Flanky wrote:As you have probably found out by now... Putin needs such a vehicle even more than Americans... Im also a fan of not pursuing each and every research and development americans do... but as i said earlier "Stryker" in the ranks of Russian army would be a very good addition. Essentially a wheeled Sprut. This type of vehicle is ideal in guerilla wars, town / village sieges and so on... If Russians today would still fight the great Chechen war and would had this vehicle in their posession it would ake a big differrence. Tanks are slow and bulky, fighting a guerilla infantry needs speed and agility... That is why the Americans have stryker, Italians have Centauro, Japanese have gun on wheels, France as well as many other nations. Caterpilars on Sprut-SD are great for cross country mobility but they are slow, harder to repair and maintain and thus more costly. On the other hand Sprut-K having the cannon too huge would mean vehicle instability during fire. 125mm kicks a lot of recoil punch, so they would have to stabilize it somehow.2SPOOKY4U wrote:Flanky wrote:Well Russians have Sprut that is true however it is a tracked platform. It is ideal in regular conflicts but in Guerilla wars like those in Chechniya you need speed and responsiveness more than crosscountry capability.
I mean mobility is important that said wheeled platform is cheaper for maintenance and much faster. Regarding the MGS it is used as supporting platform for ground operations against insurgency and guerillas...
Russians would be good to have an equivalent of this... Sprut could be used but its caterpilars are not good for the roads, it consumes too much of fuel, maintenance is much harder and so on....
Flanky, just because the U.S. Ground Forces possess such a vehicle, does not mean the Russian Ground Forces suddenly need one.
Such thought is consistent with shills that instantly think the Russian Forces now requires something similar to what the U.S. fields in it's inventories.
If you believe that the Russian Armed Forces require something of the likes of the Stryker MGS, then I suggest you go here: http://www.f-16.net/
There you find all sorts of like-minded peers.
Again, the reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.
One more time, the reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.
Flanky, I would advise you to research U.S. Army vehicles and their armaments, and to look at which vehicle with the exception of the Stryker MGS, possesses a 120mm cannon.
Take note of this vehicle's ability to carry infantry, or lack of ability.
Afterwards, take a gander at the inventory of the Soviet/Russian Army vehicles.
There you will find a vehicle with a 100mm cannon, high mobility, and perfectly filling the Stryker's intended purpose .