D
dull bayonet
Guest
Hello, I am just wondering if the Army is still looking at replacing the Leopard C2 with the Stryker. And if so when are they planning to do this if any one knows?
:tank:
:tank:
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
Well, I'm just a civilian now, but last I heard, they were looking at the 2008-2010 time frame.
Maybe somebody else knows a more definitive date.
Personally, I hope it gets canned!
Maybe somebody else knows a more definitive date.
Personally, I hope it gets canned!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Lance
Thats about it, I may make seeing one. Before I join George and yourself, when the yell ( March on the old Guard) HAHA. I know Standards has another good go to look.
They can't go to the field , but can go golfing down south.
:evil: :tank:
Thats about it, I may make seeing one. Before I join George and yourself, when the yell ( March on the old Guard) HAHA. I know Standards has another good go to look.
They can't go to the field , but can go golfing down south.
:evil: :tank:
1
12alfa
Guest
RECON-MAN said:
You are not towing the party line...heheh
you will not go far in this mans army.......heheheh
I totally agree though, a tankless army....uh OK :
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
Coyote43D said:
HEHEHEH
I do try to stay current.
But it's also my intention not to fool anyone and let them think I'm one of those old grey haired guys still in uniform, mumbling about the good old days.
Take my word for it, the good old days?
They weren't all that great either.
Except for Germany.
Germany was great!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
But it's also my intention not to fool anyone and let them think I'm one of those old grey haired guys still in uniform, mumbling about the good old days.
No, you're one of those old grey haired guys in civvies, mumbling about the good old days.
;D
No, you're one of those old grey haired guys in civvies, mumbling about the good old days.
;D
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
And let's not forget the gray Goatee!
;D
GW
;D
GW
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
Allright, allright.
Sheesh, a guy grows a little bit grey, and grows some scruff on his face, and he gets picked on?
But, if we get that MGS, there will be a lot of us mumbling about the good old days!
Sheesh, a guy grows a little bit grey, and grows some scruff on his face, and he gets picked on?
But, if we get that MGS, there will be a lot of us mumbling about the good old days!
1
12alfa
Guest
dull bayonet said:
Yes they are, but it's on hold now as per the latest dnd data. You are of course thinking of the MGS (mobile gun systen). The striker is a family of wheeled veh's.
The main difference in the MGS is the 105mm turretless gun, that sets it apart from all the other veh's in the family.
When? who knows? some dates have been thrown around but it has not passed all requirements of the US army yet, it has some problems from what is coming to light from the testing/army pers. The army (both) would have you belive that all is well, but the problems are slowly leaking out, some can be fixed, some will take more time. We may bring it into country/system with some problems that we will in true canadain fashion fix our selves.The chassie itself is ok, it is just the wpn systen that is not qiut right.
There are many good links on the web for data, I would stay away from both army's, and the contractors sites however, they tend to be one sided. Also don't waste you time on slick powerpoint or contractors vedio's, do a search for other views and sources to get a complete story, it's out there.
Others here will have a differnt view, thats allmost a given......lol
GW have you a view you wish to share? Or will this post put you/others in spin-dry? I seem to do that with you don't I ? I don't really mean to...really,heheheh
JK'ing
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I'll let George get in his own licks, but I thought I'd at least point out one error from your post:
From GlobalSecurity website http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-mgs.htm
Al
From GlobalSecurity website http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-mgs.htm
Al
1
12alfa
Guest
Allan Luomala said:
LOL
GlobalSecurity, really now, go through the whole site , then report back here on what you find. There data is not up todate and has errors on it.
But a small point. I belive (and you may correct me) but a turret in the pure form was in the begining a " a self-contained armoured compartment housing the main wpn and crewmembers".
Given that all crew members are in the chassie, and the wpn (105 M68A1) is on the outside of the hull with no REAL armoured protection as in a MBT, can you really call it a turret?
Another heated debate heading my way.....................Can I be your wippen boy or so the song goes......
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
In my mind, a turretless tank would be like the Swedish S-Tank (Stridsvagn 103). http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/stank/stank.html
Here is a definition from Free-Definitions.com:
http://www.free-definition.com/Turret.html
I'm sure a big semantics argument could follow to prop up either argument, but it would be pointless in the long run. As I am always right 8)
Al
Here is a definition from Free-Definitions.com:
http://www.free-definition.com/Turret.html
I'm sure a big semantics argument could follow to prop up either argument, but it would be pointless in the long run. As I am always right 8)
Al
1
12alfa
Guest
Allan Luomala said:
I'm begining to see that now. But a battleship has all of the above, is it a tank? LOL
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
12Alfa said:
Well; if you really go back in history to the very beginings in WW I, you may be surprised at where we came from. The Tank was an idea developed from the Battleship. Just add Tracks.
Now on the question of the Stryker and Bison. The US are using Strykers in Iraq. They have no turrets.
The habit being developed of calling the MGS a Stryker is getting many confused.
Problems with the MGS are numerous. The turret crew, particularly the C/C, do not have 360 degree vision as the Gun is smack dab in the middle of them. The 14 round carousel of the Auto Loader is slow when it comes to selecting another type of Ammo once it is firing. 14 rounds is not too many. It takes a considerable amount of time to reload. One less crew member, means less down time for the remaining three. Fatigue will become a serious problem. The list will go on and on.
GW
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
The fundamental problem about the MGS that no one seems to have answered (at least as far as I can tell) is this:
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the MGS is the greatest anti-tank platform ever conceived (in conjunction with TOW and ADATS, as the Army plans). Fine - we can kill the bad guys' tanks. Now, think back to WWI. Back then, when the tank was invented, there weren't a lot of other tanks on the battlefield to kill. The basic problem was getting our soft, squishy infantrymen (apologies to the grunts) "over the top", across no man's land, and into the enemy trenches without being converted to hamburger. And (much as it pains me to admit this) artillery concentrations of 1000 guns or more weren't solving the problem. How do you get our grunts into a well-prepared, well-dug in, well-sited defensive position without taking horrendous casualties?
The tank was the answer - barbed wire couldn't stop it, it could crawl across trenches, and IT WAS IMPERVIOUS TO MACHINE-GUN FIRE.
Fast forward to today. How are the grunts going to properly conduct an assault on a prepared position, covered by medium and heavy machine guns, with LAVs alone? How is a LAV supposed to close with and destroy enemy machine-gun emplacements, bunkers, and hard points without getting destroyed?
Maybe someone who's smarter and/or has more experience than I do can answer that question...
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the MGS is the greatest anti-tank platform ever conceived (in conjunction with TOW and ADATS, as the Army plans). Fine - we can kill the bad guys' tanks. Now, think back to WWI. Back then, when the tank was invented, there weren't a lot of other tanks on the battlefield to kill. The basic problem was getting our soft, squishy infantrymen (apologies to the grunts) "over the top", across no man's land, and into the enemy trenches without being converted to hamburger. And (much as it pains me to admit this) artillery concentrations of 1000 guns or more weren't solving the problem. How do you get our grunts into a well-prepared, well-dug in, well-sited defensive position without taking horrendous casualties?
The tank was the answer - barbed wire couldn't stop it, it could crawl across trenches, and IT WAS IMPERVIOUS TO MACHINE-GUN FIRE.
Fast forward to today. How are the grunts going to properly conduct an assault on a prepared position, covered by medium and heavy machine guns, with LAVs alone? How is a LAV supposed to close with and destroy enemy machine-gun emplacements, bunkers, and hard points without getting destroyed?
Maybe someone who's smarter and/or has more experience than I do can answer that question...
1
12alfa
Guest
George Wallace said:
14 I have read it was 18, maybe a mis-information, I'll ck again and report back.
And I think if you go back even further it was on the old ironclads, and I have seem to rember seeing a piece on the turret on sailing ships, something to do with cannons on the deck, i may have mis-read that though...off the may data base again...
Similar threads
