Approved: sci-military-moderated@retro.com Return-Path: news@cantuc.it.canterbury.ac.nz Delivery-Date: Mon Jul 08 18:06:58 2002 Delivery-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 18:06:58 -0700 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 18:06:57 -0700 (PDT) for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT) 09 Jul 2002 12:44:21 +1200 (NEW ZEALAND STANDARD TIME) Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 12:44:20 +1200 From: Kerryn Offord Subject: Re: Stryker/LAV To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org Message-ID: <3D2A31E4.CBAE727D@student.canterbury.ac.nz> Organization: University of Canterbury X-Complaints-to: abuse@canterbury.ac.nz MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Windows NT 5.0; U) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-NNTP-posting-date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 00:44:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Accept-Language: en,ja,zh,zh-CN,zh-TW,ko Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated X-NNTP-posting-host: pug1478.psyc.canterbury.ac.nz References: <3D28C6D3.CD416C98@yahoo.com> X-MailScanner: Passed Content-Length: 3547 Lines: 71 NNTP-Posting-Host: 1380e073.newsreader.tycho.net X-Trace: 1026175737 gemini.tycho.net 22477 205.179.181.194 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tycho.net TTK Ciar wrote: > > 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. Or you limit crew to being no bigger than xxx (something around 5'8" or so (AMX-13) vs over 6' for most NATO designs (not sure on Merkava)) and auto load because your smaller crew can't handle the larger rounds..... > 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. Height of western tanks tends to be controlled by the minimum height needed for your (85th percentile??) loader to "comfortably" stand while being in a suitable position to load the main gun. The high turret offers greater volume (which is expensive to armour) for storage (US.... more ammo, UK..... comms gear), but more importantly the gun can be depressed more than on smaller Soviet style tanks. The greater the amount of depression you can get the less of your tank you expose when firing from hull down positions (except when firing horizontally)... It has been suggested that soviet tanks have to be on the front slope in order to engage targets below them while "Western" tanks can be hull down and still engage targets below them. > > Disclaimer: This is all in my lay opinion, and should be taken > with copious salt. > > -- TTK