![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Hm.
I don't know much about the Stryker, so I found this link for the ones of us that doesn't understand much about this discussion.. ![]() http://www.army-technology.com/proje...ker/index.html I really like the Remote Weapon Station option.. 8) |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Topic: Sherman 105mm
The Israeli armymodifyed its Shermans to carry 105mm main guns, changed the engines to a much powerfull disel, and put in new fire control....then in 1973 a brigade of Israeli M51s(improoved shermans) beat the heck out of a brigade of Syrian T62s and T55s. Bet you those 105mm guns could take on a King Tiger...
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
I think it should only be used as a transportation vehicle and even then not so much. It's much easier when you don't have middle ground vehicles. Make them either light or heavy. The Stryker stands no chance against a tank and it would only take 8 bullets to turn it into target practice for an artillery battery. I say leave it with the tanks and Humvees. They were doing fine.
|
![]() |
||
|
In the words of several Rangers in the Battle of Mogadishu...
Quote:
|
![]() |
|
|
A stryker's just as bad, it's designed for use in open environments. It's too compact to have much use in an urban environment, not enough directions to fire weapons in. Tanks are lousy in urban environments too. Too easily trapped and disabled by the tight areas, not to mention the contstraints of rules of engagement on their reactive capability. But with the M1 it's not so bad since they're damned near impossible to kill, but that's changing with the rise of new types of anti-tank mines.
Mobility and firepower, a combo which I think is best personified in the hummer. The Stryker's nice in the open, but it's got too many sore spots crunched up in the city. A hummer offers a better view of the situation, not to mention ability to reach out and touch someone. Just my little ditty, I won't know for sure till I actually get into one of those things. |
![]() |