The Japanese are now in country, and brought a number of nifty light armoured vehicles with them. It'll be interesting to see how they perform, particularly their Type 87 6-wheeler- if they use it.
<
Posted on 01/31/2004 10:23:42 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
Brain fart
Which can take on an equally equipped similar-sized vehicle, which a Stryker can't do. And which can swim, at least in relatively slow-moving rivers, which Stryker can't do.
The good news is, those attributes are likely not needed for the Stryker's current task. What would be useful would be an RPG-proof multiple MG turret. Even the current RWS, fitted with a couple of 7,62 M240s or SAWs [better: four] would do. And if one gun suffers a feed stoppage as a result of the flexibility of the RWS mount, no problem so long as the others work. And fired in pairs, that'd help alleviate the need for the gunner to come out from under armour to reload every 105 rounds, about 10 seconds worth from an M2 .50.
Agreed, no more than the mounting of the M55 .50 multiple gun mount, or the similar twin .50/37mm autocannon Maxon mount in the WWII M20 armored car did.
And just as the Stryker platoon needs to be accompanied by a vehicle capable of long-range engagement of similar hostile vehicles equipped with kornet or khrizantema AT guided missile system [probably a TOW-equipped Bradley] or at least keep the infantry squad's Javelin gunner aboard one vehicle in the team, probably only one Stynker in 4 or one in six should have the quad-gun mount. The rest should carry the 40mm/.50 turret of those Military Police XM1117 ASVs. That'd require less reworking than the fitting of the *bedsprings* anti RPG slat armor did.
The Japanese are now in country, and brought a number of nifty light armoured vehicles with them. It'll be interesting to see how they perform, particularly their Type 87 6-wheeler- if they use it.
<
IMHO, the ASV is a superior vehicle to the M1114 in nearly every application I can think of.
I wonder if we have any Freepers who have experience with both vehicles?
They call it the *Light Armoured Combat Vehicle * apparantly- amazing the Japanese *self defence force* would use a vehicle with the word *combat* in its name. You'll find a profile pic and some tech info *here*. Note a lot of similarities to the French/Chrysler PVP series.
Their 8-wheel wheelie prototype is the *Type 96*; their Humvee versionis the Toyota Mega-Cruiser, and their Jeep/VLTT equivalent is the *Type 73 Pajero.*
I'm not sure about its ability to be sling-loaded and transported via UH60 Blackhawk. I know that's possible with a Tow Hummer if the ammunition load and crew is carried in a second helo, though likely not with an armored Humvee version.
And unlike the now slat-armored, 23-ton Strykers, the ASVs can indeed be transported, with crews and at least some ammo load, aboard USAF C130s. If a lightly armored, well-armed reaction force is called for in Iraq, capable of being moved to a hotspot and landed on a nearby airfield or quarter-mile stretch of straight highway, there are two vehicles very suitable for the task: ASVs and M113A3s
Field expedient fighting vehicles like the Alabama Slammer don't make anybody any money and provide no lucrative career opportunities for retired generals.
Which can take on an equally equipped similar-sized vehicle, which a Stryker can't do. And which can swim, at least in relatively slow-moving rivers, which Stryker can't do.
The good news is, those attributes are likely not needed for the Stryker's current task. What would be useful would be an RPG-proof multiple MG turret. Even the current RWS, fitted with a couple of 7,62 M240s or SAWs [better: four] would do. And if one gun suffers a feed stoppage as a result of the flexibility of the RWS mount, no problem so long as the others work. And fired in pairs, that'd help alleviate the need for the gunner to come out from under armour to reload every 105 rounds, about 10 seconds worth from an M2 .50.
I reckon that they've got the bugs out of the M 85s by now. I seem to remember there was a lot of problems with them in the early 70s.
Question: on your lowboy tractor trailer/old tank combo, is the tank fixed in place on the trailer, or ready to roll off into the battle when attacked?
Didn't the Army do this in the 60s with APCs on 10 ton trucks? I seem to recall that but don't know if they were 59s, 114s or most likely 113s.------------Or else maybe I got too many senile rocks in the ol' pile :}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.