I'm not convinced that the argument is a correct one, but it definitely has its strong points. The entire goal is to always be attacking or counter attacking. Comparing Stryker with Bradley is like comparing BTR-80 with BMP-3, T-15 or Kurganets (IFV), they're for completely different jobs/threat environments. I'm not super familiar with Iraq 2: Baghdad-ier - but were the Iraqis able to cause significant infrastructure damage on their retreat? Strykers die. No to both. I'm probably confusing more than I am helping at this point though. False. The shermans(at the beginning of the war) were designed to engage infantry and only that. The Mk.19 often falls short and a Javelin is hardly economical. I may have had the same book, except that mine was called Armored Combat in Viet Nam. Published back in May, so it may have been posted then. You cannot paste images directly. Its a good thing you've managed to find the one massive glaring hole in US doctrine that all of those so called "experts" and "military leaders" overlooked. Dear, it is a simple issue of ground pressure, well just get bogged. 6 vehicles should do it. The second entrant in the NGCV contest is the Raytheon/Rheinmetall KF41 Lynx infantry fighting vehicle. Yes, logistics. But I'm guessing a slightly higher degree of protection is prefered over the amphibious ability. The KF41 features a 30- or 35-millimeter cannon, anti-tank missiles, and a modular design meant to support future vehicle growth. Copyright 2017 Battlefront.com Roads, off-roads, it really doesn't matter. Independent units (Brigade level) being able to act autonomously. A focus on interdiction, disruption, and getting within the enemy C3I (at the time - isn't it C4ISTAR now or something?). Its a simple concept; army vehicles go boom boom with big guns. We need to start spending our money in a wise way. Moreover think of a situation where soldiers are demoralized, where casualties are high, where your vehicle and its ability to get deep in the ground is your last resort. The latter could go almost anywhere. No more luxury - we walked out - we made a shot. The CV90 Mark IV is a proven design with an excellent track record that could probably be developed quickly. Doesn't it feel like such a huge gap between 50 cals/GLs and aaalllllllll the way to a light tank main gun? As for amphibious units, you don't like my point of view, that is so clear. One would assume because a schoolbus-size vehicle being even nominally within LOF an MBT is very problematic. Its a good thing you've managed to find the one massive glaring hole in US doctrine that all of those so called "experts" and "military leaders" overlooked. 30 mm cannons can be used in a variety of ways and they definitly improve performance of stryker brigades during execution of "normal" missions. Additionally, the 105mm had the advantage of being able to use existing ammunition stocks, and it was also explicitly a temporary thing: the Abrams was designed from the start to accommodate a future mounting of the 120mm gun, because US tank engineers weren't dumb and could anticipate the need for a bigger gun once the 105mm started to reach the end of its development potential. But they will, if they feel the need. This video is unavailable. The vehicles include German, British, and Scandinavian designs. No it hasn't. The stryker isn't amphibious (well who said it needs to be that machine that floats on water) but I do agree that America is not prepared in the least degree for certain conflicts because of our lack to cross small water bodies with any type of military formed units with that ability. Ok, following this logic, why not just put a 120mm on every stryker? × Don't always assume supporting arms (or branches of service) will be available in a timely manner, or be able to deconflict the battlespace, or coordinate their fires. If everyone doing it meant it was good, this would mean putting vulnerable ammo in the fighting compartment is a good idea. It becomes redundant. WTF??? Any you would recommend? The idea is basically to always be on the attack, but on the off chance the enemy catches you while you are "paused" (so to speak) you are properly prepared to repel said attack. but that appears to be incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Gerät#/media/File:Mortars_Karlgeret_Adam.jpg. I saw something somewhere about the Polish Rosomak with a scaled down protection level, but with amphibious ability, being shelved after their Iraq experience. ), and the other four (with the other two rifle platoons) could provide indirect support. It won't necessarily change its tactical niche but expand the application within that niche. In recent history, Iraq war, Marines tank corp was still in M60's until they manage to purchase none used M1's from the army . All wheeled vehicles on both sides would suffer similarly. What is great about adding more weapons is that it is very cost effective in comparison to adding more armour. Not ore judging, but curious. In no way does that prevent them from doing any of their present missions or does it make a huge change in logistics. By By most accounts it seems to be a pretty good bus, with decent networking capabilities. The Griffin is a variant of the British Army’s Ajax reconnaissance vehicle, and a previous iteration was introduced for the Army’s light tank project. You are not paying attention. Oh, since some of you out there hate the thought that I would ever suggest that the M1 would have a Diesel engine. This is why sword is eventually overcoming the shield in the long run. Open your mind for a second. What I wanted to say is agree with your statement but from the other point of view. I suspect it doesn't give people on the ground enough credit at all. I consider this as a most apprioprate way explaining, why additional weaponry is never a bad idea. Is it a bad thing that various NATO countries worked together and shared technology/parts/designs in order to develop new vehicles? (no where to go for amphibious stuff - thus the issue) so just as you said, use them old aav's - remind me to have you be in one of those when they get used. That is the only evidence needed, its not the correct path. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. I've never been convinced by this form of argument in military matters - even dating back to opposition to helmets in WW1 on the grounds of cowardice. Main armament: M68A2 105mm gun: 40mm automatic grenade launcher or 12.7 mm heavy machine gun: Engine: Caterpillar C7 350 hp (260 kW) MTU 8V 199 TE20 Diesel 530 kW (711 hp) All rights reserved. As for your other items of disagreeance, you can hove your opinion and I will have mine. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Bradleys die. Most of the prototypes were along these lines. You can change your cookie settings at any time. I can hardly recommend only one of them, eh? WARNING NUMBER 2 everything what I will say next is subjective lol. So much so that the doctrine doesn't even plan for defense. yes, you are totally correct as to 105 rounds being capable at the time to do the job. I do not think they should be changed in any manner other than I see no problem with adding 30 mm to the system.
Lev Yashin Stats,
What Is Wrong With New Zealand,
Harold Pinter First Wife,
Choose Uwo Login,
Final Bow,
Fearless Soul Meaning In Tamil,
Lilian Thuram Net Worth,
Rhian Brewster Champions League Stats,
Andrew Wilkinson Squire Patton Boggs,