RE: Starting to build a tank [TANKS]

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

  Pardon me?!  Have you ever been in a 70-ton Abrahms?  (Actually, neither 
have I, the M1A1C was "only about 65 tons.)  Have you ever waded through RPG 
fire?  Have you seen the effect a 200-lb roadside bomb has on a 54 ton M-88? 
  Though not pretty it's also no where near as devistating as you're making 
it out to be.  In 7-months of continuous duty we lost two vehicles and no 
personell casualties (one of the two was due to an idiot technitian 
forgetting to hook up a hydraulic hose and burned it to the ground, lol).

  The tanks were supported during that operation to take Bagdad.  Though 
they were the spearhead they didn't do it alone.  For a tank's weapon 
systems to be effective you need a bit of room to work with (about 300m or 
so).  Anything closer than that and target aquisition becomes a problem for 
it's main weapons.  Again, personal experience.

  Politics is at the heart of the lack of an urban vehicle.  Those projects 
were cut not because they weren't needed, but frankly it's harder to excite 
anyone over an armored police car than it is the latest aerospace technology 
or gadgetry.  Face it, tank battalions are sexier than MPs so guess which is 
easier to get senators to support.  I never said we should equip for every 
conflict we might ever fight, I'm saying we should be equipped for the 
conflicts we ARE fighting, and HAVE been fighting.  From "Operation restore 
hope" to the actions in Bosnia we've been involved in "police actions" 
requiring far different training and equipment than we have.  Yet we 
continue to equip and train ourselves as if we're preparing to defend Europe 
from a Russian invasion.

  Insult this old tanker again, go ahead, I dare you  ;) (j/k)

>From: "Bruce Robere" <mi21stinf-at-wideopenwest.com>
>Reply-To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
>To: <tanks-at-rctankcombat.com>
>Subject: RE: Starting to build a tank [TANKS]
>Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:30:56 -0500
>
> >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
>
>
>
>