Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?
- Reaction score
- 7,688
- Points
- 1,160
Captain Scarlet said:I like bastardising German Terms:
Jäger for medium dudes
Panzergrenadier for heavy dudes
Entschuldigen sie mich gnadige Kapitan, aber sollten das nicht "Panzerjagern" fur die mitteltruppen sein? Es ist mir leid aber hier habe ich keine umlaut.
- Reaction score
- 1,304
- Points
- 1,040
OK, someone on here corrected my ENGLISH grammar, so (tongue in cheek, naturally) is my chance to wreak havoc! *evil laugh*Kirkhill said:Entschuldigen sie mich gnadige Kapitan, aber sollten das nicht "Panzerjagern" fur die mitteltruppen sein? Es ist mir leid aber hier habe ich keine umlaut.
"Entschuldigen Sie" vice "Entschuldigen sie". "Sie" is the Second person, formal ("Vous" in french when applied to one person). "sie" is the third person, singular, female ("she" in english), or third person plural ("they" in english).
"mich" should be "mir". Both mean "me" in english, but "mich" is the accusative case (direct object) and "mir" is dative case (indirect object). "Entschuldigen" is a reflexive verb and uses the subject of the sentence as the object and the person/thing being apologised to as the indirect object. A literal translation would be "Apologise you me" or "Forgive you me". But, of course, that's just WRONG in english, so....
"sollten das..." should either be "solle das..." or "soll das...". One is a weird subjunctive case, the other is a strict use of a "modal" verb.
Also, don't forget to capitalise ALL nouns: proper or not.
Anyway, sorry bout that, but yes, I imagine that Panzerjäger could be used.
HINT: if you cannot find the umlaut, use the vowel "e" after the to-be-umlauted vowel. For example
Panzerjaeger = Panzerjäger
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
hehe....
Got my german training from Frau Schenker. But she was Swiss german - it worked but at times, people would give me strange looks (nope - it can't be my flawless use of the language). Was told it was something akin to a regional patois.... like a yank from the south or a Newf from out east
Got my german training from Frau Schenker. But she was Swiss german - it worked but at times, people would give me strange looks (nope - it can't be my flawless use of the language). Was told it was something akin to a regional patois.... like a yank from the south or a Newf from out east
- Reaction score
- 1,304
- Points
- 1,040
Switzerland, Baden and Alcase and Lorriane make up the so-called "Dreieckland", or the "triangle" region. They speak a dialect of German known as "Allemanisch", from the french word for "German". To Germans from Swabia, Bavaria and to Austrians, they understand it just fine and know that you are from there. To northern Germans, they will know that you are not Bavarian, but may mistake a German "Dreiecker" as Swiss or Swabian. Happened to me in Berlin.
I learned German the "easy" way: I was an exchange student for a year just outside of Lahr, in Seelbach. It is more than a patois, it has different rules of grammar. Remember the Accusative case in German? "Allemanisch" doesn't have it, so instead of saying "Ich sehe den Mann", you would say "Ich sehe der Mann". Just a minor example, but there are others (some nouns have different genders in Allemanisch than in German).
Then I got a degree in it at UWO. I felt like I was cheating, but then after first year the grammar lessons ended and we started reading Goethe and others! Ugh! It stopped being fun!
I learned German the "easy" way: I was an exchange student for a year just outside of Lahr, in Seelbach. It is more than a patois, it has different rules of grammar. Remember the Accusative case in German? "Allemanisch" doesn't have it, so instead of saying "Ich sehe den Mann", you would say "Ich sehe der Mann". Just a minor example, but there are others (some nouns have different genders in Allemanisch than in German).
Then I got a degree in it at UWO. I felt like I was cheating, but then after first year the grammar lessons ended and we started reading Goethe and others! Ugh! It stopped being fun!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
well i can surely say the answer is yes since my brother is in 1 p.p.c.l.i. and is a lav III driver and he said it is fairly safe against road side bombs so i think yes is the answer!
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,578
- Points
- 1,160
Final US acceptance trials on the MGS were delayed becuase the unit with crews trained on the vehicles liked them so much, they deployed with the vehicles. Just under 30 are in Iraq now. We should hear how the MGS performs on Ops soon.geo said:
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
No vehicle is mine proof, not even a tank. A big enough bomb will kill any vehicle. I have been amazed at how much of a lick these vehicles have taken and still soldiers have survived the blast - which I think is more important than the loss of the vehicle.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_strykers_struggle
BAGHDAD - A string of heavy losses from powerful roadside bombs has raised new questions about the vulnerability of the Stryker, the Army's troop-carrying vehicle hailed by supporters as the key to a leaner, more mobile force.
Since the Strykers went into action in violent Diyala province north of Baghdad two months ago, losses of the vehicles have been rising steadily, U.S. officials said.
A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month in less than a week, according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost recently is classified.
In one of the biggest hits, six American soldiers and a journalist were killed when a huge bomb exploded beneath their Stryker on May 6. It was the biggest one-day loss for the battalion in more than two years.
"We went for several months with no losses and were very proud of that," a senior Army official said in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly. "Since then, there have been quite a few Stryker losses."
"They are learning how to defeat them," the Army official said of Iraqi insurgents.
The Army introduced the $11 billion, eight-wheeled Stryker in 1999 as the cornerstone of a ground force of the future — hoping to create faster, more agile armored units than tank-equipped units, but with more firepower and protection than light-infantry units.
But the Army and the Marines are already looking for something different that can survive big roadside bombs — the main threat to soldiers in
Iraq — meaning the Stryker's high-profile status as the Army's "next generation" vehicle may be short-lived.
"It is indeed an open question if the Stryker is right for this type of warfare," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior analyst with the Brookings Institution. "I am inclined to think that the concept works better for peacekeeping. But based on data the Army has made available to date, it's hard to be sure."
Supporters of the Strykers, which have been used in Iraq since late 2003, say the vehicles that carry two crew members and 11 infantrymen offer mobility, firepower and comfort.
Lighter and faster than tracked vehicles like tanks, each Stryker can rush soldiers quickly to a fight, enabling commanders to maintain security over a wide area with relatively fewer troops. Humvees can carry only four soldiers — and are more vulnerable to bombs even when their armor is upgraded.
"I love Strykers," said Spc. Christopher Hagen, based in Baqouba. "With Strykers, you're mobile, you're fast. You can get anywhere anytime. They bring a lot of troops to the fight."
But some analysts have long questioned the wisdom of moving away from more heavily armored tracked vehicles like tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to wheeled transports, like the Stryker.
They say that is especially true in Iraq, where powerful bombs — not rocket-propelled grenades or small arms fire — are the main threat.
"The Stryker vehicle was conceived at a time when the Army was more concerned about mobility and agility than it was about protection," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst from the Lexington Institute. "Stryker was the answer to that need."
The Stryker's vulnerabilities have become increasingly apparent since a battalion of about 700 soldiers and nearly 100 Stryker vehicles from the Army's 2nd Infantry Division was sent to Diyala province in March to bolster an infantry brigade struggling to restore order there.
Trouble started as soon as the Strykers arrived in Baqouba, the provincial capital of Diyala.
U.S. commanders ordered the vehicles into Baqouba's streets at dawn the day after they arrived. The hope was that the large, menacing vehicles — armed with a heavy machine gun and a 105mm cannon — would intimidate insurgents and reassure local residents.
Instead, insurgents hammered the Strykers with automatic weapons fire, rocket-propelled grenades and a network of roadside bombs. By the end of that first day, one American soldier was dead, 12 were wounded and two Strykers were destroyed.
Losses have since mounted. The May 6 attack that killed six soldiers and a Russian journalist was followed a few days later by another blast. Soldiers scrambled out of the Stryker and took cover in a house while they watched the vehicle burn. Several of them were injured but none seriously.
Lt. Col. Bruce Antonio, who commands a Stryker battalion in Diyala, said he and soldiers still have confidence in the Strykers and noted they had survived many bombs, which the military calls improvised explosive device or IEDs.
But Antonio said some insurgents had found "the right mix of explosives and IED positioning to inflict severe damage on the vehicle." He also noted that tanks had also proved vulnerable too.
The insurgents also apparently are becoming better at hiding the devices — the IED that killed the six soldiers and the journalist was believed hidden in a sewer line. To add potency, insurgents surrounded the device with cement to channel the blast force up into the tank, according to soldiers familiar with the investigation.
Supporters of the Strykers say all that proves that it's the lethality of bombs in Iraq — not the Strykers themselves — that are the problem: The bombs are now so powerful that even Abrams main battle tanks are vulnerable to some of them.
"I'm not sure if it's any reflection on the (Stryker) but rather on how things are getting worse" in Iraq, according to a senior Democratic congressional staffer who tracks Army programs, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
Stryker soldiers said that when they were based in Mosul in the north, roadside bombs weren't so big — often, little more than pipe bombs. In Baqouba, the bombs are bigger and buried deeper, making them difficult to detect.
"With what we got hit with the other day, it wouldn't have mattered what we were in," said Spc. John Pearce, speaking of the May 6 bomb. "We were going to take casualties, regardless."
Either way, the Army and Marine Corps already are pushing for new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPS, whose V-shaped hulls are designed to deflect bomb blasts outward, rather than through the vehicle.
The
Pentagon has requested nearly 7,800 of the new vehicles at a cost of $8.4 billion and is considering ordering thousands more to give soldiers better protection.
Such moves, however, serve only to reinforce the views of critics, who believe the Army opted for a vehicle that was useful in Balkan peacekeeping or other "low threat" missions but is inadequate in so-called "asymmetric warfare," where a weaker opponent devises simple tools to exploit a strong opponent's weak points.
"As long as the Stryker-equipped light infantry was used ... against lightly armed insurgents, there was no problem," said retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, who writes on defense issues.
"Now, they are being tossed into the urban battle where only tracked armor can survive."
__
Reid reported from Baghdad and Flaherty from Washington. Associated Press reporters Todd Pitman in Diyala in Iraq and Pauline Jelinek in Washington also contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_strykers_struggle
BAGHDAD - A string of heavy losses from powerful roadside bombs has raised new questions about the vulnerability of the Stryker, the Army's troop-carrying vehicle hailed by supporters as the key to a leaner, more mobile force.
Since the Strykers went into action in violent Diyala province north of Baghdad two months ago, losses of the vehicles have been rising steadily, U.S. officials said.
A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month in less than a week, according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost recently is classified.
In one of the biggest hits, six American soldiers and a journalist were killed when a huge bomb exploded beneath their Stryker on May 6. It was the biggest one-day loss for the battalion in more than two years.
"We went for several months with no losses and were very proud of that," a senior Army official said in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly. "Since then, there have been quite a few Stryker losses."
"They are learning how to defeat them," the Army official said of Iraqi insurgents.
The Army introduced the $11 billion, eight-wheeled Stryker in 1999 as the cornerstone of a ground force of the future — hoping to create faster, more agile armored units than tank-equipped units, but with more firepower and protection than light-infantry units.
But the Army and the Marines are already looking for something different that can survive big roadside bombs — the main threat to soldiers in
Iraq — meaning the Stryker's high-profile status as the Army's "next generation" vehicle may be short-lived.
"It is indeed an open question if the Stryker is right for this type of warfare," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior analyst with the Brookings Institution. "I am inclined to think that the concept works better for peacekeeping. But based on data the Army has made available to date, it's hard to be sure."
Supporters of the Strykers, which have been used in Iraq since late 2003, say the vehicles that carry two crew members and 11 infantrymen offer mobility, firepower and comfort.
Lighter and faster than tracked vehicles like tanks, each Stryker can rush soldiers quickly to a fight, enabling commanders to maintain security over a wide area with relatively fewer troops. Humvees can carry only four soldiers — and are more vulnerable to bombs even when their armor is upgraded.
"I love Strykers," said Spc. Christopher Hagen, based in Baqouba. "With Strykers, you're mobile, you're fast. You can get anywhere anytime. They bring a lot of troops to the fight."
But some analysts have long questioned the wisdom of moving away from more heavily armored tracked vehicles like tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to wheeled transports, like the Stryker.
They say that is especially true in Iraq, where powerful bombs — not rocket-propelled grenades or small arms fire — are the main threat.
"The Stryker vehicle was conceived at a time when the Army was more concerned about mobility and agility than it was about protection," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst from the Lexington Institute. "Stryker was the answer to that need."
The Stryker's vulnerabilities have become increasingly apparent since a battalion of about 700 soldiers and nearly 100 Stryker vehicles from the Army's 2nd Infantry Division was sent to Diyala province in March to bolster an infantry brigade struggling to restore order there.
Trouble started as soon as the Strykers arrived in Baqouba, the provincial capital of Diyala.
U.S. commanders ordered the vehicles into Baqouba's streets at dawn the day after they arrived. The hope was that the large, menacing vehicles — armed with a heavy machine gun and a 105mm cannon — would intimidate insurgents and reassure local residents.
Instead, insurgents hammered the Strykers with automatic weapons fire, rocket-propelled grenades and a network of roadside bombs. By the end of that first day, one American soldier was dead, 12 were wounded and two Strykers were destroyed.
Losses have since mounted. The May 6 attack that killed six soldiers and a Russian journalist was followed a few days later by another blast. Soldiers scrambled out of the Stryker and took cover in a house while they watched the vehicle burn. Several of them were injured but none seriously.
Lt. Col. Bruce Antonio, who commands a Stryker battalion in Diyala, said he and soldiers still have confidence in the Strykers and noted they had survived many bombs, which the military calls improvised explosive device or IEDs.
But Antonio said some insurgents had found "the right mix of explosives and IED positioning to inflict severe damage on the vehicle." He also noted that tanks had also proved vulnerable too.
The insurgents also apparently are becoming better at hiding the devices — the IED that killed the six soldiers and the journalist was believed hidden in a sewer line. To add potency, insurgents surrounded the device with cement to channel the blast force up into the tank, according to soldiers familiar with the investigation.
Supporters of the Strykers say all that proves that it's the lethality of bombs in Iraq — not the Strykers themselves — that are the problem: The bombs are now so powerful that even Abrams main battle tanks are vulnerable to some of them.
"I'm not sure if it's any reflection on the (Stryker) but rather on how things are getting worse" in Iraq, according to a senior Democratic congressional staffer who tracks Army programs, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
Stryker soldiers said that when they were based in Mosul in the north, roadside bombs weren't so big — often, little more than pipe bombs. In Baqouba, the bombs are bigger and buried deeper, making them difficult to detect.
"With what we got hit with the other day, it wouldn't have mattered what we were in," said Spc. John Pearce, speaking of the May 6 bomb. "We were going to take casualties, regardless."
Either way, the Army and Marine Corps already are pushing for new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPS, whose V-shaped hulls are designed to deflect bomb blasts outward, rather than through the vehicle.
The
Pentagon has requested nearly 7,800 of the new vehicles at a cost of $8.4 billion and is considering ordering thousands more to give soldiers better protection.
Such moves, however, serve only to reinforce the views of critics, who believe the Army opted for a vehicle that was useful in Balkan peacekeeping or other "low threat" missions but is inadequate in so-called "asymmetric warfare," where a weaker opponent devises simple tools to exploit a strong opponent's weak points.
"As long as the Stryker-equipped light infantry was used ... against lightly armed insurgents, there was no problem," said retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, who writes on defense issues.
"Now, they are being tossed into the urban battle where only tracked armor can survive."
__
Reid reported from Baghdad and Flaherty from Washington. Associated Press reporters Todd Pitman in Diyala in Iraq and Pauline Jelinek in Washington also contributed to this report.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
This goes back to the heavy vs medium debate we had when Gen Shinseki decided that we needed a medium weight force. There is a a prejudice against the stryker. I am a bit more open minded in that there is room in the force for light/medium/heavy forces. No doubt about it Diyala is the last real bastion of AQ and they are fighting tooth and nail to survive. I agree with I6 that MacGregor is off base on this subject.
- Reaction score
- 18,648
- Points
- 1,260
The Good Col. has his head up his ass in this respect in my opinion.
The US Army still has a lot of Bradleys here (and M1A2's) -- they use them at checkpoints -- since tracks don't do to well meandering up and down roads over and over and over again.
The Force Protectionists have to understand that 1) You can ALWAYS build a bigger bomb 2) Its war - people die.
I hate to sound callous - but a leaders job is to complete the mission - ideally with the least waste of resources (troops, ammo kit etc).
I have faith (from what I see here) that the US Military is doing its damnedest to follow its mission -- and also minimize casualties -- but not the point of not accomplishing the mission.
The US Army still has a lot of Bradleys here (and M1A2's) -- they use them at checkpoints -- since tracks don't do to well meandering up and down roads over and over and over again.
The Force Protectionists have to understand that 1) You can ALWAYS build a bigger bomb 2) Its war - people die.
I hate to sound callous - but a leaders job is to complete the mission - ideally with the least waste of resources (troops, ammo kit etc).
I have faith (from what I see here) that the US Military is doing its damnedest to follow its mission -- and also minimize casualties -- but not the point of not accomplishing the mission.
- Reaction score
- 1,304
- Points
- 1,040
Let me repeat myself: THEY AREN'T TANKS! The MGS is being used by the US military for MEDIUM weight forces by infantry units for direct fire support. Canada was going to use them as tanks. In tank units. Big difference. Note that the US was planning on using MGS in conjunction with tanks (not in the same units, but different units at different times)geo said:
100 Leo 2A6 for the price of 66 MGS.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,578
- Points
- 1,160
and for more of what they have. The USMC is still having LAV 25 built new.tomahawk6 said:
Sounds like a statistic that could happen to any unit at war.tomahawk6 said:
I’ve heard through unclass channels that until ~ 2 weeks ago there had not been a single soldier killed by IED or enemy fire while inside a Stryker (guys had been killed in hatches, but no soldier fully protected in the vehicle had been killed). Five soldiers died in the incident that first killed occupants of a Stryker. Considering the number of vehicles in Iraq & the amount of time that the vehicles have been there, I think that is a pretty good record.tomahawk6 said:
Stryker & LAV III are both good vehicles.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
I agree. The Stryker is about as survivable as can be made. I remember the pic of Stryker after a 500Ilb bomb went off. The crew survived. I think the true test of a vehicle is whether the troops who operate it like it.
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/2004101123.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/2004101123.aspx
Similar threads
