Testing, testing...

[stanc]

Stan: I insist that you have always hated the Stryker vehicle and nothing in the world is going to change your mind. You hated it when the concept was brought forth and hate it now.

Gene, you're wrong on that, too. I have never hated the Stryker. I like all armored vehicles, even those with wheels. What I disliked about the Stryker program is that it was spending hundreds of millions of $$$ to acquire a vehicle that -- because of its heavy weight and large size -- simply could not meet the stated purpose of the IBCT: an air-transportable armored unit that could get to anyplace on the globe in 96 hours.

The Stryker of 2K11 is far different than the ones of 2K2...

Even if that's true, it's irrelevant to the air-transportability issue.

...and the concept has proven itself to be far superior to a 113 for the doctrine of the SBCT's.

I don't dispute that Stryker is better than the M113 for getting around quickly on relatively easy terrain. (Stryker gets stuck in mud easier than the M113, though, and I suspect would be very inferior at breaking bush in the jungle, a la Vietnam War.)

However, that Stryker is well-suited for the way the SBCT is actually used, is a different subject from what I've always addressed. But, for some unfathomable reason you always seem to think Stryker's operational use in theatre disproves what I've said about it's strategic mobility. It doesn't. As the ORD proves, strategic mobility was the primary reason used to justify Stryker's purchase.

So, why in the world do you want to bring it up again? I mean, the thread concerns testing and not the dead debate over what vehicle should be issued to SBCT's.

I cited Stryker solely as background history to lead into my point that getting the CSA to like a concept seems to be the best way to get something adopted and fielded. It was the first example to come to mind, no doubt because I was heavily involved in the fight against it. You revived the debate when you erroneously claimed that what I wrote was false.

Another example is GEN Le May, who after shooting an AR15 at a picnic, decided that was the rifle he wanted to replace USAF M1 carbines. After some twists and turns, the Air Force did re-equip with the AR15/M16. (Maybe Alexander should invite the current CSA to a 4th of July picnic to shoot a Grendel... )

A reverse example is the Garand rifle in .276 Pedersen. The Ordnance people liked it, and a review board recommended it for adoption, but the top Army leader (then-CSA GEN MacArthur) vetoed it, insisting upon staying with .30 caliber.

Oh, heck -- I suppose now you're going to accuse me of trying to revive the dead debates over whether the M16 rifle or .276 Pedersen cartridge should have been adopted... :eek: