Most likely. For an example: why were walkers deployed on Hoth?ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Well, they'd have an advantage in certain enviroments, so realistically they'd only be deployed specifically for those enviroments(or situations were a more logical choice of vehicle isn't available).
Yes but what does it offer that an R/C or robotic Gator wouldn't?Monroe wrote:
Considering 10 years ago that was completely science fiction I think its progression nicely.
What are you smoking? Iraqi genocide? Only a .50 cal? In the video it said it could mount different weapons on it. There is a satistical decrease in fatalities when Hummer patrols were replaced by Stryker Brigades. Something like 98% decrease in losses. Its a light armored vehlicle if you're expecting something like a super tank then you're looking at the wrong vehicle for the job.Cpl Kendall wrote:It's good looking and that's about it, the IFSC version has inferior firepower (.50cal only), inferior armour (restricted by the C-130 requirement and has to use a birdcage to defend against a basic RPG), inferior mobility (it's suspension and frame are too light for it's weight) compared to it's contemporaries. If you want to credit the drop in casualties to anything I suggest you use the change in tactics and the Iraqi's genocide.Monroe wrote: These things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JwQBQL4sGY
Completely changed the face of what an IED can do and dropped the death rate considerably.
Don't know what the hell you're talking about. The Stryker is freaking amazing.
Reason the Abrams doesn't have a mechanical loader. If you make things too complex they can break easier.ChakatBlackstar wrote:More advanced isn't always better. Hover-tanks would be a lot more complicated, and probably harder to fix or even jury-rig it. Not to mention they'd drain a lot more energy and would be a lot easier to detect.mlsnoopy wrote:Why should they builed walkers or tracked tanks. With the technology avalible they shouldn't have any problems building a hover-tank.
It can, that doesn't mean anything other than the .50 and 40mm GL versions are deployed. There are major technical challenges to overcome with the 105mm version, least of all the cracking of all the optics and roasting the crew when it fires.Monroe wrote:
What are you smoking? Iraqi genocide? Only a .50 cal? In the video it said it could mount different weapons on it.
Thanks. I never would have thought that replacing a humvee with an armoured vehicle would reduce casualties.There is a satistical decrease in fatalities when Hummer patrols were replaced by Stryker Brigades. Something like 98% decrease in losses.
The point is that is a POS compared to what it's contemporaries are fielding.Its a light armored vehlicle if you're expecting something like a super tank then you're looking at the wrong vehicle for the job.
That's one reason, another is weight, it didn't offer a significant advantage over a 19year old and the extra crewman can help with maintenance and manning a MG.Monroe wrote:
Reason the Abrams doesn't have a mechanical loader. If you make things too complex they can break easier.
Source?Cpl Kendall wrote: It can, that doesn't mean anything other than the .50 and 40mm GL versions are deployed. There are major technical challenges to overcome with the 105mm version, least of all the cracking of all the optics and roasting the crew when it fires.
Judging from your responses I didn't think so.Thanks. I never would have thought that replacing a humvee with an armoured vehicle would reduce casualties.
What, technicals? Do you understand the purpose of the stryker? Its used to support infantry. It is not used for armored tank fighting. It can withstand even the strongest of IEDs and hand operated weapons and can get infantry into areas quickly. I've seen footage of trucks full of explovies crashing into the side of a Stryker and it coming back home with everyone alive if albiet shaken.The point is that is a POS compared to what it's contemporaries are fielding.
I very much doubt that a machine weighs more than guy who can weigh as much as 200 pounds or more by a significant margin. I've seen the machines they are incredibly skeletal and light. Now granted that doesn't mean they are actually light in weight but they are not significantly heavier enough that requiring another warm body would be a must.Cpl Kendall wrote:That's one reason, another is weight, it didn't offer a significant advantage over a 19year old and the extra crewman can help with maintenance and manning a MG.Monroe wrote:
Reason the Abrams doesn't have a mechanical loader. If you make things too complex they can break easier.
I don't quite follow.sunnyside wrote:@Kendall
I thought you'd also agreed to the terrain thing. At least for bipeds in tight spaces. Basiclaly if a tank can travel over it a mech can travel over it. However the opposite is far from true. (especially after that bit of math with the size required for the feet to match the footprint of a tank).
Not quite, the Strykers number 1 design requirement was to be C-130 portable, which required a number of design limitations.As far as the striker. I think you might want it to be something it isn't Rochey. I'm not an expert. But i"m given to understand we didn't build the thing to fight tanks. It's meant to go up against people who don't even have body armor and unarmored cars. They could actually probably get by with a lighter weapon than a .50 but I imagine that helps against sedans and cover so it seems like the right choice.
If it does than why did it need a birdcage?It's just meant to give our guys a better chance when patrolling compared to a Hum Vee. And it does so well.
It has a remote weapons station. Depending on the LAV III varient you can have a 25mm turret ala Canada.Compared to its contemporaries its got an automated gun system. On a LAV III and similar I believe you get to stand up and play with the snipers.
That was one reason, which added up with the others resulted in the US Army deciding they didn't want one.Monroe wrote:
I very much doubt that a machine weighs more than guy who can weigh as much as 200 pounds or more by a significant margin. I've seen the machines they are incredibly skeletal and light. Now granted that doesn't mean they are actually light in weight but they are not significantly heavier enough that requiring another warm body would be a must.
There isn't any terrain a tank can tackle that a walker couldn't also travers. However there are many types of terrain that a walker, espeically one with arms, could get through that would shut down a tank.Cpl Kendall wrote: I don't quite follow.
Nothing wrong with that.Not quite, the Strykers number 1 design requirement was to be C-130 portable, which required a number of design limitations.
If it does than why did it need a birdcage?
Just to be clear you're saying the LAV III doesn't require someone to be exposed to fire the roof .50? It sure doesn't look like it on the models I've seen.It has a remote weapons station. Depending on the LAV III varient you can have a 25mm turret ala Canada.
Closed terrain you mean? I suspect taht would be a death trap for any armoured vehicle, mech or no mech.sunnyside wrote:
There isn't any terrain a tank can tackle that a walker couldn't also travers. However there are many types of terrain that a walker, espeically one with arms, could get through that would shut down a tank.
Yes actually there is, you see they couldn't make it work. And it resulted in the C-130 being able to take one about 100 miles.Nothing wrong with that.
I know that, I never said it had to be an MBT. I said it was inferior to it's contempraries. Canadian LAV III's have taken RPG hits that didn't make it through the armour at all. Without a birdcage.Because it isn't a freaking MBT. A Hum Vee or any other vehicle not having a birdcage doesn't mean it's resistant. In the HV case it means that it wouldn't be resistant even with the cage.
Yes, though it overloads the tires and suspension. Unfortunately the tires aren't solid core.Though I'm given to understand the cage can help a little regardless. So you'd think they'd throw it on here and there.
I'll grant you that, most of it is down to the ridiculous weight restriction.Modern shaped charges are pretty potent things. The ability of simple rolled steel to resist them is pretty unimpressive.
It depends on the model. The Canadian LAV III (infantry and command versions) have a turret quite similiar to the one on the Bradley with a 25mm chain gun. YOu can unbutton to use the roof mg's but you can use the turret (obviously) without exposure.Just to be clear you're saying the LAV III doesn't require someone to be exposed to fire the roof .50? It sure doesn't look like it on the models I've seen.
Well yes.Also on that note. I'm given to understand there are practical and economic concerns involving the .50. Basically ammo for it is relatively cheap, plentiful, and you can carry a lot. Soldiers can just pour it on when threatened.
Ok...Everything I've seen and heard from the Americans is that they go balls to the wall and really don't give two craps about this sort of thing.Apperantly the higher calibre stuff and grenades aren't and commanders would have to justify their use afterwards. Resulting in underutilization.
There's more than one kind of 25mm round, they range from solid steel all the way up to HE.Finally there is the collateral damage issue. An explosive 25mm can travel a loooong way and still take out a bunch of little kids.
Give me a bit, the pc with that one it just got re-imaged. So I have to track down where I got it.Monroe wrote:Sorry but I just don't see your gripe about the Stryker, Kendall. Show me one piece of evidence that its the a horribly designed vehicle.
