Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al
Thanks- I think... 
Its fairly obvious I think that over the years, from a maintenance viewpoint, that the army of today finds itself in the position the German army of 1944 found itself in: their supply chain was still intact yet they had never ending problems because they focused on have the most cutting edge, untested, most mechanically complex, and worse, the most varied stable of armoured vehicles they could have. Sounds like us and we all know how well it worked out for them: the moment the supply chain had issues they had a near impossible time fielding any large amounts of armour on regular basis. |
The late 80s had the drive to only support a handful of key systems, this is what led to the retirement of the M-110 203mm SP how, the decision to kill the M-8 MGS, the AH-66, etc....
Glad to see that they have made the decision to go with the multiple approaches to solve the same problem!
Quote:
|
And the sad thing is, the Stryker is based off of the LAV-25. Sure, heavily modified, but they are both MOWAG Piranhas built up in Canada eh? And here is the kicker: the Canadians was going to go heavy on the Stryker, until they got to Afghanistan and noted that it wasn't going to fly, so what are they doing? Moving heavy tracked vehicles and looking very hard at a new IFV- the CV90.
|
Don't get me wrong, I do feel there is a place for a medium organization, even a medium wheeled organization. But the army went too far, way too far.
Quote:
|
What's it say for the pentagons pet project when not even a year passed before they found out its no good protection wise, and they invalidated the prime reason they picked it (C130 transportable) by adding more and more armour on the thing?
|
And that means that, once again, the Pentagon has dropped the ball. One would think that our gold and silver plated leadership would realize that their friking games are costing lives!