±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: HighestAce
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6648

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 422
Total: 422
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Home
02: Community Forums
03: Photo Gallery
04: News Archive
05: Home
06: Home
07: Downloads
08: Photo Gallery
09: News Archive
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Member Screenshots
13: Member Screenshots
14: Photo Gallery
15: Community Forums
16: Member Screenshots
17: News Archive
18: Home
19: Member Screenshots
20: Community Forums
21: Photo Gallery
22: Photo Gallery
23: Community Forums
24: Home
25: Community Forums
26: Photo Gallery
27: News Archive
28: Member Screenshots
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Downloads
32: Community Forums
33: Member Screenshots
34: Community Forums
35: Member Screenshots
36: Photo Gallery
37: Community Forums
38: Photo Gallery
39: Photo Gallery
40: Photo Gallery
41: Home
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Home
45: Community Forums
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: Home
49: Photo Gallery
50: Home
51: Statistics
52: Home
53: Community Forums
54: Home
55: Community Forums
56: Home
57: Community Forums
58: Member Screenshots
59: Photo Gallery
60: Community Forums
61: Statistics
62: Community Forums
63: Home
64: Home
65: News Archive
66: Home
67: Home
68: Downloads
69: Home
70: Community Forums
71: Home
72: Photo Gallery
73: News Archive
74: Community Forums
75: Member Screenshots
76: Photo Gallery
77: Member Screenshots
78: Member Screenshots
79: Community Forums
80: Member Screenshots
81: Community Forums
82: Photo Gallery
83: Home
84: Home
85: Downloads
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: Community Forums
91: Downloads
92: Home
93: Home
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Community Forums
97: Home
98: Member Screenshots
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Home
103: Photo Gallery
104: Home
105: Downloads
106: Community Forums
107: Community Forums
108: Home
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Home
112: Home
113: Member Screenshots
114: Home
115: Home
116: Home
117: Home
118: Home
119: Photo Gallery
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Community Forums
123: Photo Gallery
124: Community Forums
125: Community Forums
126: Member Screenshots
127: Member Screenshots
128: Member Screenshots
129: Home
130: Community Forums
131: Home
132: Member Screenshots
133: Photo Gallery
134: Home
135: Home
136: Community Forums
137: Home
138: Home
139: Photo Gallery
140: Downloads
141: Home
142: Home
143: Home
144: Member Screenshots
145: Downloads
146: Community Forums
147: Downloads
148: Community Forums
149: Community Forums
150: Downloads
151: Home
152: Statistics
153: Home
154: Member Screenshots
155: Home
156: Home
157: Home
158: Member Screenshots
159: Home
160: Home
161: Home
162: Community Forums
163: Photo Gallery
164: Community Forums
165: Photo Gallery
166: LinkToUs
167: Community Forums
168: Home
169: Home
170: Home
171: Member Screenshots
172: Community Forums
173: News Archive
174: Home
175: Community Forums
176: Home
177: Home
178: Home
179: Community Forums
180: Home
181: Community Forums
182: Home
183: Community Forums
184: Photo Gallery
185: Member Screenshots
186: Home
187: Home
188: Community Forums
189: Community Forums
190: Home
191: Home
192: Photo Gallery
193: Home
194: Home
195: Member Screenshots
196: Home
197: Statistics
198: Community Forums
199: Community Forums
200: Community Forums
201: Statistics
202: Home
203: Statistics
204: News Archive
205: Member Screenshots
206: Home
207: News
208: Community Forums
209: Home
210: Community Forums
211: Home
212: Home
213: Photo Gallery
214: Member Screenshots
215: Member Screenshots
216: Community Forums
217: Photo Gallery
218: Community Forums
219: Member Screenshots
220: Community Forums
221: News Archive
222: Community Forums
223: Home
224: Home
225: Home
226: Photo Gallery
227: Home
228: Community Forums
229: Home
230: Home
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Community Forums
234: Community Forums
235: Home
236: Photo Gallery
237: Home
238: Home
239: Home
240: News Archive
241: Downloads
242: Home
243: Community Forums
244: Community Forums
245: Home
246: Home
247: Member Screenshots
248: Home
249: Downloads
250: Community Forums
251: Home
252: Community Forums
253: Community Forums
254: Community Forums
255: Community Forums
256: Home
257: Photo Gallery
258: Community Forums
259: Community Forums
260: Home
261: Home
262: Community Forums
263: Home
264: Photo Gallery
265: Member Screenshots
266: Member Screenshots
267: Home
268: Home
269: Member Screenshots
270: Home
271: Community Forums
272: Home
273: Community Forums
274: Member Screenshots
275: News
276: Contact
277: News Archive
278: Member Screenshots
279: Home
280: Member Screenshots
281: Community Forums
282: Home
283: Member Screenshots
284: Community Forums
285: Home
286: Home
287: Home
288: Home
289: News Archive
290: Community Forums
291: Member Screenshots
292: Photo Gallery
293: Home
294: Home
295: Community Forums
296: Community Forums
297: Home
298: Member Screenshots
299: Home
300: Community Forums
301: Home
302: Community Forums
303: Community Forums
304: Member Screenshots
305: Community Forums
306: Community Forums
307: Home
308: Photo Gallery
309: Community Forums
310: Community Forums
311: Home
312: Home
313: Downloads
314: Community Forums
315: Community Forums
316: Photo Gallery
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Home
320: Photo Gallery
321: Member Screenshots
322: News
323: Community Forums
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: Home
327: Photo Gallery
328: Home
329: Home
330: Community Forums
331: Home
332: Home
333: Home
334: Downloads
335: Home
336: Treasury
337: Community Forums
338: Home
339: Member Screenshots
340: Downloads
341: Home
342: Community Forums
343: Statistics
344: Member Screenshots
345: Photo Gallery
346: News Archive
347: Member Screenshots
348: Downloads
349: Community Forums
350: Community Forums
351: Community Forums
352: Community Forums
353: Community Forums
354: Home
355: Home
356: Home
357: Photo Gallery
358: Member Screenshots
359: Community Forums
360: Community Forums
361: Community Forums
362: Community Forums
363: Photo Gallery
364: Photo Gallery
365: Community Forums
366: Home
367: Member Screenshots
368: Home
369: Member Screenshots
370: Home
371: Home
372: Community Forums
373: News
374: News
375: Community Forums
376: Home
377: Member Screenshots
378: Photo Gallery
379: Member Screenshots
380: Community Forums
381: Home
382: Community Forums
383: Your Account
384: Home
385: Home
386: Home
387: News
388: Home
389: Home
390: Community Forums
391: Home
392: Photo Gallery
393: Home
394: Home
395: Community Forums
396: Home
397: Member Screenshots
398: Home
399: Home
400: Home
401: Home
402: Home
403: Home
404: Community Forums
405: Community Forums
406: Home
407: Community Forums
408: Member Screenshots
409: Downloads
410: Home
411: Home
412: Your Account
413: Home
414: Home
415: Photo Gallery
416: Home
417: Member Screenshots
418: Community Forums
419: Photo Gallery
420: Community Forums
421: Community Forums
422: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Stryker MGS
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:33 am
Post subject: Stryker MGS

Hi CIA Agents and all other folks!

Found the following photos over at the the US Army mil web site. Looks like the MGS is finally getting into the hands of the crews who will be using them. These photos are of the 1st SBCT, 25th ID at Ft Wainwright.



For the smaller version and the caption:

www.army.mil/-images/2...09/05/7618



For the smaller version and the caption:

www.army.mil/-images/2...09/05/7619

My 2 cents, think of the MGS as an upgrade from the M151 jeep with a M40/106mm RR carring six rounds of HEAT. Don't think of it as a down grade from a MBT.

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.


Last edited by Roy_A_Lingle on Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
mumfordlibrarian
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:37 am
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Roy this seems to be a "walks like a duck" vehicle. The Army seems to be insisting that this is not an anti-tank weapon.

Paul T. Weaver
mumfordlibrarian
Back to top
View user's profile
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:55 am
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Hi Paul! Hi Folks!

- mumfordlibrarian

Roy this seems to be a "walks like a duck" vehicle. The Army seems to be insisting that this is not an anti-tank weapon.

Paul T. Weaver
mumfordlibrarian


I think the trick to that would be to use some airplane thinking.

Many fighter planes where built to be used as a fighter. A number of those same fighter planes could be used as bombers.

A good example might be the F104 Starfighter. Clearly a fighter plane, yet during Vietnam, the Air Force hung bombs off them and used them to attack ground targets.

Now it can carry bombs and it can attack ground targets, so it's a bomber right? No, it's a fighter plane that if need be can be used as a bomber.

The MGS is a bit like those old F104s, it can be used to kill tanks, but that is not it's main job. The primary job is direct heavy fire support for the infantryman in contact with enemy infantry.
It's not a duck, but it can, if need be quack like a duck.

Tank killing in the Stryker BCT is the primary job of the TOW carriers.

Just keep telling yourselfs, it's not a tank, it's not a tank, it's not a tank.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

- Roy_A_Lingle
Hi Paul! Hi Folks!

- mumfordlibrarian

Roy this seems to be a "walks like a duck" vehicle. The Army seems to be insisting that this is not an anti-tank weapon.

Paul T. Weaver
mumfordlibrarian


I think the trick to that would be to use some airplane thinking.

Many fighter planes where built to be used as a fighter. A number of those same fighter planes could be used as bombers.

A good example might be the F104 Starfighter. Clearly a fighter plane, yet during Vietnam, the Air Force hung bombs off them and used them to attack ground targets.

Now it can carry bombs and it can attack ground targets, so it's a bomber right? No, it's a fighter plane that if need be can be used as a bomber.

The MGS is a bit like those old F104s, it can be used to kill tanks, but that is not it's main job. The primary job is direct heavy fire support for the infantryman in contact with enemy infantry.
It's not a duck, but it can, if need be quack like a duck.

Tank killing in the Stryker BCT is the primary job of the TOW carriers.

Just keep telling yourselfs, it's not a tank, it's not a tank, it's not a tank.
Sgt, Scouts Out!


I like your general analogy but you chose the wrong example. If you had said F-100 or F-4 I would totally agree but the F-104 was the one totally wrong answer. The U.S. never used the F-104 as a ground attack plane. In fact it was pretty much being slowly taken out of the active force when there was a competition for a new NATO standard strike plane. Lockheed took the basic shape of the F-104 and redisgned everyrhing about it. New airframe, new wings, new cockpit new (upward firing) ejection seat (The original F-104 ejection seat ejected downward, not a good idea for a strike plane that would operate primarily down on the deck). This was designated the F-104G (except in Canada where I think it was the F-104D but I will have to check) The F-104G got a bad reputation early on. It was later figured out that most of the problem was that the plane was much hotter than the F-84s and G-91s that most of the pilots had been used to. As pilot training and experience went up the track record got better. But thinking the late model F-104s that were used as strike aircraft were the same ones as the early F-104C that the USAF used is like saying the M46 and the M60 are both Patton tanks

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

- Roy_A_Lingle
Hi Paul! Hi Folks!

- mumfordlibrarian

Roy this seems to be a "walks like a duck" vehicle. The Army seems to be insisting that this is not an anti-tank weapon.

Paul T. Weaver
mumfordlibrarian


I think the trick to that would be to use some airplane thinking.

Many fighter planes where built to be used as a fighter. A number of those same fighter planes could be used as bombers.

A good example might be the F104 Starfighter. Clearly a fighter plane, yet during Vietnam, the Air Force hung bombs off them and used them to attack ground targets.

Now it can carry bombs and it can attack ground targets, so it's a bomber right? No, it's a fighter plane that if need be can be used as a bomber.

The MGS is a bit like those old F104s, it can be used to kill tanks, but that is not it's main job. The primary job is direct heavy fire support for the infantryman in contact with enemy infantry.
It's not a duck, but it can, if need be quack like a duck.

Tank killing in the Stryker BCT is the primary job of the TOW carriers.

Just keep telling yourselfs, it's not a tank, it's not a tank, it's not a tank.
Sgt, Scouts Out!


at the 2006 Armor Symposium, I met up with one of my former TC's from one of my tank platoons. An excellent NCO who really knew his stuff. He had been on the MGS for a couple of years. Amoung other things he simply reinforced the point that the MGS, IS NOT A TANK Shocked , and its primary function is 'Infantry Support".

I equated the parallels of its stated mission, to of the Ontos. Totally dedicated to the role of 'Infantry Support'. (Although the Ontos was classified as a 'Tank Destroyer'.

The problem I think is the mistaken belief that the MGS is a subsitute/replacement for the AGS or even the Sheridan.

The Air Force analogy is a bit off. I was actually surprised that Bob didn't write that.... Rolling Eyes Mr. Green

(ROY you are hereby fined 50 COOL points!! Cool Don't let that happen again..!!)

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Hi Bob! Hi Folks!

- bsmart

I like your general analogy but you chose the wrong example. If you had said F-100 or F-4 I would totally agree but the F-104 was the one totally wrong answer. The U.S. never used the F-104 as a ground attack plane.

Shocked Say what? Confused
Bob, this VERY OLD JARHEAD is going to have to bring you up to date on some very old history.

During 1966 into the first half of 1967, an Air Force F104 Starfighter unit based at Da Nang, RVN was sending those birds up with ONE BOMB under each wing.

Also this old Scout must report that during one FTX at Hohenfels FRG, sometime around 1975 or 1976, while conducting Castle Guard for the Battalion TOC, the TOC was attacked by four West German F104s. I would guess that if those German F104s were conducting that type of mission during peace time, they were planning on using those A/Cs for that type of mission against Warsaw Pack AFVs.

I though about using the F4, but I went with the F104 because I feel it is possible the best example of something build to do one thing and commanders turned around and used it for something it could just barely do.

Some of my very old history. Sorry no pictures to help back up my claims. Crying or Very sad
Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.


Last edited by Roy_A_Lingle on Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Not doubting your claims. Let me check a couple sources this evening about the Vitenam connection.

The German connection is no problem. That was the F-104G that was a complete redesign of the plane under the same name. The G model was designed as a strike fighter first with a secondary Air to Air capability. To bring it full circle the Italians later reworked the F-104G design with new radar and missles into the F-104S which was a primary all weather interceptor that even carried AIM-7 Sparrow missles in addition to the AIM-9 Sidewinders that were always available on the F-104G

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Hi Bob! Hi Folks!

- bsmart

That was the F-104G that was a complete redesign of the plane under the same name. The G model was designed as a strike fighter first with a secondary Air to Air capability.


Say what? Shocked Strike Fighter! Shocked Shocked
Will that just shows you all how little I know about things with wings!

I hope you find something on the miss use of the F104 in Vietnam. I know their were not flying CAS missions for the Marines, so I guess they were either going out west or up north.

Time for bed, later folks!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

"G-71 coming to assist element of second platoon, over!" Laughing

(This is an excerpt from a longer article, Joe Baugher is a recognized source, listed at bottom)


"The F-104C (Lockheed Model 483-04-05) was the tactical strike version of the Starfighter. It was designed to meet the needs of the Tactical Air Command (TAC), which had earlier found the F-104A to be unacceptable because of its low endurance and its inability to carry significant offensive payloads.

In April of 1965, a single squadron (the 476th TFS) of the 479th TFW deployed with their F-104Cs to Kung Kuan AB in Taiwan, with regular rotations to the forward base at Da Nang Air Base in South Vietnam. Their job was to fly MiG combat air patrol (MiGCAP) missions to protect American fighter bombers against attack by North Vietnamese fighters. They flew these missions armed with their single M61A1 20-mm cannon and four AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. The effect of F-104 deployment upon NVN and PRC MiG operations was immediate and dramatic--NVN MiGs soon learned to avoid contact with USAF strikes being covered by F-104s. During the entire deployment of the 476th only two fleeting encounters between F-104Cs and enemy fighters occurred.

As the MiG threat abated, the 476th TFS was tasked with some weather reconnaissance and ground attack missions. A few of these were against targets in North Vietnam, but most of them were close air-support missions against targets in the South under forward air controller direction. The F-104s were fairly successful in this role, gaining a reputation for accuracy in their cannon fire and their bombing and capable of quite rapid reaction times in response to requests for air support. During this period, the 476th F-104s maintained an in-commission rate of 94.7%, a testimony both to the quality of 476th maintenance personnel and to the simplicity and maintainability of F-104 systems. However, an F-104 went down during a sortie 100 nm SSW of DaNang on June 29. The pilot was rescued with minor injuries.

The 436th TFS assumed the 476th's commitment in DaNang on 11 July, and the 436th began flying combat sorties the next day. Although a few MiGCAP missions were flown, the majority of the missions were quick-reaction close-air support missions in support of ground troops. On July 23, Capt. Roy Blakely attempted to crash-land his battle-damaged F-104C at Chu Lai. Blakely successfully set his aircraft down gear-up, but died when his F-104 swerved off the runway into a sand dune. "

Source: home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_9.html
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Looks like I blew it

I haven't found the book I'm looking for but that's okay. I thought the F-104s had been deployed as Anti Mig cover but not used as attack aircraft. Part of my confusion was mis remembering a picture of an F-106 with a bomb under it's wing that was done as a joke on the commander of Air Defence Command. PACAF F-102s were deployed to Bien Hoa and Da Nang in Vietnam and Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand as Air Defence but eventually withdrawn by 1969 without ever engaging in combat.

I shoulkd have known not to try and correct a scout Rolling Eyes

Oh Doug thanks for reminding me about Joe Baughers aircraft pages. I had been there before but in a series of machine replacements had lost the links. His coverage is excellent. This is his page on the F04s acceptance as a NATO strike fighter.
home.att.net/~jbaugher...04_11.html
He leaves some questions unanswered that are actually well known. Let's just say that there were cases of Bribery involving Lockheed and some European officials that were strong enough that Lockheed now has a VERY STRONG ethics program and annual training about 'Truth in Negotiations', 'Foreign Corrupt Practices' and other ethics courses are now mandatory annual training throughout Lockheed Martin

Oh I found it interesting that of the 722 Starfighters ordered for the USAF only 296 were delivered before the contract was cancelled. The NATO deal was all AFTER that.

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

- bsmart
.

I shoulkd have known not to try and correct a scout Rolling Eyes



Scouts always stand to be corrected...where you went so horribly wrong was bring to one under fire without keeping in mind that since scouting is their primary function, they normally will not engage unless they know they've got another element in position to bring mutually supporting fire to bear in case it's needed. Laughing ( "G" Troop emerges victorious.)

But hey, you're Air Force, how could you could know? Don on the other hand.....(and does this mean Roy gets his "cool points" back? Mr. Green )

I think somewhere in there the article also notes that F104's also got credit for no air-to-air kills in VN, but that needs to be double checked.

AND....I owe my familiarity with Joe Baugher's pages to....Jeff Button, an 11C turned Transportation (where'd he go, anyway?), so there you go...we be's multidiciplinary at the AFV DG!


Last edited by Doug_Kibbey on Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
piney
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 2330
Location: Republic of Southern New Jersey
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

does that mean we have to invite swabbies? Laughing

Jeff Lewis
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

- piney
does that mean we have to invite swabbies? Laughing

Jeff Lewis


There already are several 'floating' around the AFV DG.... Laughing Laughing Laughing

Mr. Green

sorry....

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

- piney
does that mean we have to invite swabbies? Laughing

Jeff Lewis


I don't know about swabbies but there is at least one COASTIE in the group (Someone has to be able to do the maritime safety check before we try and swim an M113)

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])


Last edited by bsmart on Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:14 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:13 am
Post subject: Re: Stryker MGS

Hello fellow CIA Agents and other folks!

To the TC of G71, super thanks for the overwatching support as I took some time out to get some much needed sleep. Well done Sir! That was some heavy duty intell reporting.

To Dontos, did I lose 50 cool points for talking about things with wings or was because I caught you off guard about the history of the F104 in Vietnam?

As for the subject of "swabbies". Well lets see, they have "V" things that are armored and are used to fight from. I would call those super heavy AFVs and therefor more than qualified to be members of this "multidiciplinary" CIA team.

Thanks for the backup G71! "Allons"
Sgt, Scouts Out1

P.S.
As the number ONE conducter of "Alertness Tests" to see if anyone is paying attention to my "flobs ups" I must say that someone has always been there to correct my misinformation so other members will get the correct facts. For all those times, I thank you all.

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum