Strykers...and Why I thank god I am not Stryker Infantry

[molotov_billy]

Steve,

This is just getting massive, so I want to just re-iterate a couple of points here that make most of what's being said irrelevant to the conversation.

My casual observation of this forum for perhaps roughly a year has been that a lot of your posts have a poor attitude, or are just generally aggressive in nature. I'm simply relating to you that my observation has been that this has had a negative impact on my (as well as others who have been saying it) opinion of the company. It's my opinion that this type of behavior is poor customer service, and will turn away potential customers. I'm not necessarily talking about the specific people you're addressing - I'm talking about the people who in turn read those passages and process that into their opinion of the company, and hence their purchasing decisions.

Why you make this a personal attack on myself, I don't know. I'm giving you feedback in as clear and honest a way as possible.

That is why I suggested that you're lack of participation in this Forum over the last 9 years perhaps doesn't give you the sort of all knowing insight that you wish to think you have.

I've re-iterated that what I'm talking about is the casual observer - the person who doesn't have nine years of experience on these forums, sees the way you treat people, and makes their decisions based on that.

There is a lot of history here so it is arrogant and rather foolish to think that you can know everything about how things work from such a short period of time.

I don't pretend to know everything. I only know what my impressions of these forums (and yourself) are, and I'm relating them to you. Thats it and that's all.

I think most people appreciate the fact that I am honest and do not suck up or coddle certain personality types that tend to ruin Forums by turning them into places where substandard debate is the best that can be hoped for.

One can be honest without being offensive or overly aggressive. I think that's probably what you need work on.

Look at how many people are here with registrations dating back 4, 5, 6, even 8 years. Something must be going right here.

Sir, look on any forum outside your own and you'll see the same thing. It's just human nature. But how many people have you turned away with the attitude that you display, and the lack of respect you show for opinions other than your own?

Therefore, if someone should double check his posting style and manner of presentation, I would suggest that between the two of us you are perhaps in need of it more than I.

The difference here, as I've said, is that you are a representative of a group of people and a company. You're offering customer service, I am not. I'm just giving you feedback.

Also, I am not threatening you.

You threatened to ban me. Call it what you want, it doesn't matter - the end user sees the way things work here and will make their own decisions.

[ August 08, 2007, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Battlefront.com]

StrykerPSG,

Thanks for the detailed response using your limited online time. Several pages ago I challenged some of JasonC's assessment by saying (amongst other things) that soldiers in the field, actually using the vehicles, disagree with his bleak assessment of the vehicle's worth (that and some glaring factual errors). His response was to say that these soliders were brain washed by either Rumsfeld or representatives of General Dynamics (check back, I even double checked with him to make sure that was his belief!). That's a pretty disrespectful position to take, not to mention one that runs contrary to common sense. You're a soldier whose ass is entrusted to the piece of metal you're riding in... it's hard to imagine how stupid you'd have to be to support the vehicle simply because someone told you it was great. In JasonC's world anybody that doesn't think it is a piece of crap is either dumb or part of a grand conspiracy. I'm glad to see you come on and punt it right back at him, even though he has already shown a very low regard for the opinion of anybody actually using the vehicle.

... when you discount the people that operate these concepts day in and day out and base your knowledge of specualtion of left and right wing reports, there is a possibility of becoming a Rumsfeld type persona and discounting what your actual theater commanders are telling you and listening to the media instead.

You're not the only one to have noted exactly that Well put and quite ironic, given JasonC's complete disgust for Rumsfeld.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

molotov_billy,

Why you make this a personal attack on myself, I don't know. I'm giving you feedback in as clear and honest a way as possible.

Feedback like this?

That probably has more to do with the fact that talented people are quietly working their butts off on the actual game while you aggressively attack potential customers on the forums

Again, you have your perception of how customer service should work, I have mine. I've said it clearly. People that behave maturely and respectfully, who can clearly articulate their concerns and questions, get a level of customer service that few companies would even attempt to provide; they get straight, honest responses from the guy who is at the heart of the game's development. Even the less than respectful and less than articulate tend to get solid responses. Those who can't get a different treatment and still, I think, better than they should expect.

What you fail to see is all the good that goes on here. You wish only to see the negative and imply that that is all anybody new to this Forum will see. I do not think the newbies are so dim as they can't see that, by and large, I am not confrontational and only am when there is obvious cause for it (though you may disagree with it).

I fully understand how I behave here and make no excuses for it. It is not perfect but there is no such thing as perfection. I would rather lose a few thin skinned "glass is half empty" types than allow the bar for quality discussions to be lowered Forum wide so as to accomodate them. An open, public debate is not something everybody is equally capable of handling. If this is not something you are comfortable with, that's fine. You have the freedom to choose stay here, go somewhere else to discussion CM:SF, or to not discuss it at all.

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Feedback like this?

Absolutely. My post was clear and honest - though taking one sentence out of context doesn't do it much justice.

Again, you have your perception of how customer service should work, I have mine.

I'm just giving my opinion. You shouldn't take offense to it. I respect yours, though I think it's incorrect.

I've said it clearly. People that behave maturely and respectfully, who can clearly articulate their concerns and questions, get a level of customer service that few companies would even attempt to provide; they get straight, honest responses from the guy who is at the heart of the game's development. Even the less than respectful and less than articulate tend to get solid responses. Those who can't get a different treatment and still, I think, better than they should expect.

Again, I'm not talking about the people you're speaking directly to. I'm talking about people who observe the way you speak to other people.

What you fail to see is all the good that goes on here. You wish only to see the negative and imply that that is all anybody new to this Forum will see.

No, not at all. There's plenty of good stuff in here. I'm giving you feedback on the stuff that, in my observation, needs work. It wouldn't really make sense the other way around.

[MeatEtr]

I betcha molotov_billy is secretly loving all the attention. Maybe, if it was possible, Steve can hold your hand when making posts. Would you feel more comfortable that way?

[Battlefront.com]

molotov_billy,

You shouldn't take offense to it. I respect yours, though I think it's incorrect.

Good, then we will just agree to disagree and let it go

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You're a soldier whose ass is entrusted to the piece of metal you're riding in... it's hard to imagine how stupid you'd have to be to support the vehicle simply because someone told you it was great.

Steve, clearly you know absolutely nothing about soldiers. Only rarely will they complain about the conditions of their service place, their equipment, their salary or the decisions of their leaders. The prevailing attitude in armed forces throughout history has been "happy-happy joy-joy!!!" Already Napoleon got frustrated with his elite troops whom he considered as oui-men, whose only feedback was along the lines of: "I love this new model of musket, it can be carried by just one man and the range advantage over pikemen gives us the edge! And isn't it such a great idea by our supply troops to let the gunpowder get wet, there's less dust which is good for my asthma! And just isn't this Russian winter just wonderful, oh boy this is even better than being surrounded by Brits in Egypt!"

[ChrisND]

I just thought I would get a post in here for posterity.

Done!

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

I betcha molotov_billy is secretly loving all the attention. Maybe, if it was possible, Steve can hold your hand when making posts. Would you feel more comfortable that way?

Will you be my friend?

[Battlefront.com]

Sergei,

I had already taken that into account when I posted. This is why, I think, Guardsman11b prefers to zip around him Hunvees despite how easily they are turned to charged metal.

However, I was specifically referring to soldiers that had experience with both Bradleys and Strykers (StrykerPSG is one of those) or those who started out predisposed to hating them and then changed their minds after seeing them in person (Blackhorse is one such example here). These are people that have the benefit of first hand compare/contrast to draw upon. JasonC, on the other hand, has no experience with either system as far as I know, neither here at the safety of home or abroad in a war zone.

Therefore, I think it is rather a hollow argument to make that simply because a soldier is a soldier that he can't possibly know the truth like an armchair general (or SGT) can. I am an armchair warrior like Jason, but unlike Jason I don't dismiss feedback from the front so easily and brutally. I weigh it in with other evidence and see what comes up. JasonC's arguments show an utter ignorance for what the Stryker units have accomplished, in fact, over in Iraq. The only thing I do strongly agree with JasonC about is the complete mishandling of the planning and execution of the war at the senior most echelons. But that is incidental to the Stryker concept and the vehicle itself.

Steve

[James Bailey]

If anyone wants to read one of the key AGAINST aarguments, it is here:

O'Reilly Piece

The irony in this piece is that his key argument AGAINST the Stryker - namely that it puts US servicemen's lives at risk - turned out to be one of the biggest arguement FOR the Stryker.

Good illustration of how the theoretical analysis can fail to hold up in real world.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by average:

Getting off topic briefly:-

AP-I rounds are certainly not lawfully used against infantry. Same for HEI-T.

Care to post a reference which law exactly is being violated..? I'm sure you're aware Geneva convention says nothing about ammunition and the Hague convention only mentions soft-nosed ammo.

Slap and ball are good to go though, although sooner or later someone will take the point as a mater of customary international law its considered poor form to use 12.7mm stuff against people (ie the US Military considers it causes excessive suffering,as does the ADF and some other western militaries, ergo the prohibition has entered via custom as part of the laws of war.)

12.7mm AP ammo causes excessive suffering because..? Yup, it's excessive, inefficient and wasteful to pepper grunts with a light-weight AP/AA gun as 7.62 can do the same job better most of the time. But excessive suffering..? You get killed more dead from 12.7mm or something? If anything you're less likely to suffer for long time unlike, say, after getting hit by a 5.56mm ..

[Sergei]

Actually I was trying to say that in military 99% of time is mandatorily spent on whining, moaning, grunting, grumbling, complaining, griping, muttering and growling about everything. Soldiers saying they can manage with the piece of equipment they have therefore means that it's the best thing ever invented.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by James Bailey:

If anyone wants to read one of the key AGAINST aarguments, it is here:

O'Reilly Piece

The irony in this piece is that his key argument AGAINST the Stryker - namely that it puts US servicemen's lives at risk - turned out to be one of the biggest arguement FOR the Stryker.

Good illustration of how the theoretical analysis can fail to hold up in real world.

Why would anyone listen to O'Reilly anyways?

[molotov_billy]

So one thing I'm confused about in that article - it describes the LAV III as being of "limited operational capability" - does anyone know to what they're referring to?

[Philistine]

Originally posted by average:

Getting off topic briefly:-

AP-I rounds are certainly not lawfully used against infantry. Same for HEI-T.

Slap and ball are good to go though, although sooner or later someone will take the point as a mater of customary international law its considered poor form to use 12.7mm stuff against people (ie the US Military considers it causes excessive suffering,as does the ADF and some other western militaries, ergo the prohibition has entered via custom as part of the laws of war.)

{snip}

From the JAG Law of War Workshop Deskbook (Ch. 7, Sec. 4©) explains:

Chapter 7

Methods and Means of Warfare

Small Arms Projectiles. Must not be exploding or expanding projectiles. The Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 prohibits exploding rounds of less than 400 grams (14 ounces). Prohibited by late 19th century treaties (of which U.S. was never a party). U.S. practice, however, accedes to this prohibition as being customary international law. State practice is to use jacketed small arms ammunition (which reduces bullet expansion on impact).

1. Hollow point ammunition. Typically, this is semi-jacketed ammunition that is designed to expand dramatically upon impact. This ammunition is prohibited for use in armed conflict by customary international and the treaties mentioned above. There are situations, however, where use of this ammunition is lawful because its use will significantly reduce collateral damage to noncombatants and protected property (hostage rescue, aircraft security).

2. High Velocity Small Caliber Arms

a. Early controversy about M-16 causing unnecessary suffering.

b. “Matchking” ammunition. Has a hollow tip--but is not expansive on impact. Tip is designed to enhance accuracy only and does not cause

unnecessary suffering.

3. Sniper rifles, .50 caliber machine guns, and shotguns. Much “mythology” exists about the lawfulness of these weapon systems. Bottom line: they are lawful weapons, although rules of engagement (policy and tactics) may limit their use.

(My emphasis).

--Philistine

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

However, I was specifically referring to soldiers that had experience with both Bradleys and Strykers (StrykerPSG is one of those) or those who started out predisposed to hating them and then changed their minds after seeing them in person (Blackhorse is one such example here). These are people that have the benefit of first hand compare/contrast to draw upon. JasonC, on the other hand, has no experience with either system as far as I know, neither here at the safety of home or abroad in a war zone.

To be fair, as I understand it, Jason's issue with the Stryker would be more reasonably described as:

* rejecting the method by which it was chosen

* rejecting the compromises necessary to get it in place.

* rejecting the doctrinal assumptions by which it was deemed necessary.

If the US Army had simply taken the LAV25 the USMC uses, or used the LAV-III, bolted on a bit more commo kit and a few more sensors, then doctrinally slotted it in mid-way between the foot/HMMWV crowd and the Bradleys he'd have been happy. Well, happy-ish.

Instead the US Army invented a fantasy scenario in which a neutered - but very expensive - LAV would be the bees knees. There is a definte role for medium forces, but the reasoning that came up with the SBCT isn't it.

That the SBCTs have ended up being useful anyway is somewhat beside the point. As I said earlier, it surprises me not a jot that the SBCTs have been doing well in Iraq and in training, but that is for reasons completely unrelated to to why the Stryker (ie, an ultra expensive LAV with an HMG for MA, as opposed to some other LAV variant, or some other vehicle) was chosen and fielded.

Soldiers will make the kit they have work, or literally die trying. It's what they do. But would different reasoning and more honest decision making in the late 90's have provided them with a vehicle for the medium role that was both better and cheaper, albeit at the cost of the fantasy elements?

I think it's hard to see how it could have done anything else.

Regards

JonS

[ August 08, 2007, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Thanks Philistine.

Originally posted by Philistine:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Chapter 7

Methods and Means of Warfare

{snip}

b. “Matchking” ammunition. Has a hollow tip--but is not expansive on impact. Tip is designed to enhance accuracy only and does not cause

unnecessary suffering.

</font>

[Bradley Dick]

"The only time you should start worrying about a soldier is when he stops bitching."

True Fact. Soldiers pass the time badmouthing superiors, complaining about the situation, or lamenting equipment. It's what we do. Hell, what else is there to talk about ? When you've spent a year sleeping a foot away from someone, you've heard ALL their stories. ALL of them. And there aren't any NEW stories, because you're right next to them.

No weapon system is perfect and nobody will ever be happy with what they've got. Human nature.

[Bastables]

Hell even I'm still here, after a fashion.

[JonS]

Bas! I'm going to be there in late September. Are you free for a beer on the night of the 26th or 27th Sept?

[Bastables]

Yeah sweet as I'll pay this time. Vet affairs have given me a full Pension as of 04 of this month so drinks are on me.

[Feltan]

Perspective.

I think there is a logical fallacy comparing the Stryker to a Bradley. It wasn't intended, and can't, really compare on many levels.

Rather, I think a Stryker comparison needs to be made against .... a truck. For God knows that if there was a need for motorized/medium forces, our boys would be in the back of 5-tons if they didn't have Strykers. And while expensive, I'd rather be in a Stryker than a truck any day.

I wonder if some of our Vietnam vets can comment here. I have heard tons of stories of guys in deuce-and-a-halfs with sandbagged floors and sides tooling around the Vietnamese countryside when M113's were not available, authorized or practicle in a given terrain.

New motto to stop silly arguments: A Stryker is better than a truck!

Regards,

Feltan

[JonS]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Vet affairs have given me a full Pension

Huzzah! That's great news, congratulations

I'll be in touch closer to the time. Still the same mobile number?

[Battlefront.com]

Bastables,

How the heck, after all these years, did I miss the fact that you are a Kiwi? I thought I ID'd you all in various brawls with nasty Aussies and Pommies over the years Congrats on the Pension. They pay you in beer and mutton, don't they?

Steve