Stryker/C-130 Pics

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Blair Maynard" writes:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"lisieux" wrote in message
om...
"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
"Steyr" wrote in message
...

The Ferret armoured car was clearly the greatest golf buggie ever
invented,
however it was a little too under-armed for use in Florida.

I met a Ferret for the first time in 1973 as I stood sentry at the
entrance to a battery position on a cloudy, moonless night on the edge
of
a forest. The little bugger came out of the woods and was able to get
within less than 10 metres before I could hear it (and what I heard was
mostly the "crunch" of gravel under its tires). Possibly the best
sneak-and-peek recce vehicle ever built.


They are a very cute little vehicle. I have seen them disabled in
ambushes without too much difficulty. Even children can stop them if
they have lots of paint and a few big bricks.

They also tended to stop at Zebra crossings as a matter of routine.

Their drivers tended to be more polite than the Saracen and Humber Pig
drivers. The Saladins were the most fun to attack as they simply drove
through the hail of paint bombs and bricks without stopping to chase
the kids away.

Why on earth would a ferret enter into a zebra crossing, surely it would get
trampled. You know those zebras can get pretty big don't you?

The odd thing about this is that the Ferrets in question are quite a
bit larger than Dingoes.


Daimler LTD, UK, made thousands of them between 1952 to 1971.

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/2cav/oldgear.html

"lisieux" wrote in message
om...

Daimler LTD, UK, made thousands of them between 1952 to 1971.

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/2cav/oldgear.html

Daimler was also the producer of the original Dingo (produced under
license in Canada as Lynx, IIRC).
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message ...
"lisieux" wrote in message
om...

Daimler LTD, UK, made thousands of them between 1952 to 1971.

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/2cav/oldgear.html

Daimler was also the producer of the original Dingo (produced under
license in Canada as Lynx, IIRC).


Smilar concepts I feel, one overly optimistic version of the Dingo had
a (Tetrach) turret with a little 75mm gun.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Speaking of Canada. This is an interesting article on Canada's unwillingness
to spend money on light armored patrol vehicles.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...s1004/BNStory/
National/

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
"lisieux" wrote in message
om...

Daimler LTD, UK, made thousands of them between 1952 to 1971.

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/2cav/oldgear.html

Daimler was also the producer of the original Dingo (produced under
license in Canada as Lynx, IIRC).
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP37g3lBGDfMEdHggEQJSAACgklvYVXCiHLrs3dl6Luo/VqZrXQ0AniE2
wHO2Xx+fhIK8d8Kt0w7AJCsE
=T+yI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In message , Steyr
writes
I spoke to some Brits in North Belfast last year and they told us
that their new
rifle was 'complete crap'. I think they were detached from a field gun
formation, possibbly Royal Artillery. The Welch Fusilers were in the same area.

Spoke to a colour-sergeant from the Royal Irish Rangers a few days ago
and he said the L85A2 was, quote, "****ing fantastic as long as you look
after it". While like any weapon it's less tolerant of neglect than an
AK, it shoots much better and is very reliable with basic (and correct)
care.

He'd been out using it for real, I assume he had some knowledge of the
subject.

I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've
not actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
soldier.

Talk to a few who have used it. It's interesting how the "it's crap and
we hate it" mindset of the early 1990s has changed among soldiers who
have (a) used it on operations, (b) seen other weapons used on
operations.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Blair Maynard wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Speaking of Canada. This is an interesting article on Canada's unwillingness
to spend money on light armored patrol vehicles.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...tory/National/

As a counterpoint, see http://tinyurl.com/ppdc.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So Canada isn't armoring any of their jeeps because doing so would insulate
them from the populace? Interesting idea. Are there studies which have shown
this? Do they also consider the following factors:

1. humvees with armor have windows that roll down,
2. although the vehicles are armored, that doesn't mean the soldiers have to
stay inside and buttoned up all the time. It merely gives them the option to
do so if they are transiting an especially dangerous area and there is
little benefit of passing out candy bars?

That article said that the Ilitis' replacement vehicle would not have made a
difference the crew would still have died. True, but that is a red herring.
Nobody said that the unarmored vehicle replacing the Ilitis (IMHO the
G-Wagen) would have made a difference. The argument is that an armored
vehicle would have saved their lives. A casual reader would come away from
that article thinking that an armored vehicle would have made no difference.
That is trash journalism it is most despicable, throwing red herring
arguments in to distract from the main point.

I would agree about the "peace-keeping" argument in that article. The troops
are not "peace-keeping," they are "policing," which is what Afghanistan
needs. And the Canadian contingent seems to be doing a pretty good job of it
too. Good for them. Casualties will happen in such circumstances, but if
unprofitable risks are avoided, such casualties can be minimized.

All this argument and red herrings detract from the main question:

Were the Canadian troops who died doing something AT THAT TIME which they
couldn't have done just as effectively in an armored Humvee?

Believe what you want, but I doubt it.

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
Blair Maynard wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Speaking of Canada. This is an interesting article on Canada's
unwillingness
to spend money on light armored patrol vehicles.


http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...s1004/BNStory/
National/

As a counterpoint, see http://tinyurl.com/ppdc.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP3+ZEVBGDfMEdHggEQIeQACdFIMnqe7+PB8U7VciaiQ0Hq 1AxqwAnRQS
xsA1UxUQEJ1N/hh7m2bqOY3b
=+BbW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Blair Maynard wrote:

So Canada isn't armoring any of their jeeps because doing so would insulate
them from the populace? Interesting idea. Are there studies which have shown
this? Do they also consider the following factors:

Canada is not armouring its Iltises because they are clapped out and
awaiting replacement.

1. humvees with armor have windows that roll down,
2. although the vehicles are armored, that doesn't mean the soldiers have to
stay inside and buttoned up all the time. It merely gives them the option to
do so if they are transiting an especially dangerous area and there is
little benefit of passing out candy bars?

That article said that the Ilitis' replacement vehicle would not have made a
difference the crew would still have died. True, but that is a red herring.
Nobody said that the unarmored vehicle replacing the Ilitis (IMHO the
G-Wagen) would have made a difference. The argument is that an armored
vehicle would have saved their lives. A casual reader would come away from
that article thinking that an armored vehicle would have made no difference.
That is trash journalism it is most despicable, throwing red herring
arguments in to distract from the main point.

I would agree about the "peace-keeping" argument in that article. The troops
are not "peace-keeping," they are "policing," which is what Afghanistan
needs. And the Canadian contingent seems to be doing a pretty good job of it
too. Good for them. Casualties will happen in such circumstances, but if
unprofitable risks are avoided, such casualties can be minimized.

All this argument and red herrings detract from the main question:

Were the Canadian troops who died doing something AT THAT TIME which they
couldn't have done just as effectively in an armored Humvee?

No. Have a look at the photo of the crater posted in
news:alt.binaries.pictures.military. A HUMMV would not likely have
saved them either. A LAV would have, but one had already been used to
prove the route.

Believe what you want, but I doubt it.

I have been in places with similar risks and done similar things. I
have known the battalion commander for 25 years and the contingent
commander for 24 (he's from my regiment). I trust their judgement.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
Blair Maynard wrote:


No. Have a look at the photo of the crater posted in
news:alt.binaries.pictures.military. A HUMMV would not likely have
saved them either. A LAV would have, but one had already been used to
prove the route.

Believe what you want, but I doubt it.

I have been in places with similar risks and done similar things. I
have known the battalion commander for 25 years and the contingent
commander for 24 (he's from my regiment). I trust their judgement.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

I see the picture. It shows two guys kneeling next to a small hole where it
looks like they might have dug a hole (presumably looking for another mine).
There is a small blackened area on the left side of the photo in front of
them. The blackened area is cut off by the left side of the photo, so I
can't see how big it is. There is white tape behind them presumably
designating a safe approach to the area. The photo is too close for me to
see a crater. A pic of the jeep would help.

I don't understand that last comment about trusting the battalion commander
and contingent commander. I never questioned their judgement. What is your
point? How is this relevant?

Are you saying that they would have disobeyed their orders to go to
Afghanistan if they thought armored hummvees would save lives?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP3++8lBGDfMEdHggEQKNTQCg3rKrI6QS/r/u/8y/Dwj3UlNdXSYAoNGL
LM4lHsWcGz0aCW2PA8xe6Fkb
=bEZQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Blair Maynard wrote:

I see the picture. It shows two guys kneeling next to a small hole where it
looks like they might have dug a hole (presumably looking for another mine).
There is a small blackened area on the left side of the photo in front of
them. The blackened area is cut off by the left side of the photo, so I
can't see how big it is. There is white tape behind them presumably
designating a safe approach to the area. The photo is too close for me to
see a crater. A pic of the jeep would help.

I don't understand that last comment about trusting the battalion commander
and contingent commander. I never questioned their judgement. What is your
point? How is this relevant?

Are you saying that they would have disobeyed their orders to go to
Afghanistan if they thought armored hummvees would save lives?

No. They are the ones who ordered the patrol in a soft-skinned vehicle
when they had LAV variants available. They would have weighed the
risks carefully and judged this sort of patrol warranted under the
circumstances.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)