Saturday, October 17, 2009

The LAV- Stryker seems like a great modern fighting vehicle

There is an interesting post over at KiwiPolitico about the NZ Defence Review.

The comments thread has a great discussion about the LAV and there is a link to a fascinating series of article on the benefits of the LAV. I must admit to having had my doubts about the LAV choice but based on the enthusiastic endorsement of American Stryker outfits in Iraq it seems to be the right choice for New Zealand.

There is also a link to The Thunder Run which is an account of the US military run into Baghdad when they deposed Saddam and how close run things were. A missile took out Brigade communications and resupply problems came dangerously close to leaving the 975 soldiers who pushed into Baghdad dangerously short of ammunition and fuel.

A few links there for the military enthusiasts with time amongst our readers.


Simon said...

Your link to the leftards that only want a NZ military for UN peace keeping duties. In that case get rid of our military and sub contract to another country when the UN calls.

Anonymous said...

Try a lav in a swamp.

Redbaiter said...

What the fuck are you linking to that bunch of treasonist Progressives at Kiwipolitico for?? At the same time as you link to Free Republic. ....???

What the fuck is it with you. Politically, you're all over the place like a mad woman's shit, and with your sappy need to be respected by the left, and give them respect, a good example of why the right have been losing for so long.

I dunno why Adolf doesn't just tell you to fuck off and write for Kiwipolitico, and if you do, you can take that other subsversive arsehole Milt with you as well.

White ants.

Psycho Milt said...

Yes, why link to intelligent discussion at Kiwipolitico when we can have uninformed ranting in a comments thread right here?

I recall hearing similar views about the superiority of Strykers cf tracked APCs when operating in built-up areas while I was working for the Americans. Re anon's "Try an LAV in a swamp," you could equally say "Try a Bradley in a bunch of narrow streets."

Also from that US experience, our fears re the LAVs providing little protection for their occupants have been shown to be unfounded. The Marines' tracked amphibious APCs proved far more vulnerable. I heard a couple of times about Strykers getting one or more wheels blown off by IEDs and still being drivable - nothing about people being killed in them.

Ollo Chubb said...

I think the LAVs prime objective is to serve the UN in 'peacekeeping' duties. They would make great traffic patrol cars as well, what they lack in highway speed can be made up in the 25mm cannon at 2400 meters. The road toll would increase but only to those deserved it.

Pablo said...

Cheers Phil, for the link.

The silly ranters' protestations notwithstanding, the post has elicited some remarkably informed comments by people who are clearly not "of the Left." To the contrary, the commentators are people with experience in the military and/or security communities, and the quality of the discussion (which is not only about the LAVs) is enhanced by their clearly thought out views. That is the value of KP that SageNZ recognizes--it allows for reasoned discussion regardless of ideological differences.

Which is precisely what drives the frothers like RB into a purple rage.

Redbaiter said...

Kiwipolitico is an infestation of Communist/ Progressive subversives. That said, there is no such thing as "reasoned discussion regardless of ideological differences". Its impossible. Especially in respect of what might be required in the way of armed forces equipment, and especially in a country where leftism is so firmly imbedded into the culture.

..and if there is anything that might drive me into a "purple rage", its the duplicity of scoundrels like Pablo who write of their odious and foul ideas in language that is cloaked in faux respectable terms but when it is distilled down to its basic elements, is as dangerous and poisonous as anything Stalin ever said when he didn't have to pretend to be something other than an inhuman monster.

Giving these people and their ideas credibility is what has landed NZ and most of the Western world in the most dire straits it has been in since the 1940's, and its long past the time when the enablers (like Sagenz etc) need to be recognised and shamed.

Psycho Milt said...

...there is no such thing as "reasoned discussion regardless of ideological differences". Its impossible.

It is for you, yes.

Redbaiter said...

It is for you, yes.

Milt, pity you didn't have the nous to pick up on the utter ingenuousness of your comrade's prose. In fact, now that I have looked, I see the post was completely focused on defence matters from a political perspective-


It is important that those of the Left of the political spectrum and progressives in general get involved in defence and security issues on an on-going basis,


as it stands the Review process is stacked to the Right,


for just two examples.

And as for his pathetic bullshit that commenters are "not of the left", just damn well look at them for chrissakes. Tom Semmens, that well known apolitical sage features most prominently.

Why is it Milt that so many of you commies have your heads so firmly up your arses so much of the time and just cannot see how wrong you are when its something so obvious to others??

Pablo said...

Silly RB, claiming that the Left should be denied all voice. Quite the authoritarian is he, as well as a dishonest cherry-picker of quotes to support his paranoid delusions and fevered views. Truly a piece of work.

For the record: The post invited people on the Left do get involved in the 2009 Defense Review process because in a mature democracy, ALL voices should be heard. The post also noted that allowing the Greens or Labour to dominate Left discourse on defense was a non-starter and that allowing the Right to dominate the Review was, again, not healthy from a democratic standpoint. What ensured was a robust discussion that included commentators from both the Right and Left, without the ranting and raving that is RB's pathetic stock in trade.

Redbaiter said...

The left's ultimate objective is the complete destruction of our ability to defend against any invader. Any discussion they may proffer on the finer points of defence policy is just complete artifice, and anyone who entertains that discussion, and gives this deceit any kind of reputable foundation, is a leftist stooge and enabler.

Things have only come to what they have today because of the failure of the right to totally oppose the left. Its time for this to change, and for appeasers to be sidelined or rejected totally, for these are the people who have allowed the left to destroy our society and put the free world in more danger than it has ever been since the days of the Third Reich.

In fact, the enemy today is truly within, and there is little to be gained from any defence policy when subversives are white anting democracy and liberty from inside the gates. Only when we free ourselves from this poison is there room for rational and productive discussion on defence.

Psycho Milt said...

The left's ultimate objective is the complete destruction of our ability to defend against any invader.

You've found us out. I've never been able to figure out why we might want to do that, but as a paid-up member of "the left" I feel like it would be rude to ask the chief conspirators - might look like I'm not committed or something.

Simon said...

The defense force should represent New Zealand’s interest except the leftards don’t trust New Zealanders any action got to be sanctioned by the UN.

The LAV comments were generally retarded one fuckwit thought an entire infantry battalion would be moved at once and you would need 70 to 80 LAVs. LAV are used to transport an infantry battalion two sections at a time. LAV's are gold plated crap.

Redbaiter said...

"I've never been able to figure out why we might want to do that,"

Being as you've never amounted to much more than a useful idiot Milt, that don't surprise me.

Only the UN will have guns.

sagenz said...

Simon - Do you have ANY military experience? Did you bother to click through the links and read the stories of how the LAV coped with urban warfare?

New Zealand armed forces are more likely to serve in urbanised areas where the people are. Try a tank in a swamp. Try a Scorpion in tussock. Waiouru broke our tanks.

The problem does not seem to be with the vehicles themselves but with the lack of political & defence leadership will to use them in places where they could be of value. LAV's would be valuable for troop protection in Afghanistan, certainly better than the pathetic Snatch and other vehicles used by the British.

Deploying the LAV would mean a far more powerful & effective New Zealand contribution to peacekeeping.

Red - you read The Standard, so you clearly have an appetite for left of centre viewpoints. I will read and link to intelligent comment where I find it.

Ollo Chubb said...

Sagenz, I reckon the Gov will send over the LAVs soon.
Probably on some Aussie C17s as an ANZAC force when the paper works finished. JK's UN masters demand it.