Jump to content

Recent Stryker losses


Recommended Posts

bartleby,

This describes a special purpose version of the basic concept I described. Sorry, no online readable version.

www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/jf99/1tan99.pdf

Merkava based heavy APC

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Merkava

BTR-T, Black Eagle & former FST

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/1966/vehicles.htm

Heavy APC threads mit pics

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread206596/pg3

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3101927042/m/5071907726/p/5/xsl/print_topic

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe I used to be in 2/9 inf. That was before Iraq though. Assume the Manchu Position! ;)

Back on topic, I really tire of talk about equipment, equipment, equipment from the "think-too-much-tanks" and the Senate. It's not all about the equipment, there's something to be said about how those assets are employed. That is where success, or at least the fewest casualties lies.

Actually, now that I think about it, let the Senate debate the equipment and haggle with their lobbyists. I don't want them trying to tell troops how to operate. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Cairns,

From what I've read, some of the IEDs can do that to an Abrams! Would rate that Bradley as 100% NMC. Sad about the men, but having seen how incredibly packed the inside of a Bradley is, and all the nasty hard bits to bang into, am not surprised that the combination of shattering blast and a fearsome upending would wreak havoc on the occupants.

Normal Dude,

Excellent point! All the high tech in the world, if used incorrectly and/or in the wrong place and time won't buy you anything, save maybe a body bag!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sargon70,

Especially when the improvization consists, say, of stacking two Soviet era TM-65 antitank mines atop each other. I suspect that the term IED, though, allows the Pentagon to not have to admit that proper mines are being used against U.S. forces. IED is positively neutral sounding compared to admitting an ex-Soviet (or whomever) mine blew one of our AFVs apart. Makes the opposition seem less organized militarily, making it easier to keep the war sold, at least for a time.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...