RE: Starting to build a tank [TANKS]

["Bruce Robere" <mi21stinf-at-wideopenwest.com>]

>I agree that the best way to get killed is to do nothing, but 
>at least an armored vehicle will survive a simple roadside bomb, 
>something a HMMWV will never do.  

Absolutely not true! Not even a 70 ton Abrams will survive some of the
roadside bombs used in Iraq.

> A main battle tank is a hideously short-sighted beast which is why we 
> need infantry escort in built-up areas.  

It was Abrams armor that took Baghdad in the April 2004 Thunder Run.
http://www.tankmastergunner.com/thunder%20run.htm
But in general, ground pounding infantry in all built-up areas is
recommended. 

As for light armored vehicles (Armored Cars):  
M9 Armored Gun System - Canceled due to funding
Future Scout Vehicle - Canceled due to funding

It's not Army shortsightedness it's funding limitations and political
priorities.  The Army could not afford given the peacetime budget to acquire
all their HMMWVs as the up-armored model. All such decisions are calculated
based or risk. As much as I dislike Rumsfield, he told the truth. Maybe that
was his problem in this case. However, those soldiers going into combat
deserved nothing less than the truth.  

Think of the cost of manning an Army fully trained and equipped to fight
every different type of war imaginable and of course the unimaginable ones
also - since we must be prepared for everything. That empty feeling is your
wallet since the taxes needed for this size army, navy, air force, & marine
corp will require... you get the picture.

Now it's back to building my hideously short-sighted beast.

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com [mailto:tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com] On
Behalf Of jon s kowitz
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:13 AM
To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
Subject: RE: Starting to build a tank [TANKS]

  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