Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Tophatter,

    The problem is that all AMC depots went to a fee for service system several years ago and compete against the private sector....thank the privatization of the defense establishment.

    Lima was told years ago to diversify....and they chose to stick to with M1s only. If they had added M60s to their repertoire for rebuild they would have alot for FMS.

    There is no money to keep them open on a low rate production basis...and no need for those tanks in the Army or Marine Corps force structure anyway.

    As for why the Stryker brigades? They are more deployable and useful in more places in the world....Stryker units will do well throughout Africa....and I can get 4 Stryker brigades into Korea in the amount of shipping it takes to get one Heavy BCT there.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Good point.

    But how crucial is that? We shut down BB production after WW2. No one can make anything like that nowadays.
    Not a good comparison.

    The battleship had clearly and decisively been superseded by the aircraft carrier.

    The tank has no successor. It is and can be complemented and assisted by other armored vehicles, but not replaced...and certainly not on the scale of the battleship by the aircraft carrier.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    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.
    Good point.

    But how crucial is that? We shut down BB production after WW2. No one can make anything like that nowadays.

    Leave a comment:


  • omon
    replied
    i saw a program on tv about factory that rebuilds Abrams tanks, there are actually 2 factories, one does one half of work (taking apart, rebuilding power units, mediabalsting hulls (it is done in huge tower, hulls are hanging vertically), than they ship them to other factory that puts them together. there aren't single new m1a made since 1993, all rebuild\retrofitted.

    Leave a comment:


  • tankie
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    I was referring to US vehicles. Not dissing on the Chally at all.
    Oh , ok m8

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    *sigh*
    Ditto.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    *sigh*

    Leave a comment:


  • Socrates
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Then why do we have the Stryker brigades?
    Because armored vehicles aren't one-size-fits-all?

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X