|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
 
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
Here is one stuck in the mud: 
Here one that has burned to the ground: 
Another Stryker on fire: 
Another burnt out Stryker: 
Another burning Stryker: 
Stryker trapped in alley: 
Stryker tire change (tires are $1000 a piece): 
Tires on fire: 
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
And the Army wants 6 Brigades of these Turkeys. I do have some good news though........... I just saved $500 on my car insurance from Geico.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Today @ 3:25 PM
Posts: 5,623,
Visits: 3,848
|
|
Let's see, I am realy trying to put a positive spin on this.
I can not say I have never seen an M-113 stuck, but that was usualy because someone tried to ford some water obastacle at a high rate of sped and not taking into account the width of the water was just enough to wedge the vehicle between banks.
I have never been in a position that was to tight for me to turn around wether pivot steering or just throwing it in reverse and making a sharp turn around.
The addition of armour on the 113 is easier, takes less time and you do not need to add cages on the outside.
The M113 can be easily modified to handle all sort of weaponry and turrets.
Breaking Track sucks, changing and Idler Wheel sucks, maintainence is otherwise basic check the fluids, track tension and grease the damned thing.
I have driven the M-113, M-901 ITV, M-577(?) Command Track, lived in them for weeks. I have seen the modifications done on them that are more impressive than the Stryker and for the life of me I will never understand why the Army chose to produce it.
I can not for the life of me understand with all the issues regarding it not being able to do as promised why they will produce and field more of them. When they have a proven platform already in the inventory that needs only minor alterations compared to producing an entirely new vehicle.
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 5/3/2008 12:51 AM
Posts: 1,551,
Visits: 235
|
|
Ok we all know that the Stryker is a POS, we all believe that it could cost American lives and be far more expensive than a revamped M113... So now lets stop bitching about it and do something. How about we write a letter to the pentagon, signed with all of our names, former ranks, and former units, and try to get someone to listen to us about it? I am sure we can do a little research and find out some names of top generals who might be in charge of this program. Lets send them a fucking certified letter: return receipt requested to make sure that they get it. We could also draft a letter and send it to most news agencies. If we get enough names on this list and bark loudly enough about it, perhaps...just maybe...someone will listen...even if the attempt fails...it is our duty to try it... Agreed?
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 2/14/2008 2:14 PM
Posts: 369,
Visits: 48
|
|
"I have driven the M-113, M-901 ITV" The ITV was good for learning to be Patient.....
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
| Pete, you're about two years too late. We (Pnet members) wrote the members of the Senate and House Arms committees that would be making the decision to buy this turkey about two years ago. That's the best chance we had. Writing the pentagon will do nothing. They are not elected to their office and hence don't give a flying fvck about what you or I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Today @ 3:25 PM
Posts: 5,623,
Visits: 3,848
|
|
The only problems I ever had with the 901 were the Turret. It was slow to get up into firing position and to stow. God forbid you lose hydraulics, be pumping on that auxillery forever. Also did not like the way you had to load it either.
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 5/3/2008 12:51 AM
Posts: 1,551,
Visits: 235
|
|
John, Wow! Ok I am impressed that you guys did that. With all this bad press it is getting perhaps we can try again? John Warner (R) is the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Why dont we draft a letter which shows those pictures you have John, with all of the quotes about its failure to be air droppable, and hell its failure to be even air transportable in a C-130. We can also show some of those M-113 alternatives that were posted in another thread. Perhaps we have a better shot with all of this attention. If we can prevent this thing from being anymore deployed than it is and get to work on a real vehicle, we will have done the troops a great service.
|
|
| |