Why don you just simply get some Merkavas? It seems they are designing one anyway, just with a smaller gun and probably less armor :)
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
CBO: GCV would weigh 64 to 84 tons...
Collapse
X
-
If it cannot be fit in a C-130 seaplane it does not belong in the military :bang:
For the same weight 6-10 thick hulled Gav1ns can be carried with a 15 man rifle squad, SKS swivel guns, and a brace of six-pounders to give a proper broadside.To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Comment
-
This, frankly, is a non-story.
Giving it a company of sumo's, a sauna, a poop deck and wine cellar :danc:sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
Comment
-
AR,
As for the happy chart above.....that is what I do for a living. I am an Acquisition Logistician.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by troung View PostIf it cannot be fit in a C-130 seaplane it does not belong in the military :bang:
For the same weight 6-10 thick hulled Gav1ns can be carried with a 15 man rifle squad, SKS swivel guns, and a brace of six-pounders to give a proper broadside.
And I'm SURE an M-1 turret with a 120mm smooth-bore would fit just FINE on that 9' hull!"There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by troung View PostIf it cannot be fit in a C-130 seaplane it does not belong in the military :bang:
For the same weight 6-10 thick hulled Gav1ns can be carried with a 15 man rifle squad, SKS swivel guns, and a brace of six-pounders to give a proper broadside.
What we need are AmphiGavins rolling out of those seaplanes.
Not only do they provide the best protection of any vehicle, by using the amphib version we could save the Country money by getting rid of those Narcissistic marines and their gator navy co-dependents.Attached FilesLast edited by Gun Grape; 21 Nov 12,, 07:35.
Comment
-
(pdf link doesn't work. think it knows I'm a foreigner?...)
Seriously, at that weight, it looks like someone is eyeing both the BMP-3 (with all it's weapons) and the Namer (with all it's armour). I'm thinking the US will end up with a hybrid of the 2: a heavy APC (Namer) with a turret loaded with 2-3 guns and missle launchers (BMP-3), plus enough electronics to power Apple...
Comment
-
Originally posted by dan m View PostHow is this future acquisitions disastor conducive to the US Army being a mobile force that can be quickly deployed to different parts of the world? This vehicle makes no sense considering the Pacific pivot that this administration is making.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostNot if it floats :)
For the Pacific pivot we do not need GCV as the assault units....that is what Strykers, JTVs and amphibs are for.
As for the GCVs being too heavy for some areas....I say bullshit. Read the combat studies of armor forces in Viet Nam. Most people do not realize that only a minimal amount of the country was NO GO terrain for armor...to include MBTs.
As to ground pressure...I can guarantee you I took my Bradleys in some places at FT Stewart, GA, (the original Camp Swampy) than I ever thought about taking M113s. Even though the Bradley weighed twice the M113 it had lower ground pressure than than the APC.
As for air mobility requirement.
The C-130 is not a requirement. And it is easy to place afloat prepostion ships in Guam with the vehicles and ammo and just fly in crews...like we did for Desert Storm and OIF.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
Not only do they provide the best protection of any vehicle, by using the amphib version we could save the Country money by getting rid of those Narcissistic marines and their gator navy co-dependents.
As to ground pressure...I can guarantee you I took my Bradleys in some places at FT Stewart, GA, (the original Camp Swampy) than I ever thought about taking M113s. Even though the Bradley weighed twice the M113 it had lower ground pressure than than the APC.
The larger 33-ton Bradley GIRL TANK (BGT) is cramped with just 6 dismounts who are enclosed and CANNOT fight from their vehicle in this way, the same mistake the Russians made in Grozny. The BGT's gun system driving training focus results in dismount infantry acting as "security guards for tanks" not acting as a separate maneuver element--the same mistake the Russians made earlier in Afghanistan when they couldn't defeat the guerrillas who were in positional advantage up the side of steep mountains. The smaller but THICKERSKINNED 11-ton GAV1N can carry a FULL 13 man paratrooper dismount squad that can see heads out of the top troop hatch situationally AWARE, with weapons ready-to-fire along with a 152mm CANNON.
For the Pacific pivot we do not need GCV as the assault units....that is what Strykers, JTVs and amphibs are for.Last edited by troung; 22 Nov 12,, 02:40.To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Comment
Comment