What a find!!!

Website about Sparky:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070708055259/http://home.comcast.net/~genericdad/m113gavin.html

I wonder if Sparky runs this Youtube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/BlacktailDefense

He calls the M113 a Gavin and it has many videos about how bad the Stryker is.

There are actually some interesting videos on the channel for example his ones about the M247 Sergent York if you can get pass the spelling.

He also hates the Abrams tank as well…

I bailed out at the word Gavin – is it a Mr Sparks fan club article?.

Combatreform.org is one of his many websites.

Note to all who have not heard of him: Michael L. Sparks, often referred to as Sparky, has a number of obsessions, of which the M113 (which has christened the ‘Gavin’, a name with no more validity than if I christened the B-2 the ‘Lemay’, or the Eurofighter the ‘Galland’) is the chief one. He thinks it is the best armoured vehicle that has ever been devised, & that the answer to all armoured warfare needs is a fleet of modified M113s, preferably equipped with 106mm RCLs. He’s also keen on paratroopers with folding mountain bikes. He maintains several websites, & infests those fora which haven’t yet got around to banning him for antisocial behaviour (innumerable immensely long, rambling & repetitive posts, abusing other members, etc).

I’ve lost the name of the author of this . . .

Sparky has repeatedly refused to confirm any details of his military career. He claims to be an officer in a National Guard Special Forces unit but won’t identify which one (there are only 2 so far as I know and neither near where Sparky lives in North Caroline or Georgia). What we do know is that Sparky started his military career in the United States Marines where he reportedly washed out of USMC officer training, was told he would never be allowed to command men in combat and resigned some 7 months before his hitch was up after being offered a posting in supply. This subsequently led to a deep hatred of Marines and the Marine Corps that persists to this day – if you couldn’t tell from the e-mail exchange above.

After his rejection by the Marines, Sparky managed to achieve a commission as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve, maybe sometime around 1989-90 – a rank he still holds almost 2 decades later! He has since served with no particular distinction in, as best we can tell a National Guard parachute rigging unit.

Sparky informed me he has “been kicking ass in the U.S. military for 27 years. At around the same time Sparky informed an associate of mine that he is 34 years old. You do the math. One thing I am sure of – Sparky has not, so far as can be determined, ever kicked actual ass (seen combat) in those 27 years. Not in Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, the Gulf (I or II), Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan… you get the picture. Perhaps his genius can not be spared…

Sparky has claimed to have taken part in trials program between the M113A3 and Stryker ICV at Ft Lewis. Witnesses who were actually there never saw or heard of him and Sparky has refused to answer questions as to what capacity he was involved or who he was working for. Why they needed a reserve parachute rigger for these trials is hard to fathom.

He has posted a 1980s letter from the USMC on one of his websites in which they call him Corporal Sparks.

In theory, its possible but you’d be paying cvn prices with something with a capability similar to an invincible. You’d have to start with a configuration something like a typhoon: double wide, double screw with the tower after. It’d have to be about a 1000ft long to have enough flight deck to launch fighters and there would have to be a lift designed to seal the hull at pressure. In the end, it would probably be pretty easy to track as the features that would be required for aircraft would hurt it under water.

The converted Ohio SSGN’s is a close match, just that Ohio don’t have re-usable UAV, but for deep strike, i think good ole CM is still better.

Perhaps addition of a few recce CM with much larger wings for endurance ?
with option of recovery if circumstances allow.

An amusing read but so skewed its not worth the paper its written on

The marines are equipped to relive Iwo Jima – and thats a bad thing – their whole raison detre is opposed landings – im glad to hear they can lob everything up to the kitchen sink if required.

A submarine carrier – not an vessel id like to be on – thats a big open area to start flooding –
never mind the operational problems Ie it would have to spend most if not all its time on the surface – in order to operate aircraft.

The single aircraft striker concept – I ask myself why – very much a 1 shot weapon (and in all probability one way)

Harrier a dangerous failure – whilst not a stellar performer I hardly think the moniker failure is apt – Dangerous possibly but significantly more than any other combat aircraft?

M113- Amphigavin – I suppose its only a merci that it is rocketed 25000 ft into the air than air landed 15 miles inland giving the marines the Air Mech Strike capability they so desperatly require.

I bailed out at the word Gavin – is it a Mr Sparks fan club article?.

www.combatreform.org

talks about mechanized M113 Gavin (a name given to the M113 by them and no one else) and much more

:dev2:

The sky hook option was looked into with the Harrier, no idea what the conclusion was but clearly not viable at the time.

But as has been stated don’t see why UAV option isn’t something that can be completely ruled out.

‘This is the voice of the Mysterons…we know you can hear us Earth men…’

Honestly, puppet shows aside, the idea of aircraft carrier sub’s has gone from all serious plans…I think

Ooo you orrible cynics. Does no one else remember the Soviet submersible aircraft carrier in the ‘F18 interceptor‘ game?

Still lets look at what is written on the page and discuss the ideas- yes some are in development, some are under design, and I agree some a wildly way out of the fantasy books.

Just to help dig you out! :-). If we depart from the realities of ‘not cost-effective’ I am quite fond of the concept of the submersible UNREP vessel!. A ‘big’ UUV able to store large volumes of dieso, lubricants and, perhaps, some dry stores dispatched covertly to preposition points globally could go a long way to diminish a fleets short-term reliance on a trackable logistics tail.

Theoretically you could drive such a UUV with RTG’s with a very modest, high discretion, transit speed for deployment to station. Fitting it with a BMT SSGT-style podded GT fit for UNREP operations at station keeping speed, surfaced, when the fleet commands the vessel, over acoustic modem, to begin an evolution and lift off the bottom.

The ONLY way you could imagine a justification for this latter-day ‘milch cow’ would be in an environment where you faced a high surface-and-above blue-water threat and you need to maximise discretion of CSG deployment. Other than that good old deceptive manoever and more conventional hulls would seem perfectly able to do the job at somewhat lower cost!.

Worth Googling Knightsbridge University quickly for a bit of a giggle.

Ohhhhhhhh, hmmmmmmmm *feels like a right Richard now*

Still lets look at what is written on the page and discuss the ideas- yes some are in development, some are under design, and I agree some a wildly way out of the fantasy books.

I was thinking I was too tired and had gone loopy. Now I know ok Knightsbridge, indeed it is very funny. I thought the guy was serious:o

what was his major- dislike of US CVNs?

Oh boy. Not laughed like that in years…..indeed a good find Ja. Pure comedy!.

Particularly liked this bit where the author quotes:

Professor of Military Studies and Senior Academic Advisor, Knightsbridge University

Worth Googling Knightsbridge University quickly for a bit of a giggle.

LACM’s and, perhaps, VATOL UAV’s or surface launched mini-UAV’s are all feasible concepts for submarines and are either deployed or being researched. Most of the rest of it is simply amusing.

WOW.

I knew about the I 400s, but had never thought to bring it to the modern era.

some interesting thoughts to take away.