Belesarius Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 I think the other thing overlooked with modern IFVs is commo, sensors and data sharing ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashbotUS Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 While the vehicle can provide much of that, with modern computing the individual soldier can provide the same data. I am still in contact with many of the guys that stayed in (I did ~16 years) and the miniaturization of much of the equipment we used it amazing. My laser designation equipment was about 50lbs without a battery, now it is the size of a .45. My GPS was the size of a 1/2 gallon carton of milk, now it is a cell phone. My forward entry device was the size of laptop, now it is a ipad mini... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 While the vehicle can provide much of that, with modern computing the individual soldier can provide the same data. I am still in contact with many of the guys that stayed in (I did ~16 years) and the miniaturization of much of the equipment we used it amazing. My laser designation equipment was about 50lbs without a battery, now it is the size of a .45. My GPS was the size of a 1/2 gallon carton of milk, now it is a cell phone. My forward entry device was the size of laptop, now it is a ipad mini... But it's still more shit that the soldier has to carry, and the modern US infantryman carries a truely obscene amount of kit. Having some of it on your ride isn't a bad thing. Along with the ability to reach out and touch someone at extended ranges if needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 It won't ever be conclusive to say "the Bradley suffered higher casualties so it's a flawed design" - but I think a look at the actual design supports that. One way to tell if a design was developed poorly is to see if it replaced everything it was intended to (or perhaps just most things) or if it has needed to be complemented or supplemented much sooner than you'd expect. There are a lot of reasons these things can happen beyond a design being poor, but they are markers for a poorly thought out design. A good example would be the M14. The rifle and its implementation was so unsatisfactory as a standard arm as soon at it began rolling off the production lines the DoD was looking for a replacement. This isn't to say the M14 isn't useful - it clearly has proven to be. The Bradley reminds me of that. It never replaced the M113 and was supplemented in many roles by MRAPs, Strykers, and even HMMWVs. If anything, 73 Eastings seems like the perfect environment for the Bradley, as it's basically a quasi-tank with good electronics, optics, and firepower. Who cares how big it is when you're smashing into the side of the Iraqi armored divisions! Well that and there aren't too many positions for infratry to be transported too where the need for surplus rifles outweighs the need to spot and bust Armor from afar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 I wasn't sticking up for the M113, actually I've heard they sucked, but the Bradley is too expensive and complex to replace them. Period. You need something that's more like an actual M113 replacement (which the Bradley was originally supposed to be!). Bear in mind that BAE has recently won a contract to replace M113's with turretless bradleys http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/12/24/bae-wins-1-2b-contract-to-build-m113-replacement/ Sure, the actual contract for several thousand vehicles hasn't been signed yet, but there are no other realistic options for most of the M113's currently in use Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zinegata Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 The BMP and Bradley pretty much fill the same tactical roles. I am still a big fan of the BTR, having had the experience training with Russians and riding around in one. The armored reconnaissance mission is something the M3 is not very well suited for, having served in a number of cavalry squadrons as the FO, they sucked. The scouts did better dismounted or in M1036. The M7 was better than the m981 but was almost always misused by the attached command and was not as good as the new M1200. The M113 has really be relegated to rear duty. Ambulances, engineer vehicles, mortar carriers, smoke generators, base security, and command variants. I know they got put into service in Iraq in their original roles due because armored hmmmv are stupid and MRAP hadn't the numbers. One thing I've always liked about the BMP over the Bradley is that they have an actual fire support variant - the BMP-1 with the 76mm and the BMP-3 with the 100mm gun - that can do direct-fire HE as opposed to the Bradley being stuck with plinking with the autocannon. Tied 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 One thing I've always liked about the BMP over the Bradley is that they have an actual fire support variant - the BMP-1 with the 76mm and the BMP-3 with the 100mm gun - that can do direct-fire HE as opposed to the Bradley being stuck with plinking with the autocannon. Ask and you shall receive. I have created a fire support variant of the Bradley equipped with a 105mm howitzer. Behold! Zinegata 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 The biggest issue with the 113 is that people are expecting it to do things it was never designed to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Like be a good vehicle hhhhhhhheeeeeeyyyyyyyyoooooooo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Like be a good vehicle hhhhhhhheeeeeeyyyyyyyyoooooooo It's a great vehicle, it's just not one upon which to build a Mega-Blivet, which seems to be what everyone wants to turn it into. Slap on turret(s), more armor, then more flotation to compensate, basically destroying what practicality it had. It was designed as a simple, lightly armored semi-amphibious box intended to shuttle infantry into position. That the thing had a robust enough drivetrain and running gear to tolerate all the other crap it was tasked with, or the nigh upon infinite variations that mutated from it is testament to it's versatility. But just because someone manages to use a claw hammer as a wrench does not mean it's a good wrench. Same thing with the 113. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 the BTR-50 does the same thing the Gavin does and more (like having armor), im surprised it and the MT-LB arent shown more love in the west Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 But just because someone manages to use a claw hammer as a wrench does not mean it's a good wrench. Which one does more damage to a Human skull and brain mass in your opinion though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 the BTR-50 does the same thing the Gavin does and more (like having armor), im surprised it and the MT-LB arent shown more love in the west "NIH" syndrome. I'd point out that both are rather larger than the 113, and one is a bit more modern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Which one does more damage to a Human skull and brain mass in your opinion though? Depends on how fast I can load them into a blunderbuss and deliver them to target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Depends on how fast I can load them into a blunderbuss and deliver them to target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Needs more rails, and an underbarrel dueling piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 "NIH" syndrome. I'd point out that both are rather larger than the 113, and one is a bit more modern. The MT-LB is actually shorter than the Gavin, and almost as skinny, only really longer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 The MT-LB is actually shorter than the Gavin, and almost as skinny, only really longer It's also quite a bit more modern design.. I'd hope it'd be better. I won't argue the inconsequential length and width differences. It's a slightly larger vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted July 10, 2015 Report Share Posted July 10, 2015 Original IFV CrashbotUS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 A Canadian Navy Hull Technician points to sections of 'up-armour' plating he had welded onto a LAV3 previous to an IED attack. His friend and everyone else on board survived the attack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Wasn't there a lightly armored APC version of the little T-20 gun tractor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashbotUS Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Wasn't there a lightly armored APC version of the little T-20 gun tractor? I think it was used for artillery tractors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 I think it was used for artillery tractors. Right, but that only had armor for the vehicle crew. IIRC there was one that had some form of light armor for the passengers as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 By the way, according to a recent Defense News article, the cost of mounting a 30mm gun turret on the Stryker, thus making at an IFV may be as much as 3.8 million dollars per. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 By the way, according to a recent Defense News article, the cost of mounting a 30mm gun turret on the Stryker, thus making at an IFV may be as much as 3.8 million dollars per. WTF are they doing,. gold plating the firing chamber or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.