Video of yours' truly giving a speech

[Hansmeister]

I have new respect for Hans.

I'd figure you'd be even more impressed to find out my grandmother was from Quebec.

[Viking]

I have new respect for Hans.

I'd figure you'd be even more impressed to find out my grandmother was from Quebec.

So you're telling us your not half american, but actually 1/4?

[Siege]

What the Army needs to do is first build additional stryker brigades, while developing a new heavy family of armored vehicles to replace the heavy brigades.

By adopting a remote turret we could probably field an MBT weighting in at about 35 tons.  We can cannibalize some of the ground work having been done for the FCS (and the Crusader), but instead of pie-in-the-sky tech stick to stuff that is already developed.  Just design the systems to make it easy to swap out components when new technology becomes available.  Our technological edge is already so large that we don't need to spend a fortune to build a super-tank, we only need an incremental improvement upon our already successful (but worn-out) current generation of vehicles.

So basicly, you want us stuck with the strykers. I like them, dont get me wrong. They are the best vehicle I have ever seen for counter-insurgency warfare. The problem is if we ever have to fight an organized enemy.

I know, I know, you gonna say that all the wars we are likely to see in the near future are going to be counter-insurgency campaigns, and I agree. Its just that I don't like the idea of relying on the strykers to be main force of the US Army of the future, like some people think its going to be with the cancellation of the FCS. I want the heavy brigades to stay.

Ok, I agree with you. The strykers are great at what they do and don't need replacement in the foreseeable future. The bradleys, howerver, need an upgrade. They bottoms need to be reshaped and reinforced to deflect IEDs, it needs a rear airguard hatch to cover their six, or better yet, a remote weapon system with thermo imaging in their rear. They also need enlargement pills. Those mothefuckers are too small inside because the turret takes too much space. When a bradley drops its ramp, 3 or 4 guys come out all hooah. That aint gonna cut it in a modern asymetrical campaign. They need to carry a full infantry squad like strykers do.

That's their 3 greatest weakness IMO. And yeah, these weakneses are only relevant in a counter-insurgency campaign, mostly. I believe there is already an upgrade package for the bradleys with FBCB2 and thermo imaging, right?

We got 7 SBCTs right now, counting that National Guard unit. Wasting strykers on the National Guard was a brave idea. We could have 15 without touching the Heavy Brigades. Doesn't matter which way I look at it, bradleys need replacement. And if possible, by a platform that is flexible enough to be used in diferent types of campaigns.

About tanks, I have no idea. M1 Abrams are big, scary and noisy. The enemy can hear them coming 50 miles away. Brutal shock force is great though. Just by their precense the moral of friendly forces rises, and the enemy melts away in despair, waiting for a better oportunity to strike at us.

[Siege]

Why not have two vehicles for the two different tasks?

That's kinda what they have.

I was sort of hoping for a reply from Siegy on why he wants one vehicle for both tasks.

Read my post about the weaknesses of the Bradley (soft bottoms, little troop carrying space and no rear security).

Flexibility is the key word in modern asymetrical warfare.

[Hansmeister]

What the Army needs to do is first build additional stryker brigades, while developing a new heavy family of armored vehicles to replace the heavy brigades.

By adopting a remote turret we could probably field an MBT weighting in at about 35 tons.  We can cannibalize some of the ground work having been done for the FCS (and the Crusader), but instead of pie-in-the-sky tech stick to stuff that is already developed.  Just design the systems to make it easy to swap out components when new technology becomes available.  Our technological edge is already so large that we don't need to spend a fortune to build a super-tank, we only need an incremental improvement upon our already successful (but worn-out) current generation of vehicles.

So basicly, you want us stuck with the strykers. I like them, dont get me wrong. They are the best vehicle I have ever seen for counter-insurgency warfare. The problem is if we ever have to fight an organized enemy.

I know, I know, you gonna say that all the wars we are likely to see in the near future are going to be counter-insurgency campaigns, and I agree. Its just that I don't like the idea of relying on the strykers to be main force of the US Army of the future, like some people think its going to be with the cancellation of the FCS. I want the heavy brigades to stay.

Ok, I agree with you. The strykers are great at what they do and don't need replacement in the foreseeable future. The bradleys, howerver, need an upgrade. They bottoms need to be reshaped and reinforced to deflect IEDs, it needs a rear airguard hatch to cover their six, or better yet, a remote weapon system with thermo imaging in their rear. They also need enlargement pills. Those mothefuckers are too small inside because the turret takes too much space. When a bradley drops its ramp, 3 or 4 guys come out all hooah. That aint gonna cut it in a modern asymetrical campaign. They need to carry a full infantry squad like strykers do.

That's their 3 greatest weakness IMO. And yeah, these weakneses are only relevant in a counter-insurgency campaign, mostly. I believe there is already an upgrade package for the bradleys with FBCB2 and thermo imaging, right?

We got 7 SBCTs right now, counting that National Guard unit. Wasting strykers on the National Guard was a brave idea. We could have 15 without touching the Heavy Brigades. Doesn't matter which way I look at it, bradleys need replacement. And if possible, by a platform that is flexible enough to be used in diferent types of campaigns.

About tanks, I have no idea. M1 Abrams are big, scary and noisy. The enemy can hear them coming 50 miles away. Brutal shock force is great though. Just by their precense the moral of friendly forces rises, and the enemy melts away in despair, waiting for a better oportunity to strike at us.

I completely agree with you.  Convert several light brigades into stryker brigades while developing a new heavy class of armored vehicles for our heavy brigades.  the problem with the FCS was that it was basically a tracked vehicle with only marginally better protection than a stryker.

[Siege]

I completely agree with you.  Convert several light brigades into stryker brigades while developing a new heavy class of armored vehicles for our heavy brigades.  the problem with the FCS was that it was basically a tracked vehicle with only marginally better protection than a stryker.

I think we might be able to keep the M1 Abrams. I mean, I don't know shit about tanks, but they seen to be very capable still. We should keep upgrading them, and replace the ones that have been worn out.

However, we do need a new "Heavy" APC. Capable of keeping up with the Abrams over microterrain, something the strykers cannot do even in their wildest dreams, while carrying a full infantry squad plus crew.