I just gave an one hour speech on short notice yesterday. Due to lack of preparation it wasn't quite as smooth as I had hoped, but here is the video.
http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/lockerroom.html?id=19824 (http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/lockerroom.html?id=19824)
Lookin good killer.
good for you.
you're a little nervous, which is a positive, but slow down a little bit in your delivery..
I only watched the first 30 secs, sound was kinda choppy.
Funny though, I thought you'd have a lower-pitched voice.
Kevin
PS: BTW, it's pronounced Napoleon, not Naplyon :lmfao:
PPS: not talking about the quality of relevance of you speach, as I didn't listen to it
What's the plugin needed?
Quicktime. :thumbsdown:
I will never again let that pestilence plague my machine.
Can't watch it either. The Dems would have used Youtube.
You have a strange accent.
Isn't he German (as in, lived in Germany)?
I thought he sounded Scottish...or something :unsure:
People always have a problem figuring out my accent.
Unfortunately, I sound somewhat like janosh from Ghostbusters 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt1pSP61yy4&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt1pSP61yy4&NR=1)
Quote from: Caliga on April 28, 2009, 09:35:12 AM
Isn't he German (as in, lived in Germany)?
Doesn't sound like a German accent though.
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 28, 2009, 10:14:06 AMDoesn't sound like a German accent though.
Is there a "German accent"? I thought Germany had a number of regional accents.
Quote from: Caliga on April 28, 2009, 10:17:59 AMIs there a "German accent"? I thought Germany had a number of regional accents.
I meant the accent that a lot of Germans (me included) have when speaking English. That's fairly distinct.
Interesting stuff in that talk. Some of it we've heard before. I'm surprised, a bit concerned, at the hide bound mentality of the Military command to resist change in Iraq, even as it probably should have seen what was being done wrongly. Top Brass even resisted General Petraeus' ideas, saying we should leave, can't get the job done? I figured that the military was changing, or would change, to adapt to conditions in Iraq, or anywhere for that matter. Amazing that after so many years, hundreds of years of history of armies fighting the last war, that the US Army still fell into the same trap in Iraq. Especially after seeing the effectiveness of a small number of special forces troops in Afghanistan just shortly before. Now the Army is hugely supportive of spec forces, finally I guess.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 10:12:53 AM
Unfortunately, I sound somewhat like janosh from Ghostbusters 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt1pSP61yy4&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt1pSP61yy4&NR=1)
:lol:
Sadly I can't watch the speech. Is it available in a different format?
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 28, 2009, 11:49:06 AM
Sadly I can't watch the speech. Is it available in a different format?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KgJQUXr2Ws
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2009, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 28, 2009, 11:49:06 AM
Sadly I can't watch the speech. Is it available in a different format?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KgJQUXr2Ws
:lmfao:
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 28, 2009, 10:14:06 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 28, 2009, 09:35:12 AM
Isn't he German (as in, lived in Germany)?
Doesn't sound like a German accent though.
It does remind me a bit of the English of some of the German colleauges I talk to on the phone, though.
Sounds Germanish to me too.
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2009, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 28, 2009, 11:49:06 AM
Sadly I can't watch the speech. Is it available in a different format?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KgJQUXr2Ws
:lol: :Embarrass:
Doesn't sound like a 'murrican... I'm suspicious.. BTW wtf is Army Psyops doing at the John Locke foundation? Is it a front?
Quote from: Viking on April 28, 2009, 03:48:38 PM
Doesn't sound like a 'murrican... I'm suspicious.. BTW wtf is Army Psyops doing at the John Locke foundation? Is it a front?
I used to work there.
I love the suit.
Ok Hans, spill the beans. Where is your accent from?
By the way, I relate to you. I have a foreign accent and it have made my carrer in the US Army that much harder.
I don't agree that the army had changed little between 1941 and 2001.
The 7-8 didn't even exist in 1941.
Ok, Hans, you got me.
What's your first language?
I agree with 1991 and "Not improving upon a success".
Quote from: Habbaku on April 28, 2009, 10:34:48 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2009, 10:33:41 PM
What's your first language?
:huh:
It certainly ain't english.
Believe me, I have a foreign accent, and I can recognize one.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2009, 10:33:41 PM
Ok, Hans, you got me.
What's your first language?
I think he was born in Germany.
I really enjoyed that. Thanks. :)
Quote from: Habbaku on April 28, 2009, 10:34:48 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2009, 10:33:41 PM
What's your first language?
:huh:
his obvious difficulty with vowels, prepositions and other grammatical issues don't impress you?
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2009, 12:28:41 AM
his obvious difficulty with vowels, prepositions and other grammatical issues don't impress you?
Apparently it is not common knowledge that Hans is Germanic and speaks it. The years of Yi making light of it and Hans mentioning it still hasn't sunk in, I suppose.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2009, 10:25:31 PM
I love the suit.
Ok Hans, spill the beans. Where is your accent from?
German-- he's stated several times that he was born in Germany & his mother (?) was German.
Having a foreign accent actually seems to help when it comes to think-tanks-- at least the conservative or libertarian ones. Seems like most of the dudes on the Cato podcast have furren accents.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2009, 12:33:45 AM
Apparently it is not common knowledge that Hans is Germanic and speaks it. The years of Yi making light of it and Hans mentioning it still hasn't sunk in, I suppose.
Or people might not care to pay attention. I don't follow Hans's life.
OMG now I will hear all Hans's posts as if read in my head by a fat guy with a nervous, girly voice. Talk about ruining Languish. :mad:
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2009, 12:43:14 AM
Or people might not care to pay attention. I don't follow Hans's life.
I'll remember that next time you give Tim shit for not knowing your first name.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2009, 12:45:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2009, 12:43:14 AM
Or people might not care to pay attention. I don't follow Hans's life.
I'll remember that next time you give Tim shit for not knowing your first name.
Isn't his first name garbon? It's easy to remember since it's next to his posts. :)
Quote from: Martinus on April 29, 2009, 12:43:57 AM
OMG now I will hear all Hans's posts as if read in my head by a fat guy with a nervous, girly voice. Talk about ruining Languish. :mad:
Substitute Dick Cheney's voice. That should work.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2009, 12:45:51 AM
I'll remember that next time you give Tim shit for not knowing your first name.
Be my guest. :)
Thankfully, my name doesn't come up all that often.
Quote from: Martinus on April 29, 2009, 12:46:42 AM
Isn't his first name garbon? It's easy to remember since it's next to his posts. :)
Just cuz I didn't accept your friend request. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 29, 2009, 12:47:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 29, 2009, 12:43:57 AM
OMG now I will hear all Hans's posts as if read in my head by a fat guy with a nervous, girly voice. Talk about ruining Languish. :mad:
Substitute Dick Cheney's voice. That should work.
It won't be the same. Once I hear their real voice, the magic of substitution is gone. It would be the same if, say, I heard CdM talking and found out he doesn't really sound like Duffy Duck.
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2009, 12:50:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 29, 2009, 12:46:42 AM
Isn't his first name garbon? It's easy to remember since it's next to his posts. :)
Just cuz I didn't accept your friend request. :P
You accepted it, but then you didn't the second time, after I de-friended you.
Quote from: Martinus on April 29, 2009, 12:51:20 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 29, 2009, 12:47:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 29, 2009, 12:43:57 AM
OMG now I will hear all Hans's posts as if read in my head by a fat guy with a nervous, girly voice. Talk about ruining Languish. :mad:
Substitute Dick Cheney's voice. That should work.
It won't be the same. Once I hear their real voice, the magic of substitution is gone. It would be the same if, say, I heard CdM talking and found out he doesn't really sound like Duffy Duck.
I've heard CdM's voice. It doesn't sound anything like daffy duck.
Of course I've also heard your voice... :shifty:
Quote from: Martinus on April 29, 2009, 12:52:01 AM
You accepted it, but then you didn't the second time, after I de-friended you.
That would be the long version, yes. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2009, 12:52:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 29, 2009, 12:51:20 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 29, 2009, 12:47:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 29, 2009, 12:43:57 AM
OMG now I will hear all Hans's posts as if read in my head by a fat guy with a nervous, girly voice. Talk about ruining Languish. :mad:
Substitute Dick Cheney's voice. That should work.
It won't be the same. Once I hear their real voice, the magic of substitution is gone. It would be the same if, say, I heard CdM talking and found out he doesn't really sound like Duffy Duck.
I've heard CdM's voice. It doesn't sound anything like daffy duck.
Of course I've also heard your voice... :shifty:
I was told I sound like Ahnuld. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 29, 2009, 12:54:44 AM
I was told I sound like Ahnuld. :P
And you took that as a good thing? :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2009, 12:52:37 AM
I've heard CdM's voice. It doesn't sound anything like daffy duck.
True. I'd say it's closer to Tony Soprano. If he was Irish.
Can you post the text?
Quote from: Phillip V on April 29, 2009, 01:22:53 AM
Can you post the text?
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=60;sa=showPosts
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 06:46:18 AM
I just gave an one hour speech on short notice yesterday. Due to lack of preparation it wasn't quite as smooth as I had hoped, but here is the video.
http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/lockerroom.html?id=19824 (http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/lockerroom.html?id=19824)
You look like a Republican
Too much Air Force bashing. :thumbsdown: :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 29, 2009, 12:54:44 AMI was told I sound like Ahnuld. :P
You do? :huh:
Kevin
Quote from: Phillip V on April 29, 2009, 01:22:53 AM
Can you post the text?
Yeah, is there a text version of Hans' speech?
Sadly, no.
The whole thing was a little too rushed for my taste. It was a last minute invitation and I had been kicking some things around in my head with not nearly enough time to organize it well. I had far too much information to fit into the alloted time and had to leave far too much out of it and several points were severely shortened or dropped in its entirety. Particularly, i wanted to talk about the broken procurement system and the new BfSB.
You look good. :) For a Republican, that is. :D
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 29, 2009, 11:30:15 PM
Sadly, no.
The whole thing was a little too rushed for my taste. It was a last minute invitation and I had been kicking some things around in my head with not nearly enough time to organize it well. I had far too much information to fit into the alloted time and had to leave far too much out of it and several points were severely shortened or dropped in its entirety. Particularly, i wanted to talk about the broken procurement system and the new BfSB.
What kind of audience did you deliver the speech to? Old guys, college Republicans, or what?
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2009, 06:56:48 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 29, 2009, 11:30:15 PM
Sadly, no.
The whole thing was a little too rushed for my taste. It was a last minute invitation and I had been kicking some things around in my head with not nearly enough time to organize it well. I had far too much information to fit into the alloted time and had to leave far too much out of it and several points were severely shortened or dropped in its entirety. Particularly, i wanted to talk about the broken procurement system and the new BfSB.
What kind of audience did you deliver the speech to? Old guys, college Republicans, or what?
A mostly older audience. Some members of the state legislature, some judges, several university professors, some political lobbyists, and a couple of retired people.
Quote from: Viking on April 28, 2009, 03:48:38 PM
Doesn't sound like a 'murrican... I'm suspicious.. BTW wtf is Army Psyops doing at the John Locke foundation? Is it a front?
Yes. A front of wisdom. -_-
Damn Hans. All you need is a Nazi uniform and we'd get this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-6H4xOUrs
You should see a doctor to work on your speech impediment though, bro.
Quote from: Fireblade on April 30, 2009, 08:38:44 PM
Damn Hans. All you need is a Nazi uniform and we'd get this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-6H4xOUrs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-6H4xOUrs)
You should see a doctor to work on your speech impediment though, bro.
Hey, not everybody had the head-start of being born in America.
We got the lives we got issued when we were born, and have to do the best we can with it.
What have you done with your life? Have you made a diference?
Quote from: Siege on April 30, 2009, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on April 30, 2009, 08:38:44 PM
Damn Hans. All you need is a Nazi uniform and we'd get this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-6H4xOUrs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-6H4xOUrs)
You should see a doctor to work on your speech impediment though, bro.
Hey, not everybody had the head-start of being born in America.
We got the lives we got issued when we were born, and have to do the best we can with it.
What have you done with your life? Have you made a diference?
He did manage to get fired from a pet store, so his life hasn't been a complete waste of time.
Btw, I was born in the US, up in Bangor, ME, I just didn't grow up here.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 29, 2009, 11:30:15 PM
Sadly, no.
The whole thing was a little too rushed for my taste. It was a last minute invitation and I had been kicking some things around in my head with not nearly enough time to organize it well. I had far too much information to fit into the alloted time and had to leave far too much out of it and several points were severely shortened or dropped in its entirety. Particularly, i wanted to talk about the broken procurement system and the new BfSB.
About the procurement system, do you have an opinion about the M110 SAS?
It seems rushed to me. They had to change the trigger assembly, and the suppressor have a life about 20% shorter than the FM says.
I still have to make my mind whether I prefer the M110 or an M14 NM (National Match).
Also, the FCS.
I mean, come on.
Strykers are great for counter-insurgency campaigns, but I wouldn't like to ride in an Stryker against a real APC.
The 25 mike-mike in a Bradley would cut an stryker to pieces, despite the Bradley having less survivility against IEDs.
Both Strykers and Bradleys need to be replaced by a real 21st century APC.
Why not have two vehicles for the two different tasks?
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2009, 10:37:23 PM
Why not have two vehicles for the two different tasks?
That's kinda what they have.
QuoteAbout the procurement system, do you have an opinion about the M110 SAS?
It seems rushed to me. They had to change the trigger assembly, and the suppressor have a life about 20% shorter than the FM says.
I still have to make my mind whether I prefer the M110 or an M14 NM (National Match).
Also, the FCS.
I mean, come on.
Strykers are great for counter-insurgency campaigns, but I wouldn't like to ride in an Stryker against a real APC.
The 25 mike-mike in a Bradley would cut an stryker to pieces, despite the Bradley having less survivility against IEDs.
Both Strykers and Bradleys need to be replaced by a real 21st century APC.
I don't have an opinion on the M110.
While the M1, M2, and M3 need to be replaced the FCS was the wrong approach. The FCS grew out of the now discredited notion that we could achieve "Total Information Awareness" as the military called it and a small number of lightly armored and networked vehicles could replace all our heavy vehicles. Not only that, but there were only plans for 15 brigades out of 76 to get FCS, leaving the rest either as light infantry or stuck with old equipment. On top of that the cost was spiralling out of control because there was too much of an emphasis on developing new, cutting edge technologies instead of cheaper current technology.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2009, 10:58:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2009, 10:37:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 30, 2009, 09:14:48 PM
Btw, I was born in the US, up in Bangor, ME, I just didn't grow up here.
Bangor?
Might as well be a canadian.
Quote from: katmai on April 30, 2009, 11:39:17 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 30, 2009, 09:14:48 PM
Btw, I was born in the US, up in Bangor, ME, I just didn't grow up here.
Bangor?
Might as well be a canadian.
Hey, don't you dare try to pawn himoff on us :P
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2009, 11:25:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2009, 10:58:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2009, 10:37:23 PM
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.
I'm all you have.
Quote from: katmai on April 30, 2009, 11:39:17 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 30, 2009, 09:14:48 PM
Btw, I was born in the US, up in Bangor, ME, I just didn't grow up here.
Bangor?
Might as well be a canadian.
Can'tadian. :contract:
I have new respect for Hans.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 01, 2009, 08:07:06 AM
I have new respect for Hans.
I'd figure you'd be even more impressed to find out my grandmother was from Quebec.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 01, 2009, 03:49:44 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 01, 2009, 08:07:06 AM
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?
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 30, 2009, 11:14:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2009, 11:25:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2009, 10:58:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2009, 10:37:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Siege on May 01, 2009, 09:18:04 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 30, 2009, 11:14:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 01, 2009, 10:26:24 PM
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.