When is the US going to get "real" Land Rovers?

|> Why can't the US get Defender 90s, 110s and 130s?
|>
|> Why can't we have diesel powered Landies?
|>
|> And why doesn't the US military use the Defender as a basic, and
|> cheaper, vehicle for the average troops?
|
|The U.S. Marine anti-terrorist unit uses the Mercedes G series. Works very
|well for them. Not the landrover, but still it's nice to see them use
|something other than the hummer.

Isn't the G-Wagon costing over $100,000? At that point it is no
different than the Hummer.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:16:08 GMT, R. David Steele
<[email protected]/OMEGA> wrote:

>
>|> Why can't the US get Defender 90s, 110s and 130s?
>|>
>|> Why can't we have diesel powered Landies?
>|>
>|> And why doesn't the US military use the Defender as a basic, and
>|> cheaper, vehicle for the average troops?
>|
>|The U.S. Marine anti-terrorist unit uses the Mercedes G series. Works very
>|well for them. Not the landrover, but still it's nice to see them use
>|something other than the hummer.
>
>Isn't the G-Wagon costing over $100,000?

Only the tarted-up civvy ones with bunion lubrication and automatic
nose-hair clippers. Utility Gs are cheap(er).

> At that point it is no different than the Hummer.

Other than being smaller, lighter and more capable.

--
QrizB

"On second thought, let's not go to Z'Ha'Dum. It is a silly place."

On or around Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:52:37 -0500, N9NWO <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>And we have less over weight police these days. For one
>thing, the average LEO has only 3 years experience (most
>quit before they reach five years). Lots of young, athletic
>guys with big egos.

and guns... eek.

back to that "private islands for sale" site I think.

apparently, you can buy 5400 acres of island in Fiji complete with 400 head
of cows, herd of goats, village full of workers, etc., for about $15M US.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt"
(confound the men who have made our remarks before us.)
Aelius Donatus (4th Cent.) [St. Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes]

On or around Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:34:06 +0100, [email protected]
(Steve Firth) enlightened us thusly:

>The SAS tend to use very old Land Rovers, Series III with a windscreen
>(only), no roof. These are both v. cheap and v. rugged and they can
>carry a decent payload.

I think they've a new one based on a 110XD.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt"
(confound the men who have made our remarks before us.)
Aelius Donatus (4th Cent.) [St. Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes]

On or around Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:48:57 -0500, N9NWO <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>So, the Defender might do as an affordable
>combat vehicle. What is that Mercedes G-Wagon?
>I hear that it is over $100,000!!!
>
>And now the army is pushing some "off the shelf"
>Chevy truck that is going to cost $100,000 per
>unit!!! No wonder they have to make the military
>smaller, there is no other way to equip the troops.
>
>But then the Canadian army only has four tanks....

and when was Canada last at war?

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt"
(confound the men who have made our remarks before us.)
Aelius Donatus (4th Cent.) [St. Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes]

On or around Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:16:08 GMT, R. David Steele
<[email protected]/OMEGA> enlightened us thusly:

>Isn't the G-Wagon costing over $100,000? At that point it is no
>different than the Hummer.

apart from being half the size, so it'll actually fit into an urban
environment...

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt"
(confound the men who have made our remarks before us.)
Aelius Donatus (4th Cent.) [St. Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes]

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:48:57 -0500, N9NWO
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> So, the Defender might do as an affordable
>> combat vehicle. What is that Mercedes G-Wagon?
>> I hear that it is over $100,000!!!
>>
>> And now the army is pushing some "off the shelf"
>> Chevy truck that is going to cost $100,000 per
>> unit!!! No wonder they have to make the military
>> smaller, there is no other way to equip the troops.
>>
>> But then the Canadian army only has four tanks....
>
> and when was Canada last at war?

WW2 - lots of them dies very bravely too.

If you mean on their own land it was in 1812 when the US decided to invade
Canada and make it American but got beat and the borders returned to where
they were before the invasion.

--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =

Dan J. S. wrote:
> R. David Steele wrote:
>> Why can't the US get Defender 90s, 110s and 130s?
>>
>> Why can't we have diesel powered Landies?
>>
>> And why doesn't the US military use the Defender as a basic, and
>> cheaper, vehicle for the average troops?
>
> The U.S. Marine anti-terrorist unit uses the Mercedes G series. Works
> very well for them. Not the landrover, but still it's nice to see
> them use something other than the hummer.

In the recent Gulf conflict the Turkish refused to allow US military
vehicles to cross the border into northern Iraq so the US special forces
were supplied with civvy-spec Defender 110 crew-cab TD5's in white. They
were reported to be very impressed with them except the colour which they
immediately daubed with local mud.

--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =

> you've hit the nail on the head it's as big as a tank
> or more to the point as wide as a tank
> they were designed to run in tank tracks

Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs
5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better.

Steve Firth ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>> > I think the H2 was supposed to be better.

>> I thought the H2 was a farcical joke restyle of a Chevy Suburb?

> Am I getting my numbers mixed up? I thought the Tahoe derivative was
> the H3.

The H1 is the "original" Hummer.
The H2 is a restyled Suburb/Avalanche/Escalade/Whatever.
The H3 is "rumored" to be hitting production next year. Maybe. P'raps.

"Steve Firth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gcgl1z.e966as130d0djN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> R. David Steele <[email protected]/OMEGA> wrote:
>
> > Question: how tough is the Defender in comparison to the Hummer?
> > Will it take the abuse that US soldiers give?
>
> The Hummer has a reputation of being rather fragile, among the British
> military. Certainly the H1 at least was regarded as a mild joke rather
> than a battle vehicle. I think the H2 was supposed to be better.

Huh? I drove it in the desert in the first Gulf War and it was very
impressive. The English never had any issues with this truck. The H2 is a
joke, but the H1 is very good vehicle!

|> you've hit the nail on the head it's as big as a tank
|> or more to the point as wide as a tank
|> they were designed to run in tank tracks
|
|Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs
|5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better.

There is a problem with folks being over weight in the US.
However military standards are such that we reject nearly 60% of
those who apply due to physical problems, of which weight is one
of them. And nearly half of all applicants to the military are
rejected due to failing the entrance exam (ASVAB).

Gets even worst than that. About 25% of males are kicked out
before they finish their first tour (10% in basic training). For
females, it is 50% (25% in basic). Generally character issues.

Thus the typical person who can make in the military is smart
enough to have been accepted to an university (had they tried),
is in very good physical condition and tends to be an ethical,
self disciplined individual.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]/OMEGA says...
> Subject: Re: When is the US going to get "real" Land Rovers?
> From: R. David Steele <[email protected]/OMEGA>
> Newsgroups: alt.fan.landrover, rec.autos.4x4, uk.rec.cars.4x4
>
>
> |> you've hit the nail on the head it's as big as a tank
> |> or more to the point as wide as a tank
> |> they were designed to run in tank tracks
> |
> |Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs
> |5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better.
>
> There is a problem with folks being over weight in the US.
> However military standards are such that we reject nearly 60% of
> those who apply due to physical problems, of which weight is one
> of them. And nearly half of all applicants to the military are
> rejected due to failing the entrance exam (ASVAB).
>
> Gets even worst than that. About 25% of males are kicked out
> before they finish their first tour (10% in basic training). For
> females, it is 50% (25% in basic). Generally character issues.
>
> Thus the typical person who can make in the military is smart
> enough to have been accepted to an university (had they tried),
> is in very good physical condition and tends to be an ethical,
> self disciplined individual.
>
>

I don't know if beggars can be choosers these days. Unfortunately
enlistment is down and car bombings are up.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:42:38 +0100, [email protected] (Steve
Firth) wrote:

>David French <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It was a character on the Simpsons (Groundskeeper Willie, a Scot) who called
>> the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys".
>
>Yes I know.
>
>> I don't think we can really
>> assume he speaks for the entire American nation. Or Scottish.
>
>No, the people spoke for themselves by picking it up, using it and then
>going on with that ridiculous "Freedom Fries" business.

Them weren't people; thems was congressmen.

bw

|> |> you've hit the nail on the head it's as big as a tank
|> |> or more to the point as wide as a tank
|> |> they were designed to run in tank tracks
|> |
|> |Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs
|> |5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better.
|>
|> There is a problem with folks being over weight in the US.
|> However military standards are such that we reject nearly 60% of
|> those who apply due to physical problems, of which weight is one
|> of them. And nearly half of all applicants to the military are
|> rejected due to failing the entrance exam (ASVAB).
|>
|> Gets even worst than that. About 25% of males are kicked out
|> before they finish their first tour (10% in basic training). For
|> females, it is 50% (25% in basic). Generally character issues.
|>
|> Thus the typical person who can make in the military is smart
|> enough to have been accepted to an university (had they tried),
|> is in very good physical condition and tends to be an ethical,
|> self disciplined individual.
|>
|>
|
|I don't know if beggars can be choosers these days. Unfortunately
|enlistment is down and car bombings are up.

So far the military is doing ok. The military was cut in half
during the Clinton era. But given the population drop of our
young people (Gen X was very much smaller than the previous
generation of Baby Boomers), we may have been forced to.

The question we have to ask is whether we can afford those who
can not make it currently? Would you trust those we reject as
fire fighters or police officers? The military is different
these days and we can not afford people who are not smart, out of
shape or untrustworthy.

That's kinda odd. I'm military, and I'm 5'9". I'm only able to weigh 170
lbs. and still be within regs. To be 250 lbs, you'd have to be QUITE a bit
taller than I am.

After the 170 lb limit, youre given a tape test to check about what percent
of your body is fat. People who lift alot of weights get this test often.

I've seen several people given either special physical training, or sent
home (depending if this is at training or if it's in a unit's PT test) for
failing the tape test, even if they did well on the physical tests.

Where did you hear this sort of thing??

Or, are you just angry and projecting?

>
> Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs
> 5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better.
>
>