ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:21 pm

The Army Times is reporting that the Army will go "Back to the Future" and replace the M9, 9mm Baretta pistol with - a .45 Cal. Ain't that special!

It never ceases to amaze me that the Army makes decisions as they did some 20 years ago to use the 9mm Baretta against all recommendations from the field - the Chairwarmers again - and now, having seen it's inadequate performance - go back to a .45 ACP.

Currently, they are accepting proposals from Glock (good call  bigthumbsup  ), Sig and Smith & Wesson. I'm all for the Glock. It will fire anywhere.

Now, that said, watch in about 10 years, when they start to phase out the Stryker for POS that is the Stryker . . . and go back to putting Heavy Armor on the Battlefield. There is NO replacement for a tank . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:27 pm

The decision to retreat from the M-9 is one that should have been made after the 2d Gulf War in 1991. SOF understood the failure rate on the Beretta, which is a fine civilian and police weapon but does not hold up on the desert battlefield nor stop people with a round-nose 9mm bullet, and they demanded a .45 for their weapon.

The Norwegians never left the .45 and merely replaced their 1911s with the GL21.

I wish that the Army would simply go back and order the 1991A1 and be done with it, as it is the simplest and most reliable weapon in the history of military automatics. Probably would not happen, and I'll bet we'll see some variant of the Sig (although I'm surprised not seeing an H&K).
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:33 pm

The Sig would be okay, but I seriously prefer the Glock. Currently own a Glock 22, and a .45 Cal M1911 ACP, my brother has a Glock 21 (which I have fired). I prefer the Glock. The M1911 is - I will admit - a showpiece but I have fired it. The Glock is a simpler weapon, less moving parts, same bullet, easier to maintain, no end cap on the the spring to go off into orbit in the dark, no spring to follow it. Maintenance in the field would be a joy - 4 parts - buffer spring and rod, barrell, upper receiver and lower receiver . . . .

Now . . . where's my tank . . .   

[Edited 2005-06-27 14:33:59]
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:51 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
Now, that said, watch in about 10 years, when they start to phase out the Stryker for POS that is the Stryker . . . and go back to putting Heavy Armor on the Battlefield. There is NO replacement for a tank . . .

Speaking from the logisticians point of view.....

If you want a M-1 on your battlefield you would be well advised to pick that battlefield in advance and preposition assets. The M1 is a M***her F***er to airlift in any quantity. Stryker is much easier..

BTW: To keep this on topic. I qualified on the M9 but didn't really hit much, but then what do most zoomies know about sidearms? The 1911 is a classic though...
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:00 pm

Oh, yeah.....the M-1 point. The M-1A1 is a serious piece of metal, but it does not carry any troops. The Bradley is not much better at taking care of the troopies than the Stryker, and a good solution for urban warfare is still lacking.

That said, if we were not concerned about the infrastructure or civilian population we could probably use tanks to clean out a city after bombing everyone out or into shelter. IT would be rather messy, and counterproductive.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
The Glock is a simpler weapon, less moving parts, same bullet, easier to maintain, no end cap on the the spring to go off into orbit in the dark, no spring to follow it.

True, but the 1911A1/1991A1 would be very easy to maintain and have better accuracy, IMHO. Plus, you miss with the first 8 rounds you can kill the enemy by throwing the weapon at them.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
Currently own a Glock 22, and a .45 Cal M1911 ACP, my brother has a Glock 21 (which I have fired). I prefer the Glock. The M1911 is - I will admit - a showpiece but I have fired it

I own the GL32, and I grok Glock, it is a fine weapon. You are correct that it is an excellent weapon, but I still prefer the 1911A1. Stubbornness.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
Maintenance in the field would be a joy - 4 parts - buffer spring and rod, barrell, upper receiver and lower receiver . . .

OK....you hit me with some serious logic there. Maintenance issues would be simpler and the magazine capacity of the GL21 would be excellent. They could also purchase the smaller versions for MPs and females. You're right, they ought to get the Glock. The Sig would not be a new weapon to the system, though, and the Smith would be American. That said, I'm still surprised they aren't looking at the H&K USP. It's the smaller version of the SOF weapon.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:01 pm

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 3):
If you want a M-1 on your battlefield you would be well advised to pick that battlefield in advance and preposition assets. The M1 is a M***her F***er to airlift in any quantity.

Ah, hell, I know that . . .   . But it'd be an injustice to Tankers everywhere to wish any diff'rent! They call it the King of Battle for a reason.   







[Edited 2005-06-27 15:06:27]
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:21 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 4):
That said, I'm still surprised they aren't looking at the H&K USP.

Army Times article didn't say they weren't looking at H&K. They were not mentioned in the article.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 4):
Plus, you miss with the first 8 rounds you can kill the enemy by throwing the weapon at them.

Military gets HiCap magazines, so you'd have to fire 3-4 more rounds at the bad guys before you had to "chuck for effect" and haul ass.  crazy 

All in all, a good call. Makes me wonder though, just how much $$$ was shoveled to Baretta in this 20 year error in judgement.

Reminds me of the M240 7.62 Machine Gun - Belgian Made, US Design. Exceptionally fine weapon! Very light, easy to maneuver, will NOT stop firing, 9 moving parts, easy to dis/re-assemble. Designed by an American, who tried to sell it to the US Army. Didn't buy it of course. A few years later, with continued unreliability of the M13 7.62 POS, they went shopping. In the interim this American firm sold the weapon design to the Belgians. They in turn sold it to the US Army (and USMC) at quite a healthy profit. Typical.

Still the best 7.62mm I've fired. Sometime later I'll regale you with the story of Brown's Creek Range, Ft. Hood, Texas and a couple hundred 7.62mm tracers . . .  flamed 
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
CaptOveur
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:13 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:39 pm

I am rather fond of the H&K. It is every bit as reliable as a Glock and I do believe the military already has the MK-23 in limited use. I found the MK-23 to be too big for even my hand though... but the USP .45 will probably fit just about anyone nicely.

The Sig would be a good choice too.. Anything but one of those goofy Glocks..
Things were better when it was two guys in a dorm room.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:59 am

Once again I agree with you %100 percent on the glock 21. I own one myself and carry it in the woods for my bear protection here in beautiful southwestern Alaska. I hope the army would go to the g21. As stated before it has 4 main parts and is the simplest pistol around with the most reliability. For me, with the g21, it is light enough to carry without knowing its there, and when it comes out in an emergency I know it will work. Plus the new model like I own already has the accessories rail molded into the reciever. It is the most pleasant 45acp i have ever shot. Match that with Federal's new EFMJ (expanding full metal jacket) rounds and it will be devastating.

As for the Stryker. I have not heard the best of news about it, and I know that a brigade from Alaska is in the process of deploying to the sandbox now and I can only hope thier training and equipment holds up over there and the folks come home safely.

It may have been covered in a previous discussion, but couldnt the same be said for the USN retiring the F-14. If what I have read is correct they are mothballing them which doesnt make much sense to me, why get rid of until a suitable replacement (f-35 JSF) is in service. I have a feeling it will be just a matter of time before they would be reactivated.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:30 am

Berretta makes the 96 version of the M-9 model 92 that is nearly identical but comes in a .40 cal version.
The Berretta much like the M-16 is a fine weapon so long as the user knows how to maintain and operate the equipment. As a former US Marine, we were given adequate instruction into the importance of this motto, where as in the latest Op Iraqi Freedom we saw on numerous occassions that the US Army unfortunately did not do this quite as well, and since then we have heard where the Army will start training all their members to know how to properly maintain and use this weapon and not just those in the combat arms.

Unlike the AK-47, the M-16 is a POS in the sand just as well when the operator doesn't know or remember this and fails to clean it regularly and treat it accordingly. Same goes for the Berretta.

Houston PD was one of the first a few years ago to come out and stipulate that all new officers would be required to use a .40 cal or larger semi-automatic because they determined that a 9mm is just enough stopping power. I laugh my @ss off when I see cop shows, usually older ones, where the cops carry a .38 snub nose, what a waste.

[Edited 2005-06-27 22:31:18]
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:40 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 6):
Military gets HiCap magazines, so you'd have to fire 3-4 more rounds at the bad guys before you had to "chuck for effect" and haul ass.

Army M1911A1s had 7 round magazines. I purchased Wilson mags for my issue weapon when I was the 60 gunner and they had 8 round capacity.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 8):
I own one myself and carry it in the woods for my bear protection here in beautiful southwestern Alaska.

I would seriously recommend looking into the S&W .44mag revolver if you plan to have to shoot a bear. The expanding round in a .45 is pretty good against a human, but the relative lack of velocity would cause a problem because the bear would be merely pissed off by anything that did not cause instant death (i.e. a brainshot). Too much fat and muscle to penetrate. Smith makes a good mountain revolver that you might want to look into.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 8):
but couldnt the same be said for the USN retiring the F-14. If what I have read is correct they are mothballing them which doesnt make much sense to me, why get rid of until a suitable replacement (f-35 JSF) is in service.

Nah, the F/A-18E/F is replacing the F-14s. The TOmcat would probably not be recalled into active service. Too many maintenance issues as well as not enough pilots that would be able to fly the things.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:34 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10):
Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 8):
but couldn't the same be said for the USN retiring the F-14. If what I have read is correct they are mothballing them which doesn't make much sense to me, why get rid of until a suitable replacement (f-35 JSF) is in service.

Nah, the F/A-18E/F is replacing the F-14s. The TOmcat would probably not be recalled into active service. Too many maintenance issues as well as not enough pilots that would be able to fly the things.

The Super Bug is all about politics and keeping Boeing in business.

It's sad when Iran will still be flying F-14's and all our (US) will be in museums because the Hornet Mafia brought politics and greed into the equation.

The Block II F/A-18F's that VFA-103 are currently receiving have AESA APG-79 and the upgraded aft crew station - a mini Strike Eagle if you will. It's a technological hotbed, but those same advancements and money could have been stuffed into the Tomcat and had not Cheney axed the 392 new build Delta Tomcats, there would still have been plently of spares readily available.

The F-14 is the greatest plane that never was - ever since the SECDEF canned the P&W F401 engines for the platform back in 1972 the plane has been had to make due with sub-par parts that the engineers never intended.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:10 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 11):
The F-14 is the greatest plane that never was - ever since the SECDEF canned the P&W F401 engines for the platform back in 1972 the plane has been had to make due with sub-par parts that the engineers never intended

Yeah, and the M-16 would really have been self-cleaning if the Army had not insisted on using the Ball powder they had in stores.

The F-14 was the class of its day in terms of interceptors. There probably will never be another interceptor in its class again, and that includes the Lightning and the F-106. It was designed to protect the fleet against Soviet bomber regiments and long range cruise missile attacks. Its weaponry was state of the art for the 70s, and with the proposed SuperTomcat upgrades of the early 90s it would have been the most powerful interceptor ever.

That said, a P'cola IP told me that there are several things of which you can be sure with a Tomcat. It will have a system or two offline the minute you take off. It will have multiple systems offline by the time you return to the boat. It can drop bombs effectively, and go a long way, but it really requires the full attention of both crew the entire time. When compared with the Rhino (Superhornet, the LSOs and other pilots have evidently named it the Rhino since the F-4 is no longer using that term) it is faster at altitude and carries more weight. Maybe. The Rhino has more computing power and better radar (sees further and processes info much better), it can outmaneuver the Tomcat (perhaps not an unladen C model Hornet, but thats another story) and will be just about as fast down on the deck or loaded up at altitude with ordnance due to its configuration and shape. It also can be counted on for a couple of things. When you take off everything will usually work. When you get back you usually have all systems still on line. And when its time to work on it fewer sailors are required to spend less time aggregate to turn it around and keep it flying.

OK.. I'm a Tomcat enthusiast. I wish they had decided to make the SuperTomcat. I think that it's probably a good thing they did not, though, because the world has changed and the mission for the Tomcat has changed, and the SuperHornet is better able to accomplish that mission.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:00 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 6):
Military gets HiCap magazines, so you'd have to fire 3-4 more rounds at the bad guys before you had to "chuck for effect" and haul ass.

Army M1911A1s had 7 round magazines. I purchased Wilson mags for my issue weapon when I was the 60 gunner and they had 8 round capacity.

Was actually referring to HiCaps for when they get the Glocks  biggrin 

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10):
I would seriously recommend looking into the S&W .44mag revolver if you plan to have to shoot a bear.

I think my Ruger Redhawk will do that . . . but just in case, I keep my shotgun in the camper in the summer.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:50 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
I wish that the Army would simply go back and order the 1991A1 and be done with it

Agreed, but the military has this irrational distrust of anything that isn't a double action these days, which is why the old 1911 is out of the running.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 8):
Once again I agree with you %100 percent on the glock 21. I own one myself and carry it in the woods for my bear protection here in beautiful southwestern Alaska

I can't think of any round designed for semi-auto pistols that I would trust in bear country. Even in wheelguns I wouldn't carry anything smaller then a .44 Mag. I myself have a .45 Colt in a Blackhawk.

BTW:What part of Southwest to you hail from Bristol Bay?

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
Unlike the AK-47, the M-16 is a POS in the sand just as well when the operator doesn't know or remember this and fails to clean it regularly and treat it accordingly

Most of the M-16's issue came from the military switching the powder specs on the ammo. Ed Stoner's name earned it's place along the great weapons designers such as Colt, Browning, Garand, Ruger, Simonov, Kalishnikov and others that I haven't mentioned.

It is interesting to note that when Stoner designed he later AR-18 rifle, he went to an operating system very simular to the SKS/Ak system.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:39 pm

Quote:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5):

Ah, hell, I know that . . . . But it'd be an injustice to Tankers everywhere to wish any diff'rent! They call it the King of Battle for a reason.

Not nit-picking at all, but I think the M1 was named King Of Battle by its crew. In actuality, the Field Artillery Branch is known as, and their motto is, the "King Of Battle". I believe the Army's Armor Branch motto is "Forge The Thunderbolt". Of course, my favorite is Army Aviation's motto of "Above The Best", but I'm a little biased!
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:51 pm

Quoting Echster (Reply 15):
I believe the Army's Armor Branch motto is "Forge The Thunderbolt"

Motto for the US Army Armor Center and Fort Knox. Spent many years at Knox . . . too bad it's in Kentucky  biggrin .

CGs call sign is obviously Thunderbolt 6.

Armor - THE Combat Arm of Decision  bigthumbsup 
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:35 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13):
I think my Ruger Redhawk will do that . . . but just in case, I keep my shotgun in the camper in the summer.

Yeah, any .44mag will suffice. Redhawk is a great revolver. I'd think you keep the shotgun loaded with salt/birdshot/slugs. Scare it away, sting it away, then kill it if you gotta. Plus you'd need to be fast with the pump. Otherwise just load the thing with slugs to stop the bear. Actually, the best idea is to run a very clean camp and try to avoid the damned things.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13):
Was actually referring to HiCaps for when they get the Glocks

Oh. Never mind.  Wink

Quoting L-188 (Reply 14):
I myself have a .45 Colt in a Blackhawk.

I assume you are handloading the things if you plan to use it for bear. Nice choice.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 14):
It is interesting to note that when Stoner designed he later AR-18 rifle, he went to an operating system very simular to the SKS/Ak system.

Made also from lightweight stampings instead of the steel in the AK. Huge weight difference and a serious rattle after the first 200 rounds are put through the thing. Not a huge fan of the AR-18, although SAR did a decent improvement on it.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:53 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
Otherwise just load the thing with slugs to stop the bear.

I carry only Slug . . . never saw a need for buckshot/birdshot. I don't hunt birds, and in the event I need to actually use a shotgun, it's a good bet I'm in the middle of a shit storm and I need to kill something. Best use the big bullets right off.  biggrin 

That said, I'm reasonably proficient at what we call a Select Slug Drill . . . although I prefer to ejection port load rather than magazine load that Remington . . . seems more natural, and less movement with a quicker response time.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:22 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 14):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
Unlike the AK-47, the M-16 is a POS in the sand just as well when the operator doesn't know or remember this and fails to clean it regularly and treat it accordingly

Most of the M-16's issue came from the military switching the powder specs on the ammo.

Perhpaps, but even the current issue will not fire on you if you get the slightest amount of dirt in the chamber - just ask Jessica Lynch.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
That said, a P'cola IP told me that there are several things of which you can be sure with a Tomcat. It will have a system or two offline the minute you take off. It will have multiple systems offline by the time you return to the boat. It can drop bombs effectively, and go a long way, but it really requires the full attention of both crew the entire time

But this comparison is like a Motor Trend article comparing a 1971 Corvette with a small-block 350 L48, not even the solid lifter LT1 let alone the top of the line 425 LS6 454 engine mind you, with say two hundred thousand miles on it and say we're in Russia where that's probably the only place on the planet where small-block Chevy parts are not readily stocked at your local Napa or AutoZone, and then comparing this to a new 2006 Corvette Z06 with 500hp 427 with air conditioning, Bose stereo and CD player, and pretty much everything else all around far superior - and brand spanking new.

Come on now, these are not valid arguments.

The only reason the Super Hornet can perform the mission is because it is stuffed with all the latest high tech goodies the US has to offer. Had all that attention and money went into the Tomcat airframe, and the 400+ airframes produced so as to make ample spares available, we've got a superior platform.

And take a Super Hornet airframe and stuff sh!tty engines from the 1960's in it wiht the latest tech the late 1960's had to offer, and wow suddenly we have a completely different, and far inferior aircraft.

I'm a Tomcat fan but I can accept the F/A-18F in its current Block II and further formats for two reasons: A) because of the high tech it slings and B) because well, it at least keeps a similar canopy line to the F-14 and retains the tandem dual seat team the original Rhino pioneered in Vietnam. Send the F/A-18E's over to replace the elder USAF F-15C's that they won't be able to replace with F-22's due to lack of funds.
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:30 pm

Quote:
Motto for the US Army Armor Center and Fort Knox. Spent many years at Knox . . . too bad it's in Kentucky.

CGs call sign is obviously Thunderbolt 6.

Armor - THE Combat Arm of Decision

Does Armor have a motto? I spent all my time in Aviation units at Corps, Light Divisions or TRADOC.
 
ulfinator
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:35 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:35 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
Now, that said, watch in about 10 years, when they start to phase out the Stryker for POS that is the Stryker . . . and go back to putting Heavy Armor on the Battlefield. There is NO replacement for a tank . . .

I love the Abrahms as well but lets not sell the Stryker short. The tank of course still has its place on the battle field but so does the Stryker.

I was fortunate enough to attend a presentation by LTC William "Buck" James from the Stryker brigade at Fort Lewis, Wa. He has had tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq with the Stryker and loves it. Some of his likes include:

Mobility - Abiltily to move across the country of Iraq in 12 hours and strike. Tank would take at least that long just to get the HETTs in place to move them or take 3-days becuase of the maintance to the tracks and rip up the roads.

Unit Structure - For the first time the Company level commander has his own direct fire support, TOW variant in the interim, and MCS with an 105mm being fielded soon.

Survivability - In one fight his rig took five RPG hits with only minor frag injurys to the individual who had his head out the top. One other Stryker has a hit that sneaked through the slat armor and hit the side, with the second charge injurying an occupant and entering the engine compartment. The vehicle was able to get the injured to a field hospital where they were saved and the vehicle then continued to fight for 12 more hours before being pulled off the line. Also the ability to drive 200 miles on 6 wheels is nice. Try doing that on a tracked vehicle when the track hits a mine or IED.

Another thing that he talked about when asked was that the slat armor wasn't that big of a deal. Took his guys about two days to figure out how to operate with it and that was it.

Anyway I just wanted to make sure that Styker didn't get sold short. It serves it purpose well but isn't meant to be a tank replacement.
 
CaptOveur
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:13 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:05 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18):
I carry only Slug . . . never saw a need for buckshot/birdshot. I don't hunt birds, and in the event I need to actually use a shotgun, it's a good bet I'm in the middle of a shit storm and I need to kill something. Best use the big bullets right off.

Given your past life being spent in tanks I am surprised you don't opt for the sabots.
Things were better when it was two guys in a dorm room.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:01 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 19):
Had all that attention and money went into the Tomcat airframe, and the 400+ airframes produced so as to make ample spares available, we've got a superior platform

And if a frog had wings the French would be justified in serving them at restaurants.

Basically I think we agree, except for the fact that the F/A-18 can turn well inside the TOmcat and has more hardpoints. It is a superior platform due to several things. That said, I'd rather have the 63 Splitwindow with a Hurst 4 speed as long as I did not need it for everyday travel....and as much as I liked my 94 Mustang GT with the brand new liftrod 5 litre and the 1979 Fairmont chassis, it was not up to the new Mustangs put out later as far as fuel economy, power, handling and everything else. A new chassis with room to develop was needed for the airplane.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 19):
Send the F/A-18E's over to replace the elder USAF F-15C's that they won't be able to replace with F-22's due to lack of funds

SHHHHH!!! Don't give 'em any ideas!

Quoting Echster (Reply 20):
Does Armor have a motto? I spent all my time in Aviation units at Corps, Light Divisions or TRADOC.

Yeah....."Clank Clank, I'm a Tank!" Fort Knox official basic tank school motto.

Here's a little factoid for you. Tanker boots have buckles on them for closure...the only arms branch to be authorized so.....


because they can't tie their shoelaces!!!!  Wink
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:51 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 6):
Reminds me of the M240 7.62 Machine Gun - Belgian Made, US Design.

Designed in the 50's, from A to Z all the work of Fabrique Nationale d'Armes de Guerre - Herstal.
The only Statesideness is that the mechanism is derived from the Browning M1918 BAR.
Nobody went around trying to sell a design here...
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:24 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
That said, a P'cola IP told me that there are several things of which you can be sure with a Tomcat. It will have a system or two offline the minute you take off. It will have multiple systems offline by the time you return to the boat. It can drop bombs effectively, and go a long way, but it really requires the full attention of both crew the entire time.

WHAT!!?? They speak ill of my beloved F-14! Off with their heads!!!

Seriously though. The AWG-9 system found on the F-14A/B was a great system, when it worked. I remember the cone heads in my squadron busting their tails to keep the system up and running. They must have been good at it because a RIO who came from another squadron said he was impressed that the systems he was used to seeing inop actually worked. I know another problem the AWG-9 had was with ground clutter. It didn't handle it as well as say the system on the F-18.

What's funny is that the APG-71 system found on the F-14D was a giant leap in reliability over the AWG-9. The problem was that Dick Cheney killed the program even though it was ahead of schedule and under budget. Since only 55 were built what you had then was a problem with spares on the system. What would have been an easy fix on the APG-71 turned into a down system.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:46 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 23):
Quoting Echster (Reply 20):
Does Armor have a motto? I spent all my time in Aviation units at Corps, Light Divisions or TRADOC.

Yeah....."Clank Clank, I'm a Tank!" Fort Knox official basic tank school motto.

Here's a little factoid for you. Tanker boots have buckles on them for closure...the only arms branch to be authorized so.....


because they can't tie their shoelaces!!!!

Just what I expect out of a Snake Eater . . .  wink 

Armor Motto, "Forge the Thunderbolt".

I like my Tanker Boots by the way . . .  biggrin 
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:04 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10):
I would seriously recommend looking into the S&W .44mag revolver if you plan to have to shoot a bear. The expanding round in a .45 is pretty good against a human, but the relative lack of velocity would cause a problem because the bear would be merely pissed off by anything that did not cause instant death (i.e. a brainshot). Too much fat and muscle to penetrate. Smith makes a good mountain revolver that you might want to look into.

I know this is a military forum and all. But the great bear gun debate shows up here as well. In my part of the state, where you see most of the footage of bears chasing salmon comes from, we have some of the biggest and badest bears around.
I have done a ton of research because my life could at some point depend on it. I went with a 45 acp G21 because of the firepower it gives me. I could have 6 shots with a revolver and dread carrying it due to weight. Plus the recoil of firing it, its not so much I am worried about me not shooting it, I have grown up here and have been firing .44 since I was 14. Its the ability to keep my sight picture for follow up shots. The other thing is with my G21 I can shoot 13 and reload another 13 for a total of 26 shots before someone with a .44 wheelgun can shoot and load 12. If I cant bring down a big bruin with 26 shots, well pepper my ass and call me lunch. I train in realistic scenarios often(I was out sunday and shot 150rds). But more than that I am aware of my surroundings in the woods and feel confident I wont be one of the unfortunate lottery winners that have incursions with bears that end in injury to one or the other.
On another note sometimes it doesnt matter and the bears will get ya anyways. There was a couple from Anchorage who were both killed in thier tent in the ANWR section of Alaska who had done everything right, bear wise, food put away, firearm handy, etc. But the bear jumped on thier tent while sleeping and both are unfortunatly not with us. Goes to show, in some places in the vast beauty of Alaska humans are just another part of the food chain.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:14 pm

Quoting Echster (Reply 15):
n actuality, the Field Artillery Branch is known as, and their motto is, the "King Of Battle".

Actually isn't arty the "Queen of Battle"

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 27):
On another note sometimes it doesnt matter and the bears will get ya anyways. There was a couple from Anchorage who were both killed in thier tent in the ANWR section of Alaska who had done everything right, bear wise, food put away, firearm handy, etc. But the bear jumped on thier tent while sleeping and both are unfortunatly not with us. Goes to show, in some places in the vast beauty of Alaska humans are just another part of the food chain.

Yep, Lawyer and his wife.

I do have a Mossberg and a 20 inch slug barrel that I could hang on it that would be a better bear gun then the revolver, especially with those 3" Brenneke Slugs I have for it. But the pistol has it's points too.

Still I would probably be better off still with my M-1. Eight shots per clip.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:33 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 28):
Actually isn't arty the "Queen of Battle

No, thats the Infantry. Don't ask....I don't know.

AS far as the great beargun debate.....ok...with the Smith Mountain gun you would have a lightweight stainless .44mag revolver that weighs no more than a fully loaded GL21. The other thing is that those bears are fast and if you don't really get it the first shot you may not have time for a second one, much less 26 more including reloads.

Your best bet, of course, is to avoid the big smelly bastards, barring that (pun intended), you should make sure that you hit it in a kill spot if you plan on shooting one with a round of sufficient strength to penetrate the fat, muscle and bone it needs to go thru to hit a vital organ. You will not outrun a bear, nor will climbing a tree be much help (although it beats curling up into a ball and hoping the bear loses interest after it shreds your kidneys) and those things can swim, so if you may be facing one, make sure you are prepared.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 28):
I do have a Mossberg and a 20 inch slug barrel that I could hang on it that would be a better bear gun then the revolver, especially with those 3" Brenneke Slugs I have for it.

And if you miss you could use it as a club.....
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:03 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 29):
AS far as the great beargun debate.....

Without a doubt - Claymore on a tripwire!!
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:14 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 30):
Without a doubt - Claymore on a tripwire!!

That's one of the reasons I like you, oldtimer!
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ruger11
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 4:20 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:18 am

heh this is a good thread...

If I had to kill a bear with a pistol, give me this:

a .45 Winchester magnum, with 8 inch barrel!


Back on topic, the M9 and M16 are fine weapons if you know how to take care of them. They are both high maintenence in a dusty environment. However I agree we need a larger caliber weapon as a standard issue sidearm and rifle. 6.5 would be good for a rifle, IMO. I'm impressed with those tests. As far as a pistol... give me a Paraordinance P14 .45 pistol any day. Power extractor, it's got 14 rounds plus one in the chamber, so you don't lose firepower, and it's shooting a .45 versus a 9mm. That's what we need to be issuing.

BTW There is one thing we've done right... issuing the new M1014 benelli 12ga. That shotgun is a beauty... it shoots great, it's silky shooth, easy to clean, lightweight and compact. I love it.
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:20 am

The current M9 is a mega POS. Probably the most uncomfortable weapon I ever shot. I'm not a big fan of the M16/M4 either, they are wonderfuly accurate and easy to shoot, but man, if you get them slightly dusty they quit working. I can't wait until the XM8 is fielded.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:09 am

Wasn't the XM-8 canceled?

Go back to the M1. Simple operation, a shell that properly loaded can punch through body army, and proven in WWII and Korea.

After you shoot that one and my 1903 Springfield you really have to appreciate the guys that had to shoot them in war in basic, heavy, kicking great gun.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 29):
Smith Mountain gun you would have a lightweight stainless .44mag revolver that weighs no more than a fully loaded GL21. The other thing is that those bears are fast and if you don't really get it the first shot you may not have time for a second one, much less 26 more including reloads.

Well that is why you are supposed to make your first shot count. I don't think the difference between 5/6 shots and 10/11/13 shots really matters. Biggest mistake I have seen people buying guns for bear protection is getting barrels that are too long. That is where you loose time during the draw, getting the barrel out of the holster.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 29):
Your best bet, of course, is to avoid the big smelly bastards

Absolutely, stay out of the brush and walk in the open whenever possible. Alders scare the crap out of me in the woods.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:34 pm

The Smith has a 4.5 inch bbl if I remember correctly. Perfect for quick extraction and use. Which is what you'll definitely need if a Grizzly is bearing down on you!
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Back To The Future, Army Times 6/27/05

Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:41 pm

My blackhawk is running a 4.5 barrel to.

Seems to be a pretty good balance between the handiness of the shorter barrel and the velocity increase you get with longer barrels.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bikerthai, withak and 4 guests