RE: Starting to build a tank [TANKS]

["jon s kowitz" <jonskowitz-at-hotmail.com>]

  We've been in these kinds of actions around the globe for more than a 
decade.  Ever since the end of the Reagan era the military has been in need 
of a "heavy urban vehicle" and hardly anyone has put two bolts together to 
make one.  So you're telling me that in the intervening 15 years no one has 
thought to construct any kind of armored car specifically for urban patrols 
because there hasn't been enough time?  Heck, the invasion of Iraq was in 
planning for two years (whether we had heard of it or not), you're telling 
me there wasn't time to accelerate developement on existing projects?

  We soldiers have been stuck with two choices in urban patrols, the HMMWV 
and the HMMWV with kevlar applique armor.  Let me tell you, we found neither 
to work all that well.  Hell, I think I would've settled for a few 
"Peacemakers" over the crap we were forced to use.  I'm just thankful that 
my company deployed with their tanks!

>Well, Stryker has been in development for the last 5 years or so.  AFV 
>development isn't "weld iron plate onto a car chassis" like it was back in 
>the day, any more than car design is "bolt the components and body to a 
>frame".  Everything interacts with everything else, and a successful design 
>balances those interactions.  Anybody could throw armor onto a frame and 
>call it an armored car.  Designing a _successful_ car is far more 
>complicated.
>
>I have my own problems with some of the US government's decisions, but I 
>don't agree that not having an armored car in production is one of them. 
>But, this list isn't about politics, so I'm not going to go into it any 
>more than this.
>
>
>-Bill Hamilton