Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


shift8 last won the day on September 9 2015

shift8 had the most liked content!

About shift8

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,320 profile views
  1. Also this would also make a good stryker replacement!
  2. Yes that will solve the problem of having to buy so many APCs. With a single Land Battle ship, no, Battle Station, we will be able to finally conquer the Galaxy, I mean Russians.
  3. Fortunately, there is a solution! Replaces both the Apache and the Star Destroyer for ground combat missions.
  4. Oh yes I forgot. And it was also a design flaw that the M3 Half Track couldn't take on the Panther. A disaster one might say. Us poor fools for thinking a 21st century APC didn't also need to be a tank. Another system with this problem is the 688 class submarines. They cannot carry enough airplanes to fight aircraft carriers! What will we do! Also the aircraft carriers cant dive deep enough! EVEN WORSE: Neither of them can fly!
  5. We buy APC's and make them are they are because we need a cheap better-than-a-truck method of moving around infantry. Key abilities are capacity and being cheap. It need to be cheap because you dont want your hauler being 9 gazillion dollars. If I wanted a hauler that cost as much as a bradley: I would just build a Bradley. You keep making the assumption that the budget exists to make some kind of super stryker. Except that the specific reason we dont just make a ALL-IFV force is because this is too expensive for the number of mangs you need to haul. IF that kind of money existed, we wou
  6. Since when Lucas do we not use APC's in conventional wars vs near-peer threats? What do you think the M3 Halftrack, M113, and BTR are? The Stryker is not a "asymmetrical" weapons system. It is a battle taxi. The only reason anyone has ever referred to the Strkyer in the fashion you seem to think it was "meant for" is due to the fact that a unit equipped with lighter vehicles is easy to move and deploy quickly. For various reasons, it is SOMETIMES beneficial to deploy a light unit when other units cannot be there. The vehicle is meant for major wars. It just so happens that APC's are reall
  7. What I find it hard to fathom is that no one has mentioned how **** the abrams is. I mean, if the stryker is too light, surely the abrams is. The T-90 will kill us all. I propose this as an upgrade to the abrams. Then we will have a decent tank for once. Plus all you need for this is a bike pump and privates to pump it.
  8. Entered IOC 5 hours ago. Turns out all the F-16 needed to be decent was a SAM strapped to it. Come to think of it, that is what the stryker needs. Its far too vulnerable to ground attack. A stryker with a Patriot on top would be ideal.
  9. This is the sort of upgrade we should actually invest in gentlemen. High on benefit, low on cost.
  10. Sdkfz 7 Half Tracks pour off the assembly lines with the new upgrades ordered by Hitler after the disaster in Normandy.
  11. Studebaker trucks in 1944 after receiving the "combat enhancement package" upgrade. http://images.realclear.com/266637_5_.jpg
  12. The Jeep after the army fixed its horrid firepower problem: t27-gun-motor-carriage-01.png
  13. The problem with the BTR though is that they sacrificed armor and firepower to increase troop capacity and make it cheap. The BTR is no match for the Abrams or the Iowa class Battleship. The BTR needs K5 ERA and a 125mm main gun. Then it will be good.
  14. This thread reminds me of another woefully bad vehicle, the ww2 era Studebaker truck. Like the stryker, the army claimed the studebaker would enhance mobility of infantry and this would enhance the combat ability of the infantry. But in actual combat the studebaker was no match for the Panther and Panzer 4 tanks! What was really needed was a studebaker on tracks with 64mm of armor at 47 degrees and a 75mm AT gun. Then it would have been a vehicle that they army could have been proud of. History repeats itself.
  • Create New...