[US Army] Dun Broken

[MichaeltheGreat]

Equipping a light infantry division is nowhere's near as lucrative as developing a new piece of **** vehicle system.

[Az]

Eliminate 6 regular army divisions in the last 20 years, and you've got problems.

But at least you have lotsa stealthy jet fighters
and MOAB

Why not? Someone has to arm them.

The amount of equipment used by an infantry unit is far lower than the amount of equipment used by an armored unit of the same order.

[Sirotnikov]

We need fewer pieces of junk like the Stryker and more infantry divisions.

what are some good shielded western APCs ?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Oerdin
We need fewer pieces of junk like the Stryker and more infantry divisions.

I looked the Stryker up on Wikipedia, but their summary of the controversy gives the impression of overall endorsement by the troops using it. Do you have objections to the Stryker itself (e.g. armor flaws), or just of spending money on new toys in general while there's a shortage of equipment for traditional infantry, or what?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Equipping a light infantry division is nowhere's near as lucrative as developing a new piece of **** vehicle system.

Devolped? They took a LAV-25, slapped some electronics in it, removed the stablized turret and river-crossing ability, added $500,000 to the per-unit cost, and called it a day. Oh, and created a New MGS when an already devolped alternative was already in the arsenal. And it doesn't do what the contract told it to.

Of course, this article is basically advocating stripping the USN and USAF of even more resources, when the USN is the smallest it's been since before WW2. Not sayign that the Army shouldn't get the money, but during peace time it's the USN that gets the most use.(which explains why the Army got in the rear in the '90s, procurment wise)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Devolped? They took a LAV-25, slapped some electronics in it, removed the stablized turret and river-crossing ability, added $500,000 to the per-unit cost, and called it a day. Oh, and created a New MGS when an already devolped alternative was already in the arsenal. And it doesn't do what the contract told it to.

And in defense procurementspeak, that's new system development.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Elok


I looked the Stryker up on Wikipedia, but their summary of the controversy gives the impression of overall endorsement by the troops using it.

Anyone in uniform who speaks on the record will generally have positive things to say.

Do you have objections to the Stryker itself (e.g. armor flaws), or just of spending money on new toys in general while there's a shortage of equipment for traditional infantry, or what?

Both. Air-transportability, cost, potentially higher casualties, the whole wheeled v. tracked issue (which was pretty much settled in WW2, but people like to forget)

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


And in defense procurementspeak, that's new system development.

Well, my point is, if anything they took a proven product and made it inferior. In the name of "OMFG NETCENTRIC! *fap fap*

[Drake Tungsten]

We need fewer pieces of junk like the Stryker and more infantry divisions.

You'd be better off spending less on the F-22/F-35/missile defense and having both the Stryker and more infantry divisions...

stripping the USN and USAF of even more resources