Re: DSII/SGII-related question: fighting vehicles

--- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> One has to wonder why we didn't just pick something
> the British were 
> doing. The Saladin/Saracen/Ferret combo was a very
> good extension of 
> the Daimler/Humber Armored car/Scout car
> combinations that carried 
> them through WWII.

NIH Syndrome.  Driving force of all US procurement
problems ever since the French screwed us over during
WWI (foisting all their reject weapons on us. . . )

> Yep, they still use the M113. The ACE ceratinly is
> good for what it 
> does, its size limits its speed in making lanes
> through minefields.

So, tell me, have you even been an ACE crewman?  I
have been.  Furthermore, I'm going to be stuck on an
ACE next month (big company reorganization coming
up!).  I suggest that when I say it's a piece of utter
garbage I know whereof I speak.  It's got insufficient
dirtmoving power and it's completely unreliable.  It
sucks much ass.  It's the only only piece of equipment
in the US Army that can be perfectly fine on Friday
when everyone goes home for the weekend, and then
you've got a 12' oil slick come 0900 Monday morning. 
Give me a decent bulldozer any day.  

Oh, and the ACE doesn't create lanes through
minefields.  It _proofs_ them, which is a different
item altogether.

> Though why they don't order or use the chassis of
> the MLRS based 
> track as a basis for a prime mover for Engineer kit
> and gear is a 
> wonder. 

Cost.

> The new Grizzly Armored Engineering vehicle
> looks to be 
> interesting. Finally a (US) system that lets an
> operator perform a 
> deliberate breach of a large obstacle like an
> abattis or crib. 
> Something the Germans and the Russians have had for
> a good while now.

Yeah.  If we could afford the verdammt thing.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage