Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Plant Pleads To Stay Afloat, But Army Says 'No Tanks'

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

  • Plant Pleads To Stay Afloat, But Army Says 'No Tanks'

    Another interesting segment from NPR:

    Plant Pleads To Stay Afloat, But Army Says 'No Tanks' : NPR

    Go here for the audio feed.

    What happened to the plan to sell a bunch of refurbished M1A1's to Iraq? Did they already get them?
    "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

  • #2
    Shut it down. We have how many M1A2s? We have more state of the art MBTs than the next 5 powers combined. We need to invest in more lighter armored cars like the French AMX-10RC or the Stryker MGS, if we want to do security missions. MBTs are great at wrecking stuff. But they are too expensive to operate in a security role.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by gunnut View Post
      Shut it down. We have how many M1A2s? We have more state of the art MBTs than the next 5 powers combined. We need to invest in more lighter armored cars like the French AMX-10RC or the Stryker MGS, if we want to do security missions. MBTs are great at wrecking stuff. But they are too expensive to operate in a security role.
      In Iraq the Abrams proved to be the safest vehicle by far. Lighter vehicles trade lower operating costs for higher human costs if the vehicle gets hit and reduced combat capabilities. It takes a VBIED or VBEFP to knock out an Abrams. That Abrams brings state of the art FLIR systems allowing it to bring to bear 2 heavy and 2 medium machine guns plus its 120mm cannon. It has state of the art battle management systems, is climate controlled and it scares the bejeezus out of enemies.

      Just as importantly is the Abrams modular construction and the availability of off the shelf hardware means the tank is just as current as anything fielded by anyone else.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        Just as importantly is the Abrams modular construction and the availability of off the shelf hardware means the tank is just as current as anything fielded by anyone else.
        Example being the old M1A1's being rebuilt as M1A2 SEP V2's with a completely upgraded digital infrastructure and selected components of the TUSK upgrade.
        "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


        • #5
          . Lighter
          Originally posted by zraver View Post
          In Iraq the Abrams proved to be the safest vehicle by farvehicles trade lower operating costs for higher human costs if the vehicle gets hit and reduced combat capabilities. It takes a VBIED or VBEFP to knock out an Abrams. That Abrams brings state of the art FLIR systems allowing it to bring to bear 2 heavy and 2 medium machine guns plus its 120mm cannon. It has state of the art battle management systems, is climate controlled and it scares the bejeezus out of enemies.

          Just as importantly is the Abrams modular construction and the availability of off the shelf hardware means the tank is just as current as anything fielded by anyone else.
          Very patriotic , the chally 2 is as good if not better , but that debates been done :pop:
          Last edited by tankie; 26 Jul 12,, 18:31.

          Comment


          • #6
            Penny wise and pound foolish. They need to keep it running if only at a bare minimum of production and refit work.
            “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
            ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              In Iraq the Abrams proved to be the safest vehicle by far. Lighter vehicles trade lower operating costs for higher human costs if the vehicle gets hit and reduced combat capabilities. It takes a VBIED or VBEFP to knock out an Abrams. That Abrams brings state of the art FLIR systems allowing it to bring to bear 2 heavy and 2 medium machine guns plus its 120mm cannon. It has state of the art battle management systems, is climate controlled and it scares the bejeezus out of enemies.

              Just as importantly is the Abrams modular construction and the availability of off the shelf hardware means the tank is just as current as anything fielded by anyone else.
              Then why do we have the Stryker brigades?
              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                Then why do we have the Stryker brigades?
                Because armored vehicles aren't one-size-fits-all?
                “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                  Because armored vehicles aren't one-size-fits-all?
                  There you go. We have more MBTs than the next 5 powers combined. We don't need more. We need to spend money wisely. Spend it on Stryker MGS if we want to do more low intensity missions. Spend it on the Humvee replacement, or updating existing Humvees, or a more coherent MRAP program.

                  How many MBT is enough? Even the Army said it doesn't need more MBTs.
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The point is, Lima needs to be kept open instead of being shuttered.
                    The industrial base and knowledge has to be kept preserved.

                    No question that the US has more than enough tanks.
                    Like I said, slow down the workload to a bare minimum, not because we need the tanks but ensure the industrial capability for the future.
                    “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                    ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tankie View Post
                      . Lighter

                      Very patriotic , the chally 2 is as good if not better , but that debates been done :pop:
                      I was referring to US vehicles. Not dissing on the Chally at all.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                        There you go. We have more MBTs than the next 5 powers combined. We don't need more. We need to spend money wisely. Spend it on Stryker MGS if we want to do more low intensity missions. Spend it on the Humvee replacement, or updating existing Humvees, or a more coherent MRAP program.

                        How many MBT is enough? Even the Army said it doesn't need more MBTs.
                        Not all of our tanks are the latest version. Slow rate upgrade keeps the line open and the technology current. The US has about 7000 Abrams hulls but only a fraction of them are in service, some more are in stocks and the rest are hulks waiting in line for a rebuild to zero mile condition for issue to line units as they turn in tanks that are worn out. In Iraq we had Abrams using up their entire life cycle in a single year. Shuttering Lima means when a units Abrams tank reaches its lifetime maximum of miles ther eis no zero mile tank to replace it and maintenance costs will go through the roof.

                        Oh BTW we don't have the largest tank fleet, we have the 3rd largest tank fleet overall and are even lower in the number of tanks in line units. Russia, China, Egypt, India, Pakistan and possibly North Korea all have larger fleets in service that are as large or larger than ours.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          tanks are grate and all but the now war will be fought with drones, hackers and small strict forces not to mention air and sea. tank are going to be only part of a war. They are use less if you don not have air control. So why so many i agree with TopHater only the bare.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            *sigh*
                            “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                            ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by zraver View Post
                              Shuttering Lima means when a units Abrams tank reaches its lifetime maximum of miles ther eis no zero mile tank to replace it and maintenance costs will go through the roof.
                              The zero-mile rebuild work is also done at Anniston Army Depot
                              “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                              ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X