# The Stryker



## Spr.Earl (30 Oct 2003)

Below is the U.S.Army‘s link for the Stryker.

 http://www.army.mil/features/stryker/


----------



## Bomberman (30 Oct 2003)

Has anyone heard a rumour going around about our Leopards being (eventually) replaced by the light tank variant of the Stryker / LAV III?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Oct 2003)

As it stands the army will be replacing its Leapord fleet with 66 mobile gun platforms.  Basically a LAV chassis with a 105mm gun on it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Oct 2003)

:threat:


----------



## Spr.Earl (30 Oct 2003)

The Tank is the Infanteer‘s and Engineer‘s best friend on the Battle Field!
Just the sound of that engine revving never mind the vibration through the ground when one is in a trench as Tank‘s advance does change a battle(mentaly) to the foot slogger as when you hear and feel tank‘s you know a full assault is on and you have to take out the tank‘s first.
It‘s a "A 1 " phychological weapon"


Case in point was back in 80 I was Driver Rad.Op. for Umpire staff in Germany and was driving down the road about 02:00 when the Maj. shouted HALT!!
He was listening in on Reg. Net.
Out of no where the rummble came then the engine‘s.It was a squadron of the R.C.D.‘s moving out of thier hide!Here‘s us in the old 67 Jeep stopped dead and Tank‘s coming out of nowhere what a site and feeling,we got comm‘s linked so we didn‘t get squashed and followed them untill they went into another hide.

We need Tank‘s,they do thier job if used right!!!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (31 Oct 2003)

There is no doubt that hearing or seeing a tank is quite the sight however if we never use them overseas then what is the sense in keeping them.  Besides with the leaps in ammo technology one guy with a $16-30,000 can take out a million dollar tank.


----------



## McG (1 Nov 2003)

CFL,
If you have never used your house/car insurance, do you cancel it?


----------



## Long in the tooth (1 Nov 2003)

I‘m surprised this board isn‘t jammed about the Strykker project.  In the past, livening up mess life simply meant asking "do we need tanks?" and then dive for cover!  
Personally I believe Gen Hillier is very brave and pragmatic to suggest that Canada is out of the heavy armour business and stop pretending it is.  We haven‘t been since 4 CMBG was repatriated; even then it was tenuous.  I still have clippings from when we first received Leopards and how the Germans had more for training at Shilo than we did in the whole CF.
But let me make my point.  Either we go full heavy mech - M1A2 Abrams, M2 Bradleys and M109As with Recce and Engineer (of course!) at $650 million per Brigade (conservative) or we go light.  It‘s patently unfair to expect the Infantry, Engineers and Artillery to use light vehicles when the Armour has state of the art!  The Leopard 1A4 is not capable of going ‘toe to toe‘ with heavy armour or even infantry with good ATGMs and needs to be replaced, and the argument for retaining them at all is a red herring.
We need economies of scale to be cost effective and for the taxpaying public to support us.  And we need to be in theater to be seen, which means we have to be transportable by CANADIAN aircraft.
General Hillier is right and helping to restore my confidence in higher command.  No, I don‘t work for him..... but would.


----------



## jonsey (1 Nov 2003)

McG
Car Insurance is mandatory for anyone driving. 

An expensive tank that isn‘t being used for what it was made for is a waste of money. If we‘re not using the tanks, and we have no plans of using them (whether it be due to a lack of need, or a lack of money or because they‘re basically obsolete, etc.), why should we keep them? If we can replace them with something that we can put to better use, and that we can afford to put into use, why shouldn‘t we switch?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Nov 2003)

Jonsey, you missed the point on car insurance entirely.

As for why do we need tanks (I agree with the comments on Hillier, frankly, and if Canada has decided it wants out of the heavy armour game, then go the whole hog as we appear to be doing) - the point has been made by recce41 that we may one day need them (insurance, right?) and if that day comes after 20 years of not having them, we will have lost all the hard earned experience passed down from Radley-Walters and that ilk who learned the hard way at the hands of Panzer Lehr, Hitlerjugend, Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, et al in Normandy and beyond - and the successive generations who learned at their feet, and passed on to their successors, etc.

However, if we have finally decided that having allies means depending on them for some things (like armour and the big stick!) while specializing in other areas (light armour, peacekeeping and other peace missions), then so be it.  Do it all the way and forget about airlift, tanks, and other expensive stuff we won‘t need as long as we have friends with big sticks - and can keep paying the price of being their allies.  Softwood, gas, water etc.


----------



## Long in the tooth (1 Nov 2003)

Our relationship with the US is a long, cooperative and tortuous one, Mr Dorosh.  I don‘t believe that they will invade us but will use the WTO and NAFTA to their best advantage.  My point on Heavy or Light is purely with the price - $4 B heavy, $1.5 light for 3 Brigades (prices always go up with government).  Personaly I believe debate about our defence must be based on
1.  Absolute end game defence of Canada;
2.  Historical and present pride and expertise - do what you know;
3.  Ability to mesh with allies (deal with the devil); and
4.  Maximize our current military-industrial complex (we are the 7th largest exporter of military equipment and technology in the world).
We can‘t be the US, but we should contribute when we can.  Even the US has only two heavy armour divisions now (Fort Hood, with a CDN 2IC) - where is the threat?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Nov 2003)

> Our relationship with the US is a long, cooperative and tortuous one, Mr Dorosh.


And who sets the pace and calls the shots in that relationship?


----------



## jonsey (1 Nov 2003)

Michael

Car insurance isn‘t a very good example, i don‘t think. Car insurance is there to cover costs of accidents, repairs, and the like. It‘s not there to fight someone elses insurance. There isn‘t much of a physical makeup to it. It doesn‘t need repairing, it doesn‘t need fuel, it doesn‘t need ammo. All insurance needs are enough clients paying their bill to spread the costs of the claims across everyone to lessen the effects.

A tank generally does battle against another tank, right? Are our tanks capable of effectively engaging other nations tanks? 


I can see what you‘re saying, that we may, one day, find ourselves in a situation where we need a good tank fleet. It‘s just how likely is that situation going to come up, where we don‘t have an ally that can better afford (or has focused more on) a modern tank unit? 
How much would it cost to get our tanks up to that level, and can we afford it, without sacrificing too much from our other areas (whether it be equipment for our combat personell, or from the Navy or Air Force)?


----------



## Long in the tooth (1 Nov 2003)

Interesting points on car insurance, although I don‘t thing it‘s the same... 
I don‘t believe that two representive democracies such as Canada and the US will ever go to war, as we have so many (frequently discussed) bilatural interests.  What Canada surprisingly offers is a seat at the UN and independent Political status.  So, despite our size and desperate military state, the US is our military and diplomaticaly equarls.


----------



## Coniar (2 Nov 2003)

Jonsey, I thought that one of the main ideas of our armed forces was to protect our sovereignty. Witch to me means having a fully working, capable and equipped military. Witch should include a fleet of Main battle tanks. That said I see your point in respect to there cost and what we would sacrifice to have them around. But then once again we are sacrificing 114 recently upgraded Leo‘s for 66 strykers I believe right? it seems to me the sacrifice is on the wrong side...


----------

