 |
|
Space05us
|
|
whats so bad about it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Space05us
|
|
how much damage can an rpg do? You hear about them taking down helicopters and slow airplanes all the time, but an AFV?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Space05us
how much damage can an rpg do? You hear about them taking down helicopters and slow airplanes all the time, but an AFV? |
RPG's are purpose built to destroy AFVs. If they get lucky and hit an aircraft at all, they can do a huge amount of damage, but hitting is a matter of very close range, low speed, and luck. In the Stryker's case, there's very little A in that AFV. Due to the thinness of the armor, internal electronic systsems, ammo, and fuel tank placement mean that the probability of cookoffs is very high, with 100% fatality rates for the crews in many cases. If these things ever run into real enemy armor, they're way over their heads.
None of that is the real problem - the real problem is that they're wheeled, not tracked, so in soft ground or adverse weather conditions, they're roadbound. That makes them very convenient for mines and ambushes as well, because they'll herd themselves into nice little killing zones in a road column where they can't provide good overwatch coverage, or they'll have to spread out on the road so much that each vehicle is vastly reduced in effective ability to provide supporting fire to it's leading and following vehicles.
And for all that, they're expensive as hell - it'll cost more to outfit six brigades of Strykers than it will to outfit two full heavy divisions, which put a hell of a lot more firepower on the ground and in the air than the Strykers can even dream of, with far less vulnerability.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Space05us
|
|
who was the genious that invented that. and why would the government deploy them if even you can give a reason not to?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Space05us
who was the genious that invented that. and why would the government deploy them if even you can give a reason not to? |
There are several factions within each of the services Chairborne Corps at the Pentagon. Groups of like minded officers with rabbis up the chain of command to help their careers along (and sometimes **** over the careers of opposing faction officers). They use networks based on personal loyalty and the good ol' boy system, all the way to the top, and each faction tries to get dominant positions in the service DCSPERs offices, and different procurement and operational boards.
With the wheeled vehicle faction, they are a group of armor and cav branch pukes. Their basic view is that because heavy divisions take a hell of a long time to deploy, they only get to play in protracted conflicts, and if you could get a unit deployed quicker by ligthening it's AFVs and making them air deployable, you could get in a lot more action than those light fighter infantry and airborne pukes, and thus be in a preferred position to get combat experience into officer's personnel files to help them through senior level promotions, thus enhancing the overall position of the wheeled vehicle faction.
On the opposite side, you have the treadhead "dinosaur" faction who thinks that having real by God firepower and survivability, not to mention off road maneuverability, is more important than trying to get into little pissant conflicts that are heretofore the province of SOCOM and the lightfighter / airborne pukes, who are all swagger and no firepower.
Compounding this internal strife among the Chairborne (who agree only in ****ing over the Airborne establishment and ignoring the lightfighters) is all those nice consulting jobs you can get on retirement for difference defence contractors, if you've been their boys on the inside and helped them get those all important contracts. Throw in pork from Congress members of the two Armed Servives committees (who generally have defense contractors in their home districts) and the abso****inglutely last thing that gets considered is any real, objective consideration of the Army's combat needs looking forward a decade or two. Oh, except for ****ing over those Airborne *******s with their berets and jump boots and bloused trouser legs. Everyone except us Airborne *******s believe in ****ing us over in the procurement action within the Army.
And here I bet you thought the Pentagon was about national defense. 
The cute thing, last I heard, was that before Congress will authorize the money for the fourth, fifth and sixth Stryker brigades, they'll have to do another TOAB test against an "existing amphibious capable" AFV in the Army inventory, which is a vague euphemism for the M113A3 which is an upversioned variant of the original POS APC from the 'Nam era. This is to demonstrate that before spending this ungodly amount of money, that the Stryker was fairly and realistically  tested against tracked competition.
One of the treadhead ideas is to scrap the silly ass C-130 deployable requirement, use Bradleys as medium IFVs and base a gun variant off the Bradley, and develop a new heavy combat replacement for the Bradleys in the heavy divisions. This is probably the most sensible proposal, which means it has precisely no chance in hell of coming to pass.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 05-11-2003 at 13:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Space05us
|
|
so we're deploying matchboxs and hotwheels because it helps someones career even though tyco would do the job better? dumbasses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You need a mix of vehicles - the anti wheel lobby arguments are rather undermined by the widespread use of wheeled vehicles by special forces.
|
And their vehicles don't weigh enough to trip anti-armor mines, and their use really isn't that "widespread" - hell, the Humvee recon companies in an armored cav regiment comprises more vehicles than are used in any SOF operation.
quote:
The wear and tear on tracked vehicles in dusty, sandy terrain is very high. AFAIK, tracked vehicles still need transporters for long haul travel. Wheeled vehicles can fill a lot of roles. Tracked vehicles are better for others.
|
We have the luxury of being able to afford transporters and retracking out the ass. We don't really need the transporters, they're just to keep the vehicles in combat readiness. In GW1, for example, we used transporters to shift all of VII Corps and XVIII Airborne Corps (which had 24ID and 1CD as subordinate units) out to the west for the flanking move around the Iraqis, but the tracked vehicles moved on their own from the line of departure, all the way to the levy west of the Tigris river a little ways outside Mosul. Losses due to mechanical breakdown were very light, and all vehicles were recoverable and repairable under those circumstances.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Whatever it is, I'm sure 12.7 will slice through it like a showerhead through hymen
I mean, look at the wimpy little toy the main gunner has at hand!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2003 04:57
So basicaly its an immobile fort wityh a set of disposible tires?
|