Stryker is a piece of ****!

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:47:38 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Regardless, it appears that
the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
premature "greatest" acclimation...

I'm not meaning to slag of the M1, which is a damn fine vehicle
(though the gas guzzling turbine could use some work :-)....but IIRC
the Leopard I at least has some combat - IIRC the Dames had a minor
engagement in Bosnia a few years back they won habdily (admittedly
against second line Yugoslav kit.

Peter Kemp

On 29 Apr 2004 19:31:38 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
(Denyav) wrote in message
...

You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta M9,
the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is quite
willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch offered
for a requirement.

Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
example as they are primarily for SFs.

OK, a few more...

81mm Mortar (British)
105mm gun (British)
M777 155 mm gun (British)
Fox NBC vehicle (German)
C-23 Shorts Sherpa (British)
C-295 has just been selected by USCG (Spanish?) who also use the
french Dauphin helicopter
M240 Machine gun (Belgian)
US101 Helicopter (British/Italian)....ok maybe jumping the gun on this
one :-)
AGM-142 (Israeli)
120mm Tank Gun (German)
XM-8 Carbine - developed form the G-36 (German)

Still think the US only buy US weapons?

The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat and we lost 18 of them
then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In Gulf War II we lost more-
this time to ATGWs.

No M1 kills in OIF were lost to ATGW, despite early press reports
about Kornet E missiles leaking in from Syria. There's an unclassified
report on M1 performnce in OIF somewhere on the web - look it up.

Peter Kemp

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On 29 Apr 2004 19:31:38 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
(Denyav) wrote in message
...

You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta
M9,
the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is
quite
willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch
offered
for a requirement.

Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
example as they are primarily for SFs.

OK, a few more...

81mm Mortar (British)
105mm gun (British)
M777 155 mm gun (British)
Fox NBC vehicle (German)
C-23 Shorts Sherpa (British)

And the C-27J (Italy) is the most likely C-23 replacement.

C-295 has just been selected by USCG (Spanish?) who also use the
french Dauphin helicopter

And the Dassault Falcon jet.

M240 Machine gun (Belgian)
US101 Helicopter (British/Italian)....ok maybe jumping the gun on this
one :-)
AGM-142 (Israeli)

Ugh. Bad example, though true; last I heard, has a not-so-good reputation
and owed its purchase more to political considerations than operational
capability.

Brooks

120mm Tank Gun (German)
XM-8 Carbine - developed form the G-36 (German)

Still think the US only buy US weapons?

The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat and we lost 18 of them
then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In Gulf War II we lost more-
this time to ATGWs.

No M1 kills in OIF were lost to ATGW, despite early press reports
about Kornet E missiles leaking in from Syria. There's an unclassified
report on M1 performnce in OIF somewhere on the web - look it up.

Peter Kemp

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:47:38 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Regardless, it appears that
the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
premature "greatest" acclimation...

I'm not meaning to slag of the M1, which is a damn fine vehicle
(though the gas guzzling turbine could use some work :-)....but IIRC
the Leopard I at least has some combat - IIRC the Dames had a minor
engagement in Bosnia a few years back they won habdily (admittedly
against second line Yugoslav kit.

MBT versus MBT engagement?

Brooks


Peter Kemp

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:47:38 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Regardless, it appears that
the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
premature "greatest" acclimation...

I'm not meaning to slag of the M1, which is a damn fine vehicle
(though the gas guzzling turbine could use some work :-)....but IIRC
the Leopard I at least has some combat - IIRC the Dames had a minor
engagement in Bosnia a few years back they won habdily (admittedly
against second line Yugoslav kit.

MBT versus MBT engagement?

Serbian 40mm and a couple of mortar positions...

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:47:38 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Regardless, it appears that
the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
premature "greatest" acclimation...

I'm not meaning to slag of the M1, which is a damn fine vehicle
(though the gas guzzling turbine could use some work :-)....but IIRC
the Leopard I at least has some combat - IIRC the Dames had a minor
engagement in Bosnia a few years back they won habdily (admittedly
against second line Yugoslav kit.

MBT versus MBT engagement?

Serbian 40mm and a couple of mortar positions...

Heck, that would be about as bad as claiming the MILES fires at NTC combat
qualified the Abrams pre-ODS! :-)

Brooks

You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta
M9,
the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is
quite
willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch
offered
for a requirement.

Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
example as they are primarily for SFs.

Yeah, it sucks when you get caught out wrong, so tossing a few of the
offending weapons out of consideration to meet your self-serving criteria is
probably a good choice. And thanks for bringing up that H&K/SOF linkage--I
forgot that various SOF elements also use the MP5 family weapons...

Who's wrong? The US has been offered hundreds of good weapon systems
in all categories for all armed forces historically. You mention 3
small arms???


Just as we are happy to buy US made weapons/systems when
they are the best available--and

BTW, how many kills has your "greatest"
German MBT racked up? None? How many times has it been exposed to
hostile
fire in a combat envoronment and survived? Never? Gosh, it sure is easy
to
declare it the "greatest" when it spends all of its time on the parade
ground or in the motor pool, huh?

The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat and we lost 18 of them
then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In Gulf War II we lost more-
this time to ATGWs.

How many of those 18 were "lost", and how many were repaired and returned to
subsequent service? How many crewmembers died? Regardless, it appears that
the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
premature "greatest" acclimation...

Let's see... hmmm... rating the M-1 based on attacking a Third World
nation with poor quality import stripped-model FSU MBTs... TWICE- how
impressive!
Of the original 18 it was (9 lost plus 9 severely damaged by mines).
In OIF 4 M-1s were lost (2 direct hits by AT-14s and 2 by RPGs that
disabled the engine compartment) plus another 14 severely damaged.
Vunerability of the M-1 criticized in military publications.

Is it hard for you to concentrate on what you are typing, what with the
"Horst Wessel" song ringing in your ears all of the time...?

Notice how you didn't respond at all to the FACT that the EXPERTS in
rating world MBTs- Jane's and Forecast International- BOTH rate the
Leopard 2A6 the best tank in the world.
Hey Brooks, I'll take their word and historical accuracy over your
patriotic opinion anyday. BTW, I don't think the Germans are eager to
wage war with puny Third World nations. Still, in their peacekeeping
operations their armor is excellent. I haven't heard of one case in
which a Leopard 2, Marder, Wiesel, Fuchs, Luchs, Dingo, etc... has
been knocked out. And YES, the Leopard 2 has FIRED on Serb arsonists
in Orohovac on 6/26/99. Six rounds easily stopped their operations.
This incident wasn't against a MBT... yet you cannot be that stupid to
think the Leo 2A6 couldn't knock out any enemy MBT with one shot,
especially with the new L55 main gun and KE ammo.
I think it is worth noticing that of the top 6 MBTs in the world:
1. Leopard 2A6
2. M-1
3. Type 90
4. Merkava 4
5. Challenger 2
6. LeClerc

Germany ranks number one and the Japanese Leo clone Type 90 is number
3. The M-1 is sandwiched between Germany and Japan and only two steps
ahead of the Israeli Merkava 4 which (let's face it) does BETTER than
Western tanks in ITS environment of heavy street fighting. The
Israelis also have more tank experience than the US post-WW2 and have
killed hundreds of tanks. Merkava 4 also is modified against mines and
top-attack missiles... of which NO Western tank can claim.
One can only guess how Russia's kept-secret T-95 and current Black
Eagle will place in the future.

Rob


Brooks


There is no doubt that both the Leopard 2A6 (ranked Number 1) and
Japanese Type 90 (the Leopard clone ranked Number 3) would stand up
well in all hostile environments. Mines, fire, friendly fire, and
top-attack missiles would still present problems but these Western
tanks are superior to the Israeli Merkava 3 and the Merkava kicks ass
even in street fighting. So use your head.
BTW, it is the EXPERTS that rank the MBTs and the Leopard has held the
MBT title since the Leopard 2A5. Right now, the Leopard 2A6 could
remove the L55 gun and replace it with the already German-tested 140mm
gun. The M-1 cannot.
The Leopard 2A6 has superior armor protection, main gun, ammo and less
heat signature, reduced fuel consumption, and all the advantages of a
high-powered turbo diesel that is much more easy to work on and repair
than a gas turbine. And at an incredible 63 tons fully loaded the
Leopard 2A6 can still "fly" over obstacles and reach speeds of up to
49 mph!!!
Side-by-side, the M-1 and Leopard are fierce competitors... but the
Leopard II has taken the lead. Sorry you don't like that and the fact
that Leopards were offered to the US several times.

Brooks

Rob

From: (robert arndt)


You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the Baretta
M9,
the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US is
quite
willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch
offered
for a requirement.

Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
example as they are primarily for SFs.

Yeah, it sucks when you get caught out wrong, so tossing a few of the
offending weapons out of consideration to meet your self-serving criteria
is
probably a good choice.

Teuton, you anti American stance hasn't changed. Do a little research and you
will see the U.S. has used weapons systems from small arms to aircraft since
1776. Did you know the PT boat was a British design? How about Harrier,
Canberra and the Merlin engine? British small arms were used by the U.S.
military for 100 years after the Revolutionary war.

You still haven't explained why the U.S. should by weapons systems from a
country who might stop shipments if they disagree with U.S. policy. Did that
ever occur to you?

Are you still upset we kicked your butt in WW1 and WW2 and could do it again if
needed?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
You are growing increasingly paranoid, Arndt. Let's see-- the
Baretta
M9,
the M249 SAW, the H&K Special Opns pistol...yep, it appears the US
is
quite
willing to buy foreign weapons when they are the best of the bunch
offered
for a requirement.

Gee, that's 3 weapons out of HOW many offered? And don't use HK as an
example as they are primarily for SFs.

Yeah, it sucks when you get caught out wrong, so tossing a few of the
offending weapons out of consideration to meet your self-serving
criteria is
probably a good choice. And thanks for bringing up that H&K/SOF
linkage--I
forgot that various SOF elements also use the MP5 family weapons...

Who's wrong? The US has been offered hundreds of good weapon systems
in all categories for all armed forces historically. You mention 3
small arms???

Do I have to repeat the list given to you by Peter in this thread? You have
already been given a plethora of examples of the US military procuring
foreign weapons. The range of the purchases over the years have stretched
from the Harrier to the CASA 212, the M9 pistol to the M119 light gun, etc.,
ad nauseum. Are you really so utterly pig-headed that you can't grasp the
facts?



Just as we are happy to buy US made weapons/systems when
they are the best available--and

BTW, how many kills has your "greatest"
German MBT racked up? None? How many times has it been exposed to
hostile
fire in a combat envoronment and survived? Never? Gosh, it sure is
easy
to
declare it the "greatest" when it spends all of its time on the
parade
ground or in the motor pool, huh?

The 1979 M-1 took until 1991 to go into combat and we lost 18 of them
then- mines, fire (flame), friendly fire. In Gulf War II we lost more-
this time to ATGWs.

How many of those 18 were "lost", and how many were repaired and
returned to
subsequent service? How many crewmembers died? Regardless, it appears
that
the M1 series has a fine combat record, while Leopard I and Leopard
II...have NO record. Meaning you are standing on quicksand with your
premature "greatest" acclimation...

Let's see... hmmm... rating the M-1 based on attacking a Third World
nation with poor quality import stripped-model FSU MBTs... TWICE- how
impressive!

ISTR the T-72 was considered to be rather well into the "first line"
category in 1990. How many of even what you call "poor quality" tanks has
the leopard family actually faced in combat? Eh? None. Zilch. Nada.


Of the original 18 it was (9 lost plus 9 severely damaged by mines).

There is lost, and there is lost. How many went through BDA and repair and
were returned to service? Even an idiot like yourself should be able to
realize that in tank warfare the subsequent repair and return to service of
damaged vehicles is a common occurence. And how many Leopards have even been
*engaged* by valid AT systems? None. Zilch. Nada. So your comparison would
be based upon...? If you are willing to make light of the threat faced by
the M1A1, what does that say about the utter lack of any realistic threat
faced by your vaunted Leopard family of MBT's? They must *really* suck, eh?

r your
patriotic opinion anyday. BTW, I don't think the Germans are eager to
wage war with puny Third World nations.

It is obvious that the Germans can't be counted on to wage war, period.

Still, in their peacekeeping
operations their armor is excellent. I haven't heard of one case in
which a Leopard 2, Marder, Wiesel, Fuchs, Luchs, Dingo, etc... has
been knocked out. And YES, the Leopard 2 has FIRED on Serb arsonists
in Orohovac on 6/26/99. Six rounds easily stopped their operations.

LOL! Oooh! So a Leopard fired on some nasty dismounts armed with what,
Molotov cocktails? Wow, now *that's* an achievement worth crowing about...

This incident wasn't against a MBT...

So then you would rank it below even those MBT's that have faced "poor
quality" (in your words) MBT's, right?

yet you cannot be that stupid to
think the Leo 2A6 couldn't knock out any enemy MBT with one shot,

I don't know, being as you are saying it took them six whole rounds to
discourage some "arsonists"...

especially with the new L55 main gun and KE ammo.
I think it is worth noticing that of the top 6 MBTs in the world:

In your feeble little mind, that is...

Brooks

1. Leopard 2A6
2. M-1
3. Type 90
4. Merkava 4
5. Challenger 2
6. LeClerc

Germany ranks number one and the Japanese Leo clone Type 90 is number
3. The M-1 is sandwiched between Germany and Japan and only two steps
ahead of the Israeli Merkava 4 which (let's face it) does BETTER than
Western tanks in ITS environment of heavy street fighting. The
Israelis also have more tank experience than the US post-WW2 and have
killed hundreds of tanks. Merkava 4 also is modified against mines and
top-attack missiles... of which NO Western tank can claim.
One can only guess how Russia's kept-secret T-95 and current Black
Eagle will place in the future.

Rob


Brooks

It is obvious that the Germans can't be counted on to wage war, period.



Thats good,otherwise,as history proves,you would "again" need no less than
whole world as allies to defeat small country Germany.