Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shek: I'm really confused...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shek: I'm really confused...

    Okay, I was surfing through Murdoc Online today (like I do everyday), and I came across these two slightly related articles about the Stryker:
    http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002351.html
    http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002359.html#more
    One comment poster is named "Shek."
    Could that possibly be you???

  • #2
    Originally posted by sniperdude411
    Okay, I was surfing through Murdoc Online today (like I do everyday), and I came across these two slightly related articles about the Stryker:
    http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002351.html
    http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002359.html#more
    One comment poster is named "Shek."
    Could that possibly be you???
    No confusion, that's me. That's how I started cruising the message boards. I saw some Stryker bashing on strategypage.com (and later this board) while I was searching for some information for a paper I was doing, and it was being done by people who either didn't have a clue about anything or were just misinformed, and it really PO'd me, so I decided that I would relate my experiences and try and dispel the myths that were out there. It was frustrating going through the transformation process and seeing negative article after negative article and hearing critics accuse the program of covering up problems and compromising the safety of soldiers when the soldiers and leaders inside the program knew the facts. Now, if people still believe that the Stryker is a piece I junk (I don't, obviously) after seeing my arguments, then that's fine. At least I've had the chance to inject facts into the argument.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

    Comment


    • #3
      I see no reason why the Stryker is indeed a piece of junk. Many compare it to the M1 Abrams, or the M2 Bradley; it's like comparing a PC to an ATM or a self-checkout machine. They're all used for completely different purposes.
      Strykers are not made to kill other tanks, or blow-apart buildings, it;'s used to safely transport troops.
      Also, the reason there are many bugs, complaints, etc. is because it's new. The M16a2 is a product of many improvements, and people accept it for the most part.
      People should really start criticizing the Stryker in about 10 years, when it's been improved and revamped.

      Open for others' opinions.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by sniperdude411
        I see no reason why the Stryker is indeed a piece of junk. Many compare it to the M1 Abrams, or the M2 Bradley; it's like comparing a PC to an ATM or a self-checkout machine. They're all used for completely different purposes.
        Strykers are not made to kill other tanks, or blow-apart buildings, it;'s used to safely transport troops.
        Also, the reason there are many bugs, complaints, etc. is because it's new. The M16a2 is a product of many improvements, and people accept it for the most part.
        People should really start criticizing the Stryker in about 10 years, when it's been improved and revamped.

        Open for others' opinions.
        I don't have issue with people examining the Stryker closely. The fact that it was fighting an intense insurgency within two years of its fielding does beg the question - was that too quick? Obviously, I don't think so, and I think the record bears that out. However, if the vehicle were underperforming and getting soldiers killed because of deficiencies in its design or in the specifications laid out by the Army, then the wait 10 years argument doesn't help bring back those that were needlessly killed/wounded.

        However, there has always been a spin on this subject by many and the most vocal voices in the press have always been those who have never fought or operated with Strykers. Even the CALL report, which gathered information from soldiers and leaders within 3/2 ID (SBCT) in order to examine the Strykers' performance and develop upgrades and improvements was spun by the Washington Post as an "indictment" by the Army against the Stryker.
        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shek
          However, there has always been a spin on this subject by many and the most vocal voices in the press have always been those who have never fought or operated with Strykers. Even the CALL report, which gathered information from soldiers and leaders within 3/2 ID (SBCT) in order to examine the Strykers' performance and develop upgrades and improvements was spun by the Washington Post as an "indictment" by the Army against the Stryker.
          Exactly what I hate: un-educated opinions.

          98% of all people that hate Macintosh computers have either had no experience, or haven't spent the time to get used to its interface.
          Totally pisses me off, and also makes those who argue against me look like a complete idiot.
          If I have an uneducated opinion (which I rarely do), and someone gives me information contradicting my opinion, I will change it. Such was my opinion on Canada's military when I first joined.

          Comment


          • #6
            I confess to knowing very little about the Stryker, but I recall that back in the '70's, the original F14 was considered a lousy aircraft. Until they found the best engines for the airframe, and upgraded it to its potential. It ended up a pretty lethal aircraft.

            Similarly, the M1 tank and M2 Bradley had significant "teething" problems when first developed and both were similarly labelled "pieces of junk". Maybe the Stryker can be developed into a good platform, maybe it can't (I also remember the SGT York DIVADS) but any new concept and doctrine needs time to be developed. I just hope that they aren't using soldiers in Iraq as the guinea pigs.
            Rule 303

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Beaugeste93
              I confess to knowing very little about the Stryker, but I recall that back in the '70's, the original F14 was considered a lousy aircraft. Until they found the best engines for the airframe, and upgraded it to its potential. It ended up a pretty lethal aircraft.

              Similarly, the M1 tank and M2 Bradley had significant "teething" problems when first developed and both were similarly labelled "pieces of junk". Maybe the Stryker can be developed into a good platform, maybe it can't (I also remember the SGT York DIVADS) but any new concept and doctrine needs time to be developed. I just hope that they aren't using soldiers in Iraq as the guinea pigs.
              Whatya mean by "teething problems"?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sniperdude411
                Whatya mean by "teething problems"?
                Thats simple Stuff that propped up during the early models Flaws in the Design that were latter Fixed. If i remember The Bradley had some thing about, if you Hit it with a real Antitank weapon Some thing would light on fire and Burn the Crew and Scouts to death. Later on this was Corrected?

                Comment


                • #9
                  So it's an assortment of problems/bugs?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yeah, minor design flaws. The bradley had quite a few of them when it was new. The M-1 did too, but not like the bradley. The blackhawk helicopter was the same way. The crews used to 100 mile an hour tape the rotor tips together because they were prone to splitting. Then you have systems like the B-1B and Apache, that never do get rid of all the bugs.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Now I'm starting to understand why it takes 15 years to make an aircraft from scratch.
                      BTW, what 25mm gun does the Bradley have and what kind of damage does it do compared to a 30x173mm cartridge?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        M-242 Bushmaster.

                        The 30x173 is about 60-70% more powerful, if i had to guess.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm thinking... what would be the best gun you could put on top a 10-ton remote-controlled vehicle (or and unmanned vehicle, although that would be very confusing) with enough armor to stop a 12.7mm cartridge and slat armor to defeat RPGs?
                          It would have a very low center of gravity, and be hybrid powered - using 4 independent motors on each corner wheel (it would have 6 wheels; the middle two would be used for further stability and backup if one of the corner wheels popped or something) powered by a deisel engine generating electricity (with batteries in case it would have to go stealthy). This vehicle could be used for a frontline vehicle in convoys to eleiminate roadside bombs, clear enemy troops, etc. Or it could be used as a scout vehicle.

                          The guns I'm thinking would be either the GAU-13, M242 Bushmaster, or the M230 30mm chaingun. Something that could go through walls with ease, and deliver an nasty puch to enemy vehicles. Heavy armor not included beacuse most terrorists don't usually use tanks.

                          Oh yeah, this vehicle would go up to 80 mph, too.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by sniperdude411
                            I'm thinking... what would be the best gun you could put on top a 10-ton remote-controlled vehicle (or and unmanned vehicle, although that would be very confusing) with enough armor to stop a 12.7mm cartridge and slat armor to defeat RPGs?
                            It would have a very low center of gravity, and be hybrid powered - using 4 independent motors on each corner wheel (it would have 6 wheels; the middle two would be used for further stability and backup if one of the corner wheels popped or something) powered by a deisel engine generating electricity (with batteries in case it would have to go stealthy). This vehicle could be used for a frontline vehicle in convoys to eleiminate roadside bombs, clear enemy troops, etc. Or it could be used as a scout vehicle.

                            The guns I'm thinking would be either the GAU-13, M242 Bushmaster, or the M230 30mm chaingun. Something that could go through walls with ease, and deliver an nasty puch to enemy vehicles. Heavy armor not included beacuse most terrorists don't usually use tanks.

                            Oh yeah, this vehicle would go up to 80 mph, too.
                            I don't think that I would even armor it against anything greater than 7.62. If you look at the SWORDS, the Talon robot is small in comparison to the weapon systems it can carry. Now, I understand that the forces involved with an autocannon would be greater, but I still think that you'd have a very small profile with the weapon and ammo comprising most of the weight/surface area of the UGV. I think your biggest issue would be cross-country mobility, and this is where weight would be a critical factor.
                            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Whatever new vehicle i was designing would have tracks, not wheels. I'd also want real live human beings in it...but that's just me.(2 man crew, driver, and one man turret/TC).

                              A 20mm M197 rotary cannon would work just fine on a 10 ton vehicle. With the new APDSDU ammo, it would be a pretty nasty beast.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X