Re: The new US Army APC the "Stinger" (Stryker)

On  8-Jul-02 at 22:00, John Atkinson (johnmatkinson@yahoo.com) wrote:
> 
> --- Scott Siebold <gamers@ameritech.net> wrote:
> 
> BTW, in the future, if you're going to respond to my
> last 2 paragraphs and ignore the first 12 paras, then
> snip what you're not responding to.
> 
> > Lets see, the light divisions were formed as a fast
> > reaction force that 
> > could
> > be transported in about 2/3 of the airlift as the
> > airborne / airmoble 
> > divisions.
> 
> IMHO, light divisions are a symptom of testosterone
> poisoning on the part of infantry officers.
> 
> Light infantry divisions suck ass for anything besides
> jungles and maybe mountains.
> 
> Finally, with the IBCT, there's a prospect of
> motorizing the last of our non-airborne divisions.
> 
> > The only problem was that without APC's the light
> > divisions are not good
> > for mobile war where artillery becomes extremely
> > dangerous.
> 
> They're no good for any kind of conventional war.
> 
> > light division and flesh it out for a mobile war. As
> > a side light the 
> > Tiger brigade
> > (Ft Knox training cadre?) was attached to the
> > Marines to give them more
> > firepower in the Gulf war.
> 
> Guess those LAVs weren't enough.
> 
> > >Blackhawks (You may not have heard of them, I'm not
> > >
> > The only problem with the Blackhawk or the UH-1 is
> > that if you do not 
> > control
> > the air then they get to play a new game "duck or
> > die" 
> 
> Welcome to the United States.
> 
> We own the air over any piece of the planet we choose.
>  Maybe, just maybe if we took on the Israelis we might
> have disputed air superiority until they ran out of
> US-manufactured spares for their F-16s.  No other Air
> Force on the planet is capable of matching quality of
> planes, quantity of planes, and level of pilot
> training.
> 
> (The quote is 
> > from one
> > of my wargame friends who was  flying a recon copter
> > at Fort Sill and I
> > suspect he was at the Gulf war). The estimates I
> > heard at the time was 
> > that Sadam
> > could contest the air over his forces for at least 2
> > to 3 weeks after he 
> > invaded
> > Kuwait.
> 
> Reality check:  Saddamn couldn't contest the air over
> his own country for 6 hours.
> 
> > >sure if they were in inventory by '81.  Replaced
> > >UH-1s).  Since the LAV can't be pushed out the back
> > of
> > >a C-130 with a parachute, the 82nd wouldn't have
> > had
> > >'em.  They aren't anywhere on the list to recieve
> > >
> > So the M551 Sheridan  can be pushed out of a C130. I
> 
> Yes.	They have been and were repeatedly.
> 
> > The armored bn. was supposed to receive the "light
> > tank" but the program
> > went to the same way as the  Army LAV. I guess they
> > solved the problem
> > by removing the armored bn. from the division.
> 
> Actually, the M-8 AGS (NOT a light tank) was cancelled
> to pay for Bosnia because it was ordered by the Pres
> and Congress refused to appropriate to fund it.
> 
> Your point re: 2 LAVs per squad is fine, but the Army
> doesn't have the manning levels to man infantry
> platoons to 100% as it is.  Double the size of
> platoons (3-man crew, 8 vehicles, and 30 dismounts,
> and you're talking over 50 men per platoon) and
> they'll never man them.
> 
> John
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free