Hah, I was Right: US Army Adopts South African Armored Vehicles for use in Iraq

[tnitsuj]

from defendamerica.mil

I posted a long time ago in a thread about foriegn support of the Iraq operation that we should have gone to the South Africans for armored vehicles as thiers are designed speicifically to counter mines/IEDs/and to operate in urban environments. Interesting to see that they are actually doing it (not that this has anything to do with me other than that I find it interesting)

 

[EXman]

cause they cannot get all the Hummers Armored until July 2005 ish smart move.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from defendamerica.mil

I posted a long time ago in a thread about foriegn support of the Iraq operation that we should have gone to the South Africans for armored vehicles as thiers are designed speicifically to counter mines/IEDs/and to operate in urban environments. Interesting to see that they are actually doing it (not that this has anything to do with me other than that I find it interesting)

This is why the army is getting strykers right now. Granted strykers have to be proven.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from defendamerica.mil

I posted a long time ago in a thread about foriegn support of the Iraq operation that we should have gone to the South Africans for armored vehicles as thiers are designed speicifically to counter mines/IEDs/and to operate in urban environments. Interesting to see that they are actually doing it (not that this has anything to do with me other than that I find it interesting)

This is why the army is getting strykers right now. Granted strykers have to be proven.

Strykers are quite different from the vehicles in question and ther purpose is entirely different.

Thier size makes them somewhat difficult to use in built up areas unlike these vehicles which are esentially purpose built for mine detection and clearence and urban operations with mines/IED/Small Arms and RPG being the primary consideration. Stryker is also not originally designed to survive an RPG, they have had to strap all kinds of crazy stuff to them to protect against that. I think the base weight of a Stryker is something like 19 tons without the added armor/RPG cages. Stryker is a light(er) alternative to heavy armor and IFV's designed more for speed and deployability. It rolls in drops off a bunch of troops and provides some cover. It isn't designed to patrol the streets of a city, and I am not sure that the advanced data link system which seems to be designed more for maneuver warfare than a street fight has any utility in this application.

Time will tell however.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from defendamerica.mil

I posted a long time ago in a thread about foriegn support of the Iraq operation that we should have gone to the South Africans for armored vehicles as thiers are designed speicifically to counter mines/IEDs/and to operate in urban environments. Interesting to see that they are actually doing it (not that this has anything to do with me other than that I find it interesting)

This is why the army is getting strykers right now. Granted strykers have to be proven.

Strykers are quite different from the vehicles in question and ther purpose is entirely different.

Thier size makes them somewhat difficult to use in built up areas unlike these vehicles which are esentially purpose built for mine detection and clearence and urban operations with mines/IED/Small Arms and RPG being the primary consideration. Stryker is also not originally designed to survive an RPG, they have had to strap all kinds of crazy stuff to them to protect against that. I think the base weight of a Stryker is something like 19 tons without the added armor/RPG cages. Stryker is a light(er) alternative to heavy armor and IFV's designed more for speed and deployability. It rolls in drops off a bunch of troops and provides some cover. It isn't designed to patrol the streets of a city, and I am not sure that the advanced data link system which seems to be designed more for maneuver warfare than a street fight has any utility in this application.

Time will tell however.

Yes, but it has far more armor that you can put on a humvee.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from defendamerica.mil

I posted a long time ago in a thread about foriegn support of the Iraq operation that we should have gone to the South Africans for armored vehicles as thiers are designed speicifically to counter mines/IEDs/and to operate in urban environments. Interesting to see that they are actually doing it (not that this has anything to do with me other than that I find it interesting)

This is why the army is getting strykers right now. Granted strykers have to be proven.

Strykers are quite different from the vehicles in question and ther purpose is entirely different.

Thier size makes them somewhat difficult to use in built up areas unlike these vehicles which are esentially purpose built for mine detection and clearence and urban operations with mines/IED/Small Arms and RPG being the primary consideration. Stryker is also not originally designed to survive an RPG, they have had to strap all kinds of crazy stuff to them to protect against that. I think the base weight of a Stryker is something like 19 tons without the added armor/RPG cages. Stryker is a light(er) alternative to heavy armor and IFV's designed more for speed and deployability. It rolls in drops off a bunch of troops and provides some cover. It isn't designed to patrol the streets of a city, and I am not sure that the advanced data link system which seems to be designed more for maneuver warfare than a street fight has any utility in this application.

Time will tell however.

Yes, but it has far more armor that you can put on a humvee.

So does an M1A2, that doesn't mean it is suitable for the task.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from defendamerica.mil

I posted a long time ago in a thread about foriegn support of the Iraq operation that we should have gone to the South Africans for armored vehicles as thiers are designed speicifically to counter mines/IEDs/and to operate in urban environments. Interesting to see that they are actually doing it (not that this has anything to do with me other than that I find it interesting)

This is why the army is getting strykers right now. Granted strykers have to be proven.

Strykers are quite different from the vehicles in question and ther purpose is entirely different.

Thier size makes them somewhat difficult to use in built up areas unlike these vehicles which are esentially purpose built for mine detection and clearence and urban operations with mines/IED/Small Arms and RPG being the primary consideration. Stryker is also not originally designed to survive an RPG, they have had to strap all kinds of crazy stuff to them to protect against that. I think the base weight of a Stryker is something like 19 tons without the added armor/RPG cages. Stryker is a light(er) alternative to heavy armor and IFV's designed more for speed and deployability. It rolls in drops off a bunch of troops and provides some cover. It isn't designed to patrol the streets of a city, and I am not sure that the advanced data link system which seems to be designed more for maneuver warfare than a street fight has any utility in this application.

Time will tell however.

Yes, but it has far more armor that you can put on a humvee.

So does an M1A2, that doesn't mean it is suitable for the task.

That is my point. Decisions have to made about mobility and protection. The stryker sits between a humvee and a light tracked vehicle. It armor was comprimised for mobility.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from defendamerica.mil

I posted a long time ago in a thread about foriegn support of the Iraq operation that we should have gone to the South Africans for armored vehicles as thiers are designed speicifically to counter mines/IEDs/and to operate in urban environments. Interesting to see that they are actually doing it (not that this has anything to do with me other than that I find it interesting)

This is why the army is getting strykers right now. Granted strykers have to be proven.

Strykers are quite different from the vehicles in question and ther purpose is entirely different.

Thier size makes them somewhat difficult to use in built up areas unlike these vehicles which are esentially purpose built for mine detection and clearence and urban operations with mines/IED/Small Arms and RPG being the primary consideration. Stryker is also not originally designed to survive an RPG, they have had to strap all kinds of crazy stuff to them to protect against that. I think the base weight of a Stryker is something like 19 tons without the added armor/RPG cages. Stryker is a light(er) alternative to heavy armor and IFV's designed more for speed and deployability. It rolls in drops off a bunch of troops and provides some cover. It isn't designed to patrol the streets of a city, and I am not sure that the advanced data link system which seems to be designed more for maneuver warfare than a street fight has any utility in this application.

Time will tell however.

Yes, but it has far more armor that you can put on a humvee.

true, but apparently you have to bolt on an extra armor package to make it rpg worthy. its already so big that two can't pass each other on the same road.

 

[0roo0roo]

anyone know what the circles on the windows are?