Do the American army have comparable vehicle too the British warrior?
348695
THE WARRIOR/UK.\nLength 6.3 m \nWidth 3.03 m \nHeight 2.8 m \nWeight 24 t \nSuspension torsion bar \nSpeed 75 km/h road\n? km/h off-road \nRange 600 km \nPrimary armament 30 mm L21A1 RARDEN cannon \nSecondary armament L94A1 coaxial 7.62 mm chain gun\n7.62 mm machine gun \nArmour  ? mm \nPower plant Perkins V-8 Condor\n550 hp (410 kW) \nCrew 3 (commander, gunner, driver) + 7 troops \n\n\nTHE BRADLEY/US\nCrew 3 \n 2 Cavalry Scouts 6 Infantry Dismounts  \nLength 21'2" \nWidth 10'6" \nHeight 9'9" \nWeight 50,000 lbs \nRoad Speed 45 mph \nRange  300 miles \nEngine Cummins VTA-903T water-cooled 4 cycle diesel.  \nArmament 25mm cannon (Chain-gun)\n7.62 mm coaxially mounted machine gun\nTOW missile launcher with twin tubes.
136660
i would think its neither, if you have never heard this excuse: the american army needs to use there armament so people dont start saying that its just lying around useless. and they want to destroy some of it so they can explain why they got new better and more expencive ones.
549988
Huge and Navy Seal don't go together.\n\nI'm guessing it will be something like this:\nhttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/shadow/\n\nIt has a hybrid electric motor to reduce sound (the only thing you hear is the wheels crunching over the terrain) and it's heat signiture.  It can go 38 km at 50 kph on it's batteries alone. It can go 758 km at 50 kph with fuel.\n\nThis might be a standard military vehical.\nhttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/gvp/
914679
I believe the British Army has some high standards and one of them is the ability to spell.  You may wish to take some English and spelling classes.\n\nWhile in the American Army, I had the honor and privilege to work with British Soldiers.  They were educated, motivated and a outstanding group of soldiers.
844909
The US recently changed their camo gear to a digitaly marked pattern. Check out this website for a picture and more information:http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_BDU,,00.html
512365
Too many to name exhaustively but...\n\nUSA - Most were known by numbers but common names were, Sherman, Patton, Honey, Lee.\nGreat Britain - Churchill, Matilda, Valentine, Cromwell, Sherman, Grant (Brit version of the Lee), Cruiser, Crusader.\nSoviet Union - T34, T54\nFrance - Char Bis, Renault light tank\nGermany - Tiger, Panther, Elephant, Panzer Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, and Mk5.\nItaly - Panhard\nJapan - Cant remember.
420159
www.military.com has everything military, so check if they have what you want.
394772
There was a car called the Matador in the late '60's.  I think it was made by AMC.
563173
http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/Message.aspx?SectionID=5\n\nThe Official web site from Dept of Defense.
997172
www.britishblades.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3453 \nhere it is
743266
off the top of my head, hear go's\nBerreta, Miroku, parazzie, Aya, Benelli, zaballa, Mosberg, Remington, Webly&scott, Bsa, Purdy, holland&holland, Lamber, Greener&Greener, Rizzini, Baikal, Blaser, Browning, Churchill, Lincoln, shadow indy, Macnab, Winchester, Zolie, parker hale, fabarm, Westly richards, Krieghoff, Yelditz, Eibar, Gamba, Franchi,. \nI can not think of any more, but sure there is. \n\nAmong these are some british game guns,
365342
im british so yeah! email me airsoft_superdude@yahoo.com
931503
Steve L is correct. Supplied by Thales, the Warriors will have new STAG (Surveillance, Targeting, Acquisition and Gunnery) gunner's sights implemented over the coming two years.\n\nThe sight offers a choice of capability ranging from the unstabilised version to single or dual axis stabilisation. \n\nIt also includes a second generation thermal imager, the Battle Group Thermal Imaging (BGTI) programme, and eyesafe laser rangefinder.
735397
A Fox NBC Recon Vehicle costs the US Army approx. $1.4 million. \nBetter value than the Stryker.
857466
Well, America has been lucky.  Hopefully, we will continue to have it.  Heck.. We got the British soldiers fighting along side us now.  Thanks   \n\nI think Teresa F from Northern England answered pretty good, so I won't go into battles etc.  In fairness I will defend the British sense of humor.\n\nI have worked with some British soldiers and find them friendly and funny. Yes, the soldiers would joke around about the US soldiers be chaps from the colony or something along those lines, but they would take the ribbing just as well and with a smile on their faces.  Don’t take things so personal people, it’s like them saying hello and giving an open to their kind of banter.  They also do it amongst themselves, but they are always willing to have an American join in on the fun.
275824
None that I know of make direct comparisons/contrasts.\n\nI can help you out a lot more than TheWiseOne, as his answer contains many inaccuracies.\n\nContrary to what the WiseOne stated, the M1 Garand was adopted as the standard US Army infantry rifle in 1936 and was standard issue when we entered the war.  The USMC still had a predominance of '03 Springfields, as they didn't receive new equipment until after the Army.  I find it odd that the WiseOne denigrates the Springfield for being "obviously dated and had been used in World War I.".  That's funny, because the standard infantry rifle the Germans used during WWII, the K98k, was simply a newer, shorter version of the Gewehr 98, the Model 1898 Mauser rifle, developed before and used during WWI (the Springfield used the same action as the Mauser by the way).  Both were fine bolt-action weapons, but couldn't compare with the M1 because of their slow rate of fire (the US was the only army in WWII to have a semi-automatic rifle as it's standard infantry weapon).\n\nThe primary sub-machine gun of the US Army during WWII was the M1928A1, M1, and M1A1 versions of the Thompson sub-machine gun.  A fairly heavy weapon, accurate at short ranges, and it had a lot of stopping power due to the fact it was chambered for the .45ACP round.  From 1944 onwards it was slowly phased out and replaced by the M3 Grease Gun.  It was cheaper and far simpler to mass produce than the Thompson.  Contrary to what the WiseOne states, both used 30 round box magazines (although 20 round was available for the Thompson).  The German MP-40 (the famed Schmeisser, although Schmeisser had no part in it's design) was chambered for 9MM Parabellum.  It was lighter and had a slightly lower cyclic rate than the Thompson (but a bit higher than the M3).\n\nComparing the MP-44 and the BAR is like comparing apples and oranges.  The MP-44 is the ancestor of the modern assault rifle, and was used as such.  The BAR is analagous to the M249 SAW that the US Army currently uses.  The MP-44 was a good weapon, with decent accuracy and range, and a cyclic rate high enough to provide fairly heavy firepower.  Very useful in urban fighting.\n\nThe BAR was a great weapon, heavy, but provided very good, accurate firepower for platoons.\n\nI don't know what "tiny Walther pistols" WiseOne is speaking about.  The standard German sidearms of WWII were the Parabellum-Pistole (popularly known as the Luger) and the Walther P-38.  Both were chambered for the 9MM Parabellum round, and both were fairly accurate.  The P-38 was easier and cheaper to make, and more tolerant of various environmental conditions.  The M1911A1 Colt .45 was a fairly good pistol, not particularly accurate, but the .45 ACP round provided good stopping power, and it was fairly reliable.\n\nThe German MG-42 was an excellent weapon, the best of its' class during the war.  It was the basis for the postwar design of the US M-60 machine gun.  I don't know what the WiseOne is speaking of when he mentions "and other lamer machine guns" when speaking of the US.  The primary US light machine gun was the .30 Browning.  It's sustained fire rate wasn't as good as the MG-42, but nevertheless the air-cooled version was a more than competent, if not very good weapon.  The standard heavy machine gun of the US was the Browning M2 .50.  This was an excellent weapon, best in it's class, and is still in use today by many countries. The M2 was just as accurate as the MG-42, and had greater power and ranger. Then again, pretty much any weapon designed by John Browning turned out to be excellent.\n\nThis following statement is absolutely wrong:\n\n"American planes were better than German planes by the time we entered the war, as the RAF killed off many of their better planes."\n\nThe best American fighters of the war at the time of our entry were the P-40 and F4F.  Neither one was anywhere near as good as the
667748
Combat robots...\nhttp://www.robotcafe.com/cgi-bin/gallery/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&Validated=Yes&Category=Combat%20Robots&view_records=1\nCrusher, a six-wheel, six ton robotic vehicle...\nhttp://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=214\nhttp://www.defensetech.org/archives/002367.html\nBigDog from Boston Dynamics...\nhttp://www.bdi.com/content/sec.php?section=BigDog\nhttp://www.livescience.com/technology/060409_robot_sherpa.html\nLatest systems...\nhttp://www.drs.com/products/index.cfm?gID=26&productID=662