Approved: sci-military-moderated@retro.com Return-Path: news@lana.pathlink.com Delivery-Date: Mon Jul 08 12:51:50 2002 Delivery-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 12:51:50 -0700 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:51:49 -0700 (PDT) id QQmwqw15340 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:32:03 GMT for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:32:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@lana.pathlink.com) Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:31:59 -0700 (PDT) To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org From: TTK Ciar Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated Subject: Re: Stryker/LAV Date: 8 Jul 2002 19:31:59 GMT Organization: Subtle, but there Message-ID: References: <3D28C6D3.CD416C98@yahoo.com> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.newsdawg.com Content-Length: 2502 Lines: 50 NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e158722.newsreader.tycho.net X-Trace: 1026169412 gemini.tycho.net 79561 205.179.181.194 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tycho.net Once upon a time, Abrigon Gusiq said: > Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 14:55:16 -0800 > >I do find in looking at pictures of the new Stryker, how it is that us >US Americans, seem to love tall vehicles.. The stryker is a nice compact >vehicle, until you at the turret or like, which addes alot of height. >Seen it in other recent vehicles.. Bradleys and Abrams, both are high >and tall.. >Does this serve a purpose, or just ego? Well, lower and more compact vehicles are easier/lighter to armor, harder to hit in the first place, and can take better defensive advantage of rises and dips in the terrain. They're also somewhat harder to design, and leave little room for the crew, contributing to more rapid fatigue in the field. Frankly, though, I've always assumed that since Americans have had amazing, wonderful, high-tech armor and other high-quality components, they tend not to bother to look too hard for other ways to improve the defensive characteristics of their fighting vehicles. They just pile it on, and beef up the frame, engine, transmission, etc to take the load. Meanwhile, Russia, China, and Ukraine have been much more innovative with their defenses, thus the development of low-profile vehicles, reactive armor, ARENA and Drozd active defense systems, and laser systems which attack the eyes of men and sensors of weapon systems (fielded on China's T-98). Their vehicles have been lighter, more mobile, less expensive, less dependant on a long logistical tail, and more amply protected (for what they're paying) for their efforts. In other words, I think it's not so much ego as it is laziness -- an unwillingness to think too hard about a problem that is "already solved", an unwillingness to compromise difficulty of design for greater protection, and an unwillingness to forsake crew comfort. Without the pressure of necessity, there is less inclination toward innovation. On the other hand, it would not surprise me at all if new vehicle designs incorporated some of these concepts, designs which American companies started *after* our eastern friends demonstrated their remarkable innovations. The American military is putting a high premium on vehicles that are air-transportable, which means piling tons of armor on an accordingly strong vehicle is no longer an option. I foresee America playing catchup for a while. Disclaimer: This is all in my lay opinion, and should be taken with copious salt. -- TTK