 19 and one 105mm Stryker for it four vehicles. The current 5-2 ID TO&E is four Regular Strykers per platoon.The tactical difference here is that in an Infantry BCT the 105mm gun would be assigned to a HQ element not to a company, let alone a platoon. The deployment and tactical use of the 105mm in the platoon will be in the hands of 2nd. Lt. who is on the scene of the action, and not a Lt. Col. or Colonel who is either in a HQ far away from the action or up in the sky trying to understand what is happening down there. This is a huge difference.Armored Calvary doctrine is quite different for Mech. Infantry. The infantry want's to stay on the road and dismount and not use the direct fire weapons on the vehicle in the assault, but consider the vehicle weapon as a defensive weapon. The ACR units like to travel off road, travel light, expect to see the nine man squad reduced to five or six men and use the vehicle as an offense weapon and to use the dismounts for clean up and to dig out entrenched fighters. Calvary doctrine is much more aggressive then Mech. Infantry.Did anyone else notice that the lead Stryker in the picture has it right hand suspension blown out? To much weight.ALLONS, Byron Skinner Good Evening Folks,

To sorry. Well I wasn’t exactly referring to the TO&E of the 2ACR vs. an Infantry BCT but to the tactical doctrines which is very different, but now that you mentioned it, yes there will be a change, at least in one squadron of the 2ACR when it deploys to Afghanistan to relieve 5-2ID. At least some platoons (9–12) with have three Stryker with an M2HB or a Mk. 19 and one 105mm Stryker for it four vehicles. The current 5–2 ID TO&E is four Regular Strykers per platoon.

The tactical difference here is that in an Infantry BCT the 105mm gun would be assigned to a HQ element not to a company, let alone a platoon. The deployment and tactical use of the 105mm in the platoon will be in the hands of 2nd. Lt. who is on the scene of the action, and not a Lt. Col. or Colonel who is either in a HQ far away from the action or up in the sky trying to understand what is happening down there. This is a huge difference.

Armored Calvary doctrine is quite different for Mech. Infantry. The infantry want’s to stay on the road and dismount and not use the direct fire weapons on the vehicle in the assault, but consider the vehicle weapon as a defensive weapon. The ACR units like to travel off road, travel light, expect to see the nine man squad reduced to five or six men and use the vehicle as an offense weapon and to use the dismounts for clean up and to dig out entrenched fighters. Calvary doctrine is much more aggressive then Mech. Infantry.

Did anyone else notice that the lead Stryker in the picture has it right hand suspension blown out? To much weight.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

]]> By: Obama Gatehttp://defensetech.org/2009/12/08/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle/#comment-190386 Obama Gate Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:40:31 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5155#comment-190386 I thought procurement had settled on about 1500 of the Aussie's Bushmasters, which hold 10 men plus 3 crew and laugh off IED's and EFP's, to the extent the British, Dutch, Poles and Canadians are lining up to buy them. I think the Aussies were to supply thre first few hundred, all built in Australia and we would make the rest here, under licence, with some modifications to suit our needs but still mostly the same truck. I thought procurement had settled on about 1500 of the Aussie’s Bushmasters, which hold 10 men plus 3 crew and laugh off IED’s and EFP’s, to the extent the British, Dutch, Poles and Canadians are lining up to buy them.
I think the Aussies were to supply thre first few hundred, all built in Australia and we would make the rest here, under licence, with some modifications to suit our needs but still mostly the same truck.

]]> By: JimboJoneshttp://defensetech.org/2009/12/08/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle/#comment-190362 JimboJones Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:23:59 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5155#comment-190362 No it won't by the NAMER because it weighs 60 tons, though i don't doubt it would do the job, at 60 tons its to big to stand a chance of selection. Besides it holds 10 people, thats one more than the US want and thats enough on its own to be left out the running even though 10 is arguably better than 9 seats... No it won’t by the NAMER because it weighs 60 tons, though i don’t doubt it would do the job, at 60 tons its to big to stand a chance of selection.
Besides it holds 10 people, thats one more than the US want and thats enough on its own to be left out the running even though 10 is arguably better than 9 seats…

]]> By: Russhttp://defensetech.org/2009/12/08/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle/#comment-190245 Russ Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:33:07 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5155#comment-190245 Got to admit defense procurement in the USA is a mystery. You have manufactures who can turn out simple, low risk, soldier proof nas affordable equipment. Somehow the services end up with expensive, high maintenance and unsuitable equipment. As ant service ( well maybe not Air Force) and KISS is the guiding principle. Take the Bradley. The original version was a complete nightmare for the embarked squad. At the same time there was the AIFV 80-90% mechanically compatible with the M113, not a hugh step change but based on practical ' customer feedback' (don't you love those S&M terms). USArmy never got it but the Netherlands and Turkey (amongst others) adopted it. I like Russian kit, it soldier proof, may not have every 'bell and whistle' but it can do the job. I wonder sometime that 'gucci' features matter more to politicians than practical use. Thinking about the AIFV, it had limitations but they where known and you planned accordingly. I'm a Brit (in case you missed earlier posts) and you may be aware we have had some crap kit offloaded on use. In our case you just ahve to promise the (Labour) government that their favorite union gets jobs then your in; they have no understanding o the military) Got to admit defense procurement in the USA is a mystery.

You have manufactures who can turn out simple, low risk, soldier proof nas affordable equipment. Somehow the services end up with expensive, high maintenance and unsuitable equipment.

As ant service ( well maybe not Air Force) and KISS is the guiding principle.

Take the Bradley. The original version was a complete nightmare for the embarked squad. At the same time there was the AIFV 80–90% mechanically compatible with the M113, not a hugh step change but based on practical ’ customer feedback’ (don’t you love those S&M terms). USArmy never got it but the Netherlands and Turkey (amongst others) adopted it.

I like Russian kit, it soldier proof, may not have every ‘bell and whistle’ but it can do the job. I wonder sometime that ‘gucci’ features matter more to politicians than practical use.

Thinking about the AIFV, it had limitations but they where known and you planned accordingly. I’m a Brit (in case you missed earlier posts) and you may be aware we have had some crap kit offloaded on use. In our case you just ahve to promise the (Labour) government that their favorite union gets jobs then your in; they have no understanding o the military)

]]> By: gearheadhttp://defensetech.org/2009/12/08/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle/#comment-190240 gearhead Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:47:01 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5155#comment-190240 Relax. The Army is will buy the IDF NAMER - and the chassis will be made in the USA. This vehicle is big, holds 10 infantry, has heavy armor, and a grunt friendly M60 powertrain. No wimpy hybrid for this sucker! Not to mention that it's been fighting the same guys that we are. In a pinch, you can mount a cannon on it and call it a Merkava. Relax. The Army is will buy the IDF NAMER — and the chassis will be made in the USA. This vehicle is big, holds 10 infantry, has heavy armor, and a grunt friendly M60 powertrain. No wimpy hybrid for this sucker! Not to mention that it’s been fighting the same guys that we are. In a pinch, you can mount a cannon on it and call it a Merkava.

]]>