Pinetree Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Steve, PInetree, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The tyres have to be flattened if I recall correctly.The Stryker's have to be deflated too, though I am not sure to what degree.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumbling Grognard Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 What we should have our troops driving around the Mideast in, instead of lightly armored Strikers/HUMVEEs (since we are "The richest country on the planet"): Achzarit There is a nice 5+ min vid on this site of the veh. as well. Well, actually I think we could do better than to base it on a T55 btw, but you get the point. (yeah, I know light armor has a place but you get the point...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Original Stryker Thread NZLAV indoctrination continued today [29 April 2004] at Ohakea as the Air Force successfully completed C-130 Hercules loading and flight trials of the Army’s new Light Armoured Vehicle. An Air Force Hercules flew the NZLAV for 40 minutes before landing and then flying for another 10 minutes. The flights simulated a range of maneuvers including steep turns. Hercules Captain Flight Lieutenant Nathan MacDonald said, “although this was probably one of the heaviest loads I have carried, I had no concerns about it”. [snips]Link I'm not sure what they carried in terms of ammo, fuel, etc on the LAV for that trial. Also this ... Much has been made of the requirement to deploy NZLAV by C-130 Hercules aircraft. This is a side issue for NZ. We do not have sufficient aircraft to deploy all the NZLAVs, people and equipment we will require for modern operations. Nevertheless, we can transport NZLAV in a RNZAF C130. Ships will always be the best way to transport heavy and/or large quantities of equipment, support vehicles and NZLAVs. When Project Protector [major upgrade of Navy capabilities] is completed, our Navy will be able to transport our people and equipment in the MRV [Multi Role Vessel, HMNZS Canterbury]. Link [ August 08, 2007, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bean Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 that thing looks like a beetle on wheels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Glad to see a thread on Strykers, US doctrine, the Russian/Chechen war, and, most importantly, the relvance of adminstator forum posts to overall marketing strategy is still going to continue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 BFC aka Steve Based on the US Army's experience they have found such sections (squads) do not have enough staying power. The Germans found this in WWII as well. So one has to wonder if the reorg of your sections is to suit the vehicle or sound doctrine. I'm not knocking what NZ is trying out, I'm just curious since 9 has been seen as the optimal section (squad) size for quite some time. Well, at least in the American experience. Niether: My experience and understanding based on information in 1 Batt 1 RNZIR is that it has occured due to the similar issue the NZ infantry battlaions with the Germans of WWII. The similar issue is of course (2000 onwards) lack of boys and men to preform as infantry resulting in 8 man leg sections/squads with doubling of section weapons. 8 man section having 2x iw styer/203's 2x c-9 LMG's and 4 IW styer rifle men. It was to manouver as two small elements of four men one under the ic (CPL) and the other the 2ic (Lcpl). Proved to be a utter failuer as it required well drilled and experinced Jnco's and privates. It also faced a hidden issue of units on deployment have soldiers out of their section on out or in theater leave making them understrenth at the sharp end resulting in sections working as one fireteam by default. Advent of the LAV III in NZ army (circa 2002/3) has resulted 7 man leg section armed in the traditional manner of griendier, LMG team, and rifle men. Jav teams are considred weapons platoon/company in the same way mortars and HMG's are in traditional British style army battlions, and are therfore not integral to sections. Although I think JonS mentioned this facet. This is more a product or a meeting of NZ army having manpower shortages and replacing the lost firepower and "staying power" of a full section with a shiny AFV with increased mobility and a great big wacking gun. To repeat my self we have smaller sections for the very same reasons the Germans in the 1940s had small sections. We don't have enough warm bodies. As an aside they killed the Tank Corps and the tank battalion to fill out the Driver, commander and gunner roles for the LAV III's in the new Infantry battalions 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrykerPSG Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Originally posted by Pinetree: Steve, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />PInetree, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The tyres have to be flattened if I recall correctly.The Stryker's have to be deflated too, though I am not sure to what degree.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrykerPSG Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Originally posted by JonS: Original Stryker Thread </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />NZLAV indoctrination continued today [29 April 2004] at Ohakea as the Air Force successfully completed C-130 Hercules loading and flight trials of the Army’s new Light Armoured Vehicle. An Air Force Hercules flew the NZLAV for 40 minutes before landing and then flying for another 10 minutes. The flights simulated a range of maneuvers including steep turns. Hercules Captain Flight Lieutenant Nathan MacDonald said, “although this was probably one of the heaviest loads I have carried, I had no concerns about it”. [snips]Link I'm not sure what they carried in terms of ammo, fuel, etc on the LAV for that trial. Also this ... Much has been made of the requirement to deploy NZLAV by C-130 Hercules aircraft. This is a side issue for NZ. We do not have sufficient aircraft to deploy all the NZLAVs, people and equipment we will require for modern operations. Nevertheless, we can transport NZLAV in a RNZAF C130. Ships will always be the best way to transport heavy and/or large quantities of equipment, support vehicles and NZLAVs. When Project Protector [major upgrade of Navy capabilities] is completed, our Navy will be able to transport our people and equipment in the MRV [Multi Role Vessel, HMNZS Canterbury]. Link </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Originally posted by Grumbling Grognard: What we should have our troops driving around the Mideast in, instead of lightly armored Strikers/HUMVEEs (since we are "The richest country on the planet"): Achzarit There is a nice 5+ min vid on this site of the veh. as well. Well, actually I think we could do better than to base it on a T55 btw, but you get the point. (yeah, I know light armor has a place but you get the point...) Wait--this thing is not just "based on" a T55 chassis, but is actually built from destroyed T55s (etc.) that the IDF has collected over the years? That's a real in-your-face! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bailey Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 JonS- what does TE OPE KAATUA O AOTEAROA mean? StrykerPSG- is there any serious discussion that you are aware of about adding a LAVIII/25 as a SBF platform? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Originally posted by StrykerPSG: You know, this is the first I have seen a pic of the LAVIII/25 loaded onto a C130. Was this a J model C130? We were told the 25mm turret was too tall and was one reason for not wanting it on our vehicles. ...hehe ... no. NZ7004 is a C-130H, purchased in 1969 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Originally posted by James Bailey: what does TE OPE KAATUA O AOTEAROA mean?"New Zealand Defence Force" "Aotearoa" is "New Zealand", although the literal translation is "Land of the Long White Cloud", or "Land of the Wrong White Crowd" for the seperatist movement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrykerPSG Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Originally posted by James Bailey: StrykerPSG- is there any serious discussion that you are aware of about adding a LAVIII/25 as a SBF platform? [/QB]JB, If there were two things I could ask for and receive it would be integrated OH58's and a 25mm SBF vehicle. If there are any plans to field them, I am not privy to this info. However, I think it makes terrific sense to have at least one vehicle per PLT, strictly as an SBF vehicle, and by the way, since only 6-7 fit behind the turret, why not place the weapons squad in there? I also think part of the reason they didn't want a 25mm is because the Army is very territorial by design, ie if we received a 25mm variant, the Bradley guys might be in an uproar. While this may sound silly, look at the uproar the Stryker has stirred with the tracked armored community. From inception, the armored community that didn't pay attention to the initial sales pitch thought the MGS and ICV's were meant as replacements for the M1/M2. However, that was never the case. SBCT was always intended to be a complimentary mix, which I believe succeeds very well in doing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Originally posted by StrykerPSG: That's an interesting observation. I have had many conversations with people who were indeed under the impression the STRYKER was replacing the BFV and for THAT reason disagreed with the concept. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrykerPSG Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Snickering....my last assignment, prior to Lewis was at Ft Hood 99-01 as an Observer/Controller for AC/RC. Well, having never been mechanized I was amazed at the sheer number of vehicles on Hood itself. Driving down their main street where all the motor pools are is a sight to behold! Anyway, slipping out of context I know.....when GEN Shinseki announced his vision of the SBCT, the post was in a general uproar (though not officially)about the SBCT and how it would never work and the 105mm was an inferior weapon system. Apparently, I was the minority in thinking the concept was fantastic! But from the beginning, it was briefed that SBCT would be complimentary versus replacment. Again, going back to our then current strategy of only heavy and light divisions. It just made perfect sense to have multiple lighter armored vehicles that could be placed sooner rather then later, until the heavies could arrive in force. After all, how many former paratroops or light infantry guys remember being in Saudi during DS/DS, in the forward camps, thinking we were just a strategic speedbump until the mech/armored units arrived in theater? This isn't to say the airborne/light infantry lack a sting, but TOW HMMMV's, Dragons and attack aviation only last so long. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 The only experiment I know of that was seriously considered was conducted by ATK to fit the Bushmaster II on a custom made? RWS. I've got a ton of pictures from the field tests. From my contact at ATK (who sent me the pics) I learned it was rejected for two reasons: 1. Cost 2. Ammo storage limitations I don't remember vibration, height, or other problems being mentioned as reasons for the rejection. However, one has to remember that the guy passing this information to me isn't exactly unbiased I also suspect that there might have been a logistics reason for the rejection due to the obligation to have 48 hours (min) worth of 25mm ammo toted into combat along with everything else. 25mm ammo is bulky and with even 1 vehicle per platoon outfitted with it... that's a lot of ammo that needs to be carried onto the field. StrykerPSG... I sent you one with some Stryker specific data questions in it that we've always wanted an answer to. If you have the time, please drop me a note. Thanks, Steve [ August 10, 2007, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Quick comment about the IDF Achzarit. First, we must remember that this is akin to a Bradley, not a Stryker. It is heavy and it has all the logistics problems that such a tracked vehicle has. However, when you're talking about a very small country that will only ever use its forces from its home turf and likely never drive more than a few miles a year, the logistics end of things doesn't really matter much. Neither does the weight. When a country has a very lmiited scope of use, such as the IDF, all sorts of options are availble. If the US was only interested in attacking Canada and Mexico's border areas, this would be a viable option for the US as well Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Are you saying Canada might be the next battleground in CM...being from Maine, that is excellent news. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: Are you saying Canada might be the next battleground in CM...being from Maine, that is excellent news. You have't got the wallnuts!! Plus all of our LAVS have a 25mm gun one them...the kind we all own at the house to hunt moose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 As soon as I get my car down off the cement blocks, pick up a six pack, get some cigabutts, and cash my welfare check, I'm coming up to kick some canuck butt. Unless I hit the lottery, then I'm moving to NH. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: As soon as I get my car down off the cement blocks, pick up a six pack, get some cigabutts, and cash my welfare check, I'm coming up to kick some canuck butt. Unless I hit the lottery, then I'm moving to NH. Hmm...to this I respond...how do you Americans say it..."bring it on"...hmm...(insert Dr Evil laugh here). #2, prepare the beavers!!..muahaha.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 If those beavers have frick'n laserbeams on their heads, I think we should shelve the invasion plans. I've had enough 1st hand encounters wtih beavers WITHOUT laserbeams to know they aren't a creature to tangle with. If they don't smack you up with their tail badly enough, they'll sneak up when you least expect it, build a dam, and flood your basement. They are wilely little creatures (or not so little in these parts). Nope, the only reason I personally will invade Canada is to ruin their monetary policy so I can get cheap beer and lodging in Qubec City like the old days. In the grand American tadition of not fixing the real problem, that would be my proposed solution to the US Dollar's change in status from high quality toilette paper to a single sheet of paper towel that must be reused. Grr... Oh, and The_Capt. Just a reminder that I'm OK with the smell of Deet. It's the smell of VICTORY. Oh, and cancer. That too! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Real men drink Deet 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Bastables, To repeat my self we have smaller sections for the very same reasons the Germans in the 1940s had small sections. We don't have enough warm bodies.Interesting, but not surprising. This is why it is a VERY bad idea to look at a nation's military restructuring as an example to model without seeing the rationale behind it. Kinda like some of the morons in my town that complain that our taxes when up this year and the neighboring town's went down as if the tax rate told the whole story. What infrastructure is being maintained correctly in our town and not in the other? What long term economic opportunities are we spending money on and the other town is looking short term and not investing? So on and so forth. The tax rate, or the Squad headcount, in and of themselves mean nothing without a detailing of the context. Many nations are having problems convincing people that they should join the military. A friend of mine is the S3 for the Belgian Para/Commandos and I've heard a lot about their recruiting problems over the years. That and funding cutbacks. The Germans, as you correctly point out, had to ration their men and make up for it in firepower. Anybody playing a late war sceanrio in CMx2 games can see that. Going up against an intact 1944 Squad is tough going, but if it starts out short a few men or is hit with some mortars, it becomes rather easy to route or wipe out. At some point headcount makes the equation between firepower and the ability to use it sustainably tip in a negative direction. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Problem with Quebec is that none of the bridges or overpasses will take an M1... That and the fact that they will sneer at your outrageous accents and chortle in that franco way while muttering in french. Then they will serve you bad wine and sub-grade maple syrup. Then they will constantly complain about you while demanding more and more money to pay for their positively socialist lifestyle. After a few years of that you will all be aching for an IED...trust me. Steve, what is your size (insert obligatory penis joke here..ha ha)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.