Bronco46

Bronco46

87p

858 comments posted · 0 followers · following 1

8 years ago @ Defense Tech - Best Photos of Runaway... · 0 replies · 0 points

Finally, somebody who's been paying attention.

8 years ago @ Defense Tech - Best Photos of Runaway... · 1 reply · +2 points

Billion is correct. But it's the cost of the whole program. This is proof that the universities are turning out half-educated beer guzzlers.

8 years ago @ Defense Tech - Best Photos of Runaway... · 0 replies · 0 points

THE WHOLE PROGRAM IS $2.7 BillION. Think before you write.
But then the guy that wrote the article got it wrong too.

8 years ago @ Defense Tech - Pentagon: Russia Viola... · 0 replies · -11 points

This is an obvious escalation. And nothing will be done by this administration.

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - U.S. Army Testing Ligh... · 2 replies · -4 points

Mike did you ever spend much time in a 113. I did. And M-577 was USMC vehicle. And not anywhere near as many have been made.
The 113 has a crew of two, not four. And it can carry eleven armed troops. More when you've really got to get out of Dodge.
All the criticism I'm seeing here seems to be uninformed and incorrect.

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - U.S. Army Testing Ligh... · 3 replies · +7 points

We have something called NATO. And yes we share technology. And we choose to use weapons and technology that works. I don't understand why that's a problem for you. As someone who carried a gun for his country. I want what works. And that doesn't have to have "Made in the USA" on it. Put yourself in the position of being shot at. You'll agree.
And what in God's name do you thing we get from Russia! We do have a lot of Russian equipment that we train with. But it's all captured.

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - U.S. Army Testing Ligh... · 4 replies · -4 points

I think you mean the M-113. The M-114 was just a command variant of the 113. And the M-113 and all its variants worked very well, for what they were designed to do. Yes, they could be knocked out. But they were meant to give us .30 cal and splinter protection, and they did that. They are still in use today. That doesn't sound like a vehicle that didn't work to me. I rode in these and was grateful for the ride and the protection.

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - U.S. Army Testing Ligh... · 0 replies · +8 points

Hitler's people tried to build an impervious armored vehicle. And they did. But it sank into the ground and became a sitting duck. You can only put so much armor on any vehicle. Put too much and it just becomes a pill box.

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - U.S. Army Testing Ligh... · 5 replies · +3 points

You simply need to behave yourself. And follow their directions. And if they do anything outside of the law. Report them. It's just that simple.

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - U.S. Army Testing Ligh... · 0 replies · +1 points

Whoa, whoa, who TED! Too much coffee this morning. These things are submitted for testing. If they don't work or are too expensive they usually don't make it. It's not possible to make a completely safe armored vehicle. For an APC all you can do is provide splinter and blast protection. And most importantly speed! Many are attacking the jerry-cans ate the front. But this vehicle would spend the vast majority of its service life just driving around. So having a some extra gas is a good thing. No seems to have noticed they're not welded on.
We already use armed dune buggies in a number of roles. A fast trac would be an upgrade.