![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It's also a taller vehicle that is much more difficult to airdrop.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Is it the Center of g or is it because of the height at the door?
__________________
Tis better to do than to do not. Tis better to act than react. Tis better to have a battery of 105's than not. Tis better to see them afor they see you. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The M8 is the perfect weapon for the 82nd and any light infantry forces - gives you a real weapons system that can take on enemy tanks and armored vehicles if need be and light enough to be easily air-dropped - and its a lot more surviveable than a TOW equipped light vehicle or a Stryker
and with the different armor packages you have the ability to tailor the vehicle for the mission |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The quote below is from the following article:
Innovative, Feasible, Formidable: What I saw at AUSA 2015 "The Army, however, is paying attention. At the battalion or brigade level, the service wants to further redress its lack of firepower with not just missiles, but a new light tank, or “mobile protected firepower vehicle”. BAE Systems brought to the show an M8 Buford, the 17-ton air-droppable tank that the Army had ordered in the mid-1990s. A whole battalion were supposed to replace the M551 Sheridan tanks in the 82nd Airborne Division, but only six examples were built before budget priorities and a queasiness about MOOTWA led to the program’s cancellation in 1996. Still, this is no warmed-over concept. With a new engine, the electronics of the CV90 Mark III or the latest Bradley, suspension components from either, BAE's transparent armor, one of those active protection systems, and perhaps the turret from the CV90-105—the vehicle could be more than innovative. It could be formidable."
__________________
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
“mobile protected firepower vehicle”
OMG-WTF! A vehicle that's, wait for it... MOBILE! MOBILE! VEHICLE! A mobile vehicle!? Who woulda thought! It's a vehicle that can actually move!!!!!! ZOMGBBQ!!!!!!! What the hell is it with naming conventions these days when they start to incorporate completely redundant terms into a phrase? Or is it just me overreacting to this stupidity in language? Keep in mind that I am defining the word vehicle as it is typically understood and as it's typically listed in a dictionary, example as follows: - "any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport:" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I also had a classroom instructor at my Truck Driving School who didn't have a CDL and had NEVER driven a big rig. It's hard to take someone seriously who's never done the job. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Also, there is a lot of grumbling going on in the Army right now about the MGS. It seems that they are not too happy with it. But, that could be translated a multitude of ways with even more outcomes.
__________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
It's also a little dicey when you're dropping something that's not much bigger than the rampway door. More space between the cargo and the doorway is better. Murphy's always there, waiting for you.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
![]() |
Tags |
ground vehicles, vehicles |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|