Naruto Forums

Naruto Forums (http://www.narutoforums.com/index.php)
-   General Fanclubs (http://www.narutoforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=165)
-   -   the military junkies fanclub (http://www.narutoforums.com/showthread.php?t=254435)

Sky is Over 08-12-2007 05:31 PM

the military junkies fanclub
 
-THE MILITARY JUNKIES FANCLUB-

Do you have not a interest, but passion for military hardware/warfare, and can't just seem to barely find anyone on the forums interested in it? Then feel free to join the military junkies fanclub, where we can haven to share our interest in the militaries of the modern world today.

Owner: Sky is Over

Co-Owner: Dice Man

Members:
Spoiler:
1. Believe It!
2. Meng De
3. Martryn
4. avarell
5. MP 306
6. toucheirka
7. Megaharrison
8. Pringer Langann
9. dummy plug
10. Kenneth
11. Euraj
12. Kenia Kid
13. Tleiulax
14. Shoddragon
15. NecroAngel
16. Ochina Kazuki
17. fabio
18. deidaraxtayuya
19. Waking Maelstorm
20. Cardboard Tube Knight
21. King Herold47
22. T4ROK


Banners:

Videos:
Spoiler:
none

Sky is Over 08-12-2007 05:32 PM

for future room...

Believe It! 08-12-2007 11:03 PM

I'll join.

I am sort of a fan of the Stryker tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker

Sky is Over 08-12-2007 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Believe It! (Post 9860518)
I'll join.

I am sort of a fan of the Stryker tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker

welcoem to the fanclub believe it! :)

and the stryker is indeed a very interesting A.P.C. The U.S. Military was intending on creating a bunch of armored stryker battalions, but it got cancelled half way through, leaving us with only one Stryker brigade in Iraq.

*IMO, they could upgarde the vehicle with an auto control turret with either a 105mm canon or a GAU-30mm gatling gun to offer troops better protection.*

Zhongda 08-12-2007 11:54 PM

Great idea AS

I hope this gets filled up... maybe you should have a link in the OP to global secuirty in here as our Bible/Quran.

and sign me up

Sky is Over 08-12-2007 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mengde (Post 9861400)
Great idea AS

I hope this gets filled up... maybe you should have a link in the OP to global secuirty in here as our Bible/Quran.

and sign me up

welcome to the fanclub Meng De :) ; if you could find the link to the global security link, I'll be willing to place it under th first post. *too lazy to go look for it myself.*

Zhongda 08-13-2007 07:09 AM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/index.html

There you go :) it's directly linked to the military by county page which i think is the whole point to the site.

For an international relations student i know very little about military hardware - so keep the random talking about weaponry coming, i'll be doing a lot of spectationg and some questioning.

martryn 08-13-2007 07:13 AM

Well, I'm joining the Army National Guard, so I guess I'll sign up for the FC as well. I'm pretty excited about the whole process.

Sky is Over 08-13-2007 07:48 AM

Quote:

There you go it's directly linked to the military by county page which i think is the whole point to the site.

For an international relations student i know very little about military hardware - so keep the random talking about weaponry coming, i'll be doing a lot of spectationg and some questioning.
much thanks, and I'll be sure to have a "daily/weekly news based of it"

Quote:

Well, I'm joining the Army National Guard, so I guess I'll sign up for the FC as well. I'm pretty excited about the whole process.
welcome to the fanclub Martryn :) ; so why did you ultimately decide to join the National Guard?

martryn 08-13-2007 07:51 AM

Quote:

so why did you ultimately decide to join the National Guard?
*shrug* Why not? I was bored. I need money. And it'll help immensely with joining the FBI.

That NOS Guy 08-13-2007 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9860636)
and the stryker is indeed a very interesting A.P.C. The U.S. Military was intending on creating a bunch of armored stryker battalions, but it got cancelled half way through, leaving us with only one Stryker brigade in Iraq.

Thank God, that claptrap is better served being relegated to as few units as possible. It's a great peacekeeping vehicle, but it has no place in the mechanized units.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9860636)
*IMO, they could upgarde the vehicle with an auto control turret with either a 105mm canon or a GAU-30mm gatling gun to offer troops better protection.*

A GAU-8? Frightful. I however, have heard no such plans for the Mobile Gun System (MGS) with that particular weapons system.

The really pathetic thing is that they have to mount a low-velocity 105mm cannon. Really, what's the point in that? You're not going to be really effective against modern tanks with that kind of gun. Just go with a chaingun/TOW mount like the Bradley if you want it current then go with the LOSAT derivative at a later date.

Sky is Over 08-13-2007 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martryn (Post 9867300)
*shrug* Why not? I was bored. I need money. And it'll help immensely with joining the FBI.

hmmm, the national guard will definetly give you the miltary experience *even though you risk being shipped over to Iraq.*

But if you haven't signed/swore anything yet, I'd recommend you go into the Coast Guard because 1.) They're the highest paying military branch, 2.) The risk of being sent out to combat is very slim, 3.) Since it's part of actually Homeland Security, you could get the legal/military experience and have that under your belt if you intend on joining the F.B.I.

Quote:

Thank God, that claptrap is better served being relegated to as few units as possible. It's a great peacekeeping vehicle, but it has no place in the mechanized units.
indeed so, but it's ideal for urban warfare and is part of the U.S. Army's plan to make their forces more Faster/Quicker to Mobilize to area's of conflict.

Quote:

A GAU-8? Frightful. I however, have heard no such plans for the Mobile Gun System (MGS) with that particular weapons system.
hmmm, I'd be nice if they did. *C&C generals Gatling Tank comes to mind.*

Quote:

The really pathetic thing is that they have to mount a low-velocity 105mm cannon. Really, what's the point in that? You're not going to be really effective against modern tanks with that kind of gun. Just go with a chaingun/TOW mount like the Bradley if you want it current then go with the LOSAT derivative at a later date.
but the Stryker is originally a A.P.C. meant for Urban Warfare *or it's now been given the purpose of that.* And from what I know and have seen, they've began to put miniguns and T.O.W.s on them *or at least the Army has.*

That NOS Guy 08-13-2007 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9877131)
indeed so, but it's ideal for urban warfare and is part of the U.S. Army's plan to make their forces more Faster/Quicker to Mobilize to area's of conflict.

Except that the Future Combat System sucks ass. The Stryker is Lav III minus the cool stuff. It's an infantry bus that can't effectively lay down fire for its occupants like an M2 can, and I have serious doubts about it's ability to do well in mud like tracked vehciles.

Even so, it's ideal for low-intensity urban conflict, nothing heavy duty. While the Ma Duece is always nice, give me a 25mm Bushmaster when I want to punch through a building in a hurry. Nevermind that the base model can't do anything if an armoured vehicle sneezes in it's general direction.

Like I said, it's good for peacekeeping ops where we don't want to tear up roads and only need a heavy machine gun to supress any serious threat. We should keep a few around for that express purpose, but there's a reason everyone else uses tracked IFVs. It's a step backwards in weapons and terrian handaling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9877131)
hmmm, I'd be nice if they did. *C&C generals Gatling Tank comes to mind.*

Cool on paper, not in combat :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9877131)
but the Stryker is originally a A.P.C. meant for Urban Warfare *or it's now been given the purpose of that.* And from what I know and have seen, they've began to put miniguns and T.O.W.s on them *or at least the Army has.*

Miniguns? The hell? Sauce on that. I've also never heard of TOWs being provided or certified for use on Strykers.

Furtermore the APC is dead. Deceased. Gone. It's been dead since the BMP-1 came out. The IFV is what is needed in modern warfare, and the Stryker gives us no such thing. We have to sacrifice troop carrying capacity for a cannon of dubious utility when we already have the proven team of TOW/Chaingun and coming soon the KEM.

Bah to the Rumsfeldian idea that we can somehow make our force light enough to go anywhere at any time aboard C-130s. It's so incredibly, teribly flawed.

Sky is Over 08-13-2007 11:57 PM

Quote:

Except that the Future Combat System sucks ass. The Stryker is Lav III minus the cool stuff. It's an infantry bus that can't effectively lay down fire for its occupants like an M2 can, and I have serious doubts about it's ability to do well in mud like tracked vehciles.
hmmm, as stated before it'd do fine in urban warfare *considering that armored vehicles using tank tracks are much slower.*

Quote:

Even so, it's ideal for low-intensity urban conflict, nothing heavy duty. While the Ma Duece is always nice, give me a 25mm Bushmaster when I want to punch through a building in a hurry. Nevermind that the base model can't do anything if an armoured vehicle sneezes in it's general direction.
but if it's modified as you mentioned with a mingun or T.O.W., it'd have a chance of standing up to Armored Threats.

Quote:

Like I said, it's good for peacekeeping ops where we don't want to tear up roads and only need a heavy machine gun to supress any serious threat. We should keep a few around for that express purpose, but there's a reason everyone else uses tracked IFVs. It's a step backwards in weapons and terrian handaling.
in a sense it is *but as you mentioned, it is perfect for peace-keeping roles, hence right now in Iraq and most likely in future terrorist conflicts.*

Quote:

Cool on paper, not in combat :P
I beg to differ. :vegetant

Quote:

Miniguns? The hell? Sauce on that. I've also never heard of TOWs being provided or certified for use on Strykers.
not shitting *I'll see if I can find the video/info on it.*

Quote:

Furtermore the APC is dead. Deceased. Gone. It's been dead since the BMP-1 came out. The IFV is what is needed in modern warfare, and the Stryker gives us no such thing. We have to sacrifice troop carrying capacity for a cannon of dubious utility when we already have the proven team of TOW/Chaingun and coming soon the KEM.
hmmm, what's the KEM?

Quote:

Bah to the Rumsfeldian idea that we can somehow make our force light enough to go anywhere at any time aboard C-130s. It's so incredibly, teribly flawed.
never say never in this continually advancing world. :P *even though I don't see it on C-130's, but at least C-117's.*

That NOS Guy 08-14-2007 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9886366)
hmmm, as stated before it'd do fine in urban warfare *considering that armored vehicles using tank tracks are much slower.*

No, wheels are for road considerations. Tracked vehicles tear up roadways. The object in urban warfare is not to go fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9886366)
but if it's modified as you mentioned with a mingun or T.O.W., it'd have a chance of standing up to Armored Threats.

A TOW will give it a chance, a minigun will make lots of sparks. We'd have to swap out the .50 cal mount for a TOW launcher, and denude the infantry of anti-personnel support fire. Unless you completely re-design the turret mounting, add a heavier turret (which kinda defeats the purpose of light = awesome), etc. It's such a headache.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9886366)
in a sense it is *but as you mentioned, it is perfect for peace-keeping roles, hence right now in Iraq and most likely in future terrorist conflicts.*

Bosnia is a peace-keeping role, Iraq is a warzone. I'm not so hot to put tin cans in the middle of an RPG swarm. Even with slat armor, I'm not comfortable at all with the survivability of a Stryker. Give it TROPHY or something similiar and yeah, it'd be better, but it's still much more vulnerable to explosives then a heavier M2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9886366)
not shitting *I'll see if I can find the video/info on it.*

Please do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9886366)
hmmm, what's the KEM?

Kenetic Energy Missile, it's an outgrowth of the LOSAT (Line-Of-Sight Anti-Tank) program. It's pretty much a hyper-velocity missile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9886366)
never say never in this continually advancing world. :P *even though I don't see it on C-130's, but at least C-117's.*

I think you mean C-17s. A C-117 is a Super DC-3 :P

The problem of course is while C-17s have much better preformance we don't have as much of them as we need, so it's not like we have slack to just randomnly pick up an armoured brigade and drop it, supplies and all, in the middle of a warzone in less then 24 hours. It's simply infeasible.

Really, the Sov-- err, I mean Russians pack a 100mm gun/AT missile launcher and a 30mm Co-ax, active defense system, etc. into the BMP-3 at 18.4 tonnes. The Stryker is 19 tons, doesn't pack half the weapons and isn't nearly as resistant to enemy fire as the BMP-3.

Speaking of the Soviets, let's look at their airborne doctrine. When they needed an airlifted vhecile for their rapid response/airborne detatchments what did they turn to? The BMD series. They clock in at about 12 tons. Things need to be a lot lighter then the Stryker for them to be airlifted into a combat zone in any reliable fashion.

It's a great vehicle for police work (and even then it's over-complicated for that kind of work), not much else.

Zhongda 08-14-2007 07:57 AM

AS a list of acronyms would do well in the OP... you lost me after A.P.C

That NOS Guy 08-14-2007 08:47 AM

I'll try and draw up a list of relevant military acronyms at work today.

Sky is Over 08-14-2007 11:49 PM

Quote:

No, wheels are for road considerations. Tracked vehicles tear up roadways. The object in urban warfare is not to go fast.
but wouldn't it be imporatant to arrive at the battle zone to supress the enemy as soon as possible?

Quote:

A TOW will give it a chance, a minigun will make lots of sparks. We'd have to swap out the .50 cal mount for a TOW launcher, and denude the infantry of anti-personnel support fire. Unless you completely re-design the turret mounting, add a heavier turret (which kinda defeats the purpose of light = awesome), etc. It's such a headache.
from what I know, the majority of Stryker's actually don't have the heavy turrets.:blink *actually, what you might be talkking about is the LAV-25*

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-2706G-003.jpg

Quote:

Bosnia is a peace-keeping role, Iraq is a warzone. I'm not so hot to put tin cans in the middle of an RPG swarm. Even with slat armor, I'm not comfortable at all with the survivability of a Stryker. Give it TROPHY or something similiar and yeah, it'd be better, but it's still much more vulnerable to explosives then a heavier M2.
actually, they've began to add slat armor to protect them from RPG's *even though Reactive Armor might be more helpful IMO.*
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-IFV-50cal.jpg

Quote:

Please do.
hmmmm...*funny thing, I can't seem to find the video:sweatdrop * but I did find two pics of Stryker's equipped with Anti-Tank weapons:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ATGM-M240C.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...er_vehicle.jpg

Quote:

Kenetic Energy Missile, it's an outgrowth of the LOSAT (Line-Of-Sight Anti-Tank) program. It's pretty much a hyper-velocity missile.
hmmm, interesting...and after looking at the L.O.S.A.T., I have to say that adding it on unto a Stryker would do some good in tank warfare *since it's simple, just point it in the direction of the tank and fire.*

Quote:

I think you mean C-17s. A C-117 is a Super DC-3 :P
lol, I'm a little bit dusty on my knowledge of aircraft. :sweatdrop

Quote:

The problem of course is while C-17s have much better preformance we don't have as much of them as we need, so it's not like we have slack to just randomnly pick up an armoured brigade and drop it, supplies and all, in the middle of a warzone in less then 24 hours. It's simply infeasible.
from what I actually know, they just recently had a large sales of C-17 III to our foreign allies back in 2006 *suprisingly, congress and teh USAF are in debate over shutting down the production line for the aircraft.*

Quote:

Really, the Sov-- err, I mean Russians pack a 100mm gun/AT missile launcher and a 30mm Co-ax, active defense system, etc. into the BMP-3 at 18.4 tonnes. The Stryker is 19 tons, doesn't pack half the weapons and isn't nearly as resistant to enemy fire as the BMP-3.
hmmm, I think the U.S. forces will eventually pick up on making lighter Strykers in the future. *considering all the upgardes they're giving htme now and such.*

Quote:

Speaking of the Soviets, let's look at their airborne doctrine. When they needed an airlifted vhecile for their rapid response/airborne detatchments what did they turn to? The BMD series. They clock in at about 12 tons. Things need to be a lot lighter then the Stryker for them to be airlifted into a combat zone in any reliable fashion.
ah yes, the VDV *IMO, they're better at it than the army's 82nd* during the cold war, they actually trained them to drop down at U.S.A. Ballistic Missile Sites with the objective of taking over the Silo's *even though they've been reduced greatly from their once Great Soviet Image.*

Quote:

It's a great vehicle for police work (and even then it's over-complicated for that kind of work), not much else.
indeed so *especially for homeland security or the national guard* and also to mention, later on in 2007, they're going to begin to put the Stryker MGS in service. *with auto-control 105mm canons.*

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iringCanon.jpg

That NOS Guy 08-15-2007 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9909427)
but wouldn't it be imporatant to arrive at the battle zone to supress the enemy as soon as possible?

What, tracked vehicles can't go fast?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9909427)
from what I know, the majority of Stryker's actually don't have the heavy turrets.:blink *actually, what you might be talkking about is the LAV-25*

They don't which is my point. A LAV offers anti-tank weapons and a weapon that can lay down decent cover fire when it's infantry debus. A Stryker is a LAV minus all the fun stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9909427)
actually, they've began to add slat armor to protect them from RPG's *even though Reactive Armor might be more helpful IMO.*

ERA armor in a situation where friendlies might be in close proximity is a risky proposition. It's better, but Slat armor being passive in nature decreases the possibility that some poor bastard is going to catch a piece of shrapnal when he's on patrol near the vehicle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9909427)
hmmmm...*funny thing, I can't seem to find the video:sweatdrop * but I did find two pics of Stryker's equipped with Anti-Tank weapons:

Hm, point conceded. I didn't see the ATGM variants the last time I looked over the family, only the MGS. It feels like such a waste when we take strip an infantry carrier of it's ability to bus around grunts to give it anti-tank capacity when the M2 already does that.

Such a step backwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9909427)
hmmm, interesting...and after looking at the L.O.S.A.T., I have to say that adding it on unto a Stryker would do some good in tank warfare *since it's simple, just point it in the direction of the tank and fire.*

The initial idea back in the 90s was to mount it on an M8 Buford chassis with a special turret. Right now they've put the system onto hummers. Bah, it's retarded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9909427)
from what I actually know, they just recently had a large sales of C-17 III to our foreign allies back in 2006 *suprisingly, congress and teh USAF are in debate over shutting down the production line for the aircraft.*

If you count "large" by ammounting to about 16 aircraft total, yeah. The production line is at least open through FY2008 with the addition of 10 aircraft recently.

We still only have about 200 C-17s when it's all said and done, which is no good considering we'd have to take all of them and put them towards the FCS' wet dream of transporting an armoured brigade anywhere in 24 hours.

It gets better when you start looking at supplies and logistics which needs further airlift capacity, etc. We could get them there, it's doubtful we could keep them fighting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9909427)
hmmm, I think the U.S. forces will eventually pick up on making lighter Strykers in the future. *considering all the upgardes they're giving htme now and such.*

You'll have to further cut into unit capacity then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9909427)
ah yes, the VDV *IMO, they're better at it than the army's 82nd* during the cold war, they actually trained them to drop down at U.S.A. Ballistic Missile Sites with the objective of taking over the Silo's *even though they've been reduced greatly from their once Great Soviet Image.*

IIRC, that's an urban myth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Smith (Post 9909427)
indeed so *especially for homeland security or the national guard* and also to mention, later on in 2007, they're going to begin to put the Stryker MGS in service. *with auto-control 105mm canons.*

The MGS is so ... passe. If I wanted an L7 105mm gun, I'd say that we go with an M60A4. At least that won't blow up if the enemy sneezes at it. Plus, the thing only holds about 18 rounds meaning it's sustained engagement is of dubious nature. If you want to mount a tank gun, get a goddamn tank. For everything else, there's TOW/KEM.

Sky is Over 08-15-2007 10:31 PM

Quote:

What, tracked vehicles can't go fast?
a majority of them can't go as fast as one's with wheels *and didn't you say that the tank treads tear up the road?*


Quote:

They don't which is my point. A LAV offers anti-tank weapons and a weapon that can lay down decent cover fire when it's infantry debus. A Stryker is a LAV minus all the fun stuff.
the Stryker MGS which will soon be deployed will be able to fill in this gap of missing firepower.

Quote:

ERA armor in a situation where friendlies might be in close proximity is a risky proposition. It's better, but Slat armor being passive in nature decreases the possibility that some poor bastard is going to catch a piece of shrapnal when he's on patrol near the vehicle.
hmmm, interesting point....

Quote:

Hm, point conceded. I didn't see the ATGM variants the last time I looked over the family, only the MGS. It feels like such a waste when we take strip an infantry carrier of it's ability to bus around grunts to give it anti-tank capacity when the M2 already does that.

Such a step backwards.
IMO, it's actually a step-foward in modifying their flaws involving where it lacks in firepower.

Quote:

The initial idea back in the 90s was to mount it on an M8 Buford chassis with a special turret. Right now they've put the system onto hummers. Bah, it's retarded.
retarded but simple and effective.

Quote:

We still only have about 200 C-17s when it's all said and done, which is no good considering we'd have to take all of them and put them towards the FCS' wet dream of transporting an armoured brigade anywhere in 24 hours.

It gets better when you start looking at supplies and logistics which needs further airlift capacity, etc. We could get them there, it's doubtful we could keep them fighting.
and that's all we'd need to do; air drop surgical teams consisting of the Stryker's would land into enemy territory, hold out an opening in the enemy territory until the main forces are able to take over and push foward.

Quote:

You'll have to further cut into unit capacity then.
but as long as they'd be able to get them on the ground and fighting, it'd be worth the cutbacks; and eventually, they'll find the balance to perfecting it.

Quote:

IIRC, that's an urban myth.
hmmm, I beg to differ *seen some pics of training routines in a few books on the soviet military.*

Quote:

The MGS is so ... passe. If I wanted an L7 105mm gun, I'd say that we go with an M60A4. At least that won't blow up if the enemy sneezes at it. Plus, the thing only holds about 18 rounds meaning it's sustained engagement is of dubious nature. If you want to mount a tank gun, get a goddamn tank. For everything else, there's TOW/KEM.
but you see, with it's light-weight design and speed, it'd be able to dodge most of the tanks and hence be able to go in for the kill. *funny thing, I swear we had this same type of debate about half a year or so back. :oh *

it's deja vu! xD


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.