PUMA IFV... Best in the World... No Surprise

http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl...UTF-8%26sa%3DG

Bradley is a P.O.S. by comparison.

Rob

From: (robert arndt)
Date: 6/17/2004 9:32 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl...de/english/ind
ex.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKMW,%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

Bradley is a P.O.S. by comparison.

Rob

It is "under development" according to your cite. Are you so blinded by anti
U.S. sentiment that you don't understand what this means?

I will simplify it for you: underdevelopment means it is not fielded, has not
seen combat, still doesn't have all the bugs worked out and can't be compared
to a system that already exists.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: (robert arndt)
Date: 6/17/2004 9:32 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl...de/english/ind
ex.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKMW,%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

Bradley is a P.O.S. by comparison.

Rob

It is "under development" according to your cite. Are you so blinded by
anti
U.S. sentiment that you don't understand what this means?

I will simplify it for you: underdevelopment means it is not fielded, has
not
seen combat, still doesn't have all the bugs worked out and can't be
compared
to a system that already exists.

Dan, come now...you know all of that is well beyond Arndt's comprehension
level. The poor guy is in denial regarding the fact that the Germans
themselves are slashing their own armored forces, and actually thinks they
are actively pursuing a new generation MBT. He is apparently allergic to
facts/reality, as we have repeatedly seen each and every time he starts
doing his Doctor Strangelove impersonation in regards to the superiority of
all things German, as especially Nazi, developed--and even those that were
not developed, like his flying saucers...

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On 17 Jun 2004 18:37:26 GMT, "ian maclure" wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:32:56 -0700, robert arndt wrote:

http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl...UTF-8%26sa%3DG

Bradley is a P.O.S. by comparison.

Apples and Oranges.
Bradley is 1970's technology.
Puma is ermm, under development according to the site cited.
And-uh it may never be deployed.

So, I'll put together a team with oh say a battalion's worth
of Bradley scouts, you do the same with Pumas and we'll do the
High Noon thing. Air deliver to some remote site using oh say
C130 aircraft.
Oh wait, you can't...

IBM

_________________________________________________ ______________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

i remember when people critized the bradely cause it had Tow missles
on it, people said why dose a IFV need Tows, etc. But as soon as the
first Gulf War was over, everybody wanted to put ATG missles on their
own IFV. People somehow forgot that the role of the IFV was to support
the troops, not just operate as a Taxi. Those Tows sure came in handy
when going up against Bunkers and machine gun nests.
just my $.02

Speaking of European projects, how is the A4000 transport that was
supposed to enter service by now comeing along????

In message , Lyle
writes
i remember when people critized the bradely cause it had Tow missles
on it, people said why dose a IFV need Tows, etc. But as soon as the
first Gulf War was over, everybody wanted to put ATG missles on their
own IFV.

Well, we didn't...

People somehow forgot that the role of the IFV was to support
the troops, not just operate as a Taxi.

IFVs are there to get troops to the objective. Not to be bulky tank
destroyers. BMPs haven't stopped Western forces, antitank missiles or
not.

(Now, what *would* be very effective IMO would be replacing TOW on the
Bradleys with Javelin - fire-and-forget makes ATGM on an IFV much more
dangerous)

Those Tows sure came in handy
when going up against Bunkers and machine gun nests.

Isn't that what the M242 is for?

Speaking of European projects, how is the A4000 transport that was
supposed to enter service by now comeing along????

On the same sort of schedule as the F-22. It'll arrive when it arrives
and it'll either meet its specification or it won't.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

"ian maclure" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:32:56 -0700, robert arndt wrote:


http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl...UTF-8%26sa%3DG

Bradley is a P.O.S. by comparison.

Apples and Oranges.
Bradley is 1970's technology.
Puma is ermm, under development according to the site cited.
And-uh it may never be deployed.

So, I'll put together a team with oh say a battalion's worth
of Bradley scouts, you do the same with Pumas and we'll do the
High Noon thing. Air deliver to some remote site using oh say
C130 aircraft.
Oh wait, you can't...

Better make that C-17's (won't make a difference, really, since your point
would still be valid), 'cause IIRC the Bradley is not deployable by
C-130--the Stryker is (marginally).

Brooks


IBM


__________________________________________________ __________________________
___
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

On 17 Jun 2004 07:32:56 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl...UTF-8%26sa%3DG

Bradley is a P.O.S. by comparison.

Rob

Nazi jerk

Al Minyard

From: Alan Minyard
Date: 6/22/2004 1:02 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 17 Jun 2004 07:32:56 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:


http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl....de/english/in
dex.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKMW,%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

Bradley is a P.O.S. by comparison.

Rob

Nazi jerk

Al Minyard

Al, please note the only cite teuton gives is the manufacturers brochure.
Should we ask if he has any independant cite from any recognized testing
agency? Would he be able to come up with any from a site other than his usual
UFO sources?

The world wants to know.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote:
From: Alan Minyard
Date: 6/22/2004 1:02 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 17 Jun 2004 07:32:56 -0700,
(robert arndt) wrote:


http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl....de/english/in
dex.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKMW,%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

Bradley is a P.O.S. by comparison.

Rob

Nazi jerk

Al Minyard

Al, please note the only cite teuton gives is
the manufacturers brochure.
Should we ask if he has any independant cite
from any recognized testing
agency? Would he be able to come up with any
from a site other than his usual
UFO sources?

The world wants to know.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Not to mention that none of the vehicles he seems to promote have any sort
of combat record (if German) or have a pretty sorry one (if Soviet)-we all
know the shortcomings of Soviet armor-but he doesn't seem to notice. And
when's the last time a German-made tank or APC went into combat in a real
war situation? (Peacekeeping doesn't count)

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:17:23 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:


Not to mention that none of the vehicles he seems to promote have any sort
of combat record (if German) or have a pretty sorry one (if Soviet)-we all
know the shortcomings of Soviet armor-but he doesn't seem to notice. And
when's the last time a German-made tank or APC went into combat in a real
war situation? (Peacekeeping doesn't count)

2002. Fox NBC vehcles are use by both the US and British armies, and
both deployed them in Op IF.

Peter Kemp