altipueri Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I thought Bradley was told by a sarcastic soldier that "As a matter of fact, bullets generally only come in one side and rattle around a bit." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crinius Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The Bradley Tank. And of course theres some truth in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 .... Especially because roads were often under observed fire and trucks are basically limited to roads. ... Erm, not CM trucks ! Perhaps they need to be made more "boggable" <runs and hides> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The Bradley Tank. And of course theres some truth in it. That's great. Now I'm gonna have to watch the whole film. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 On the other hand, their M113s were armed to the teeth, even mounting small mortars. I think their feeling was that Arab morale was so brittle that this kind of aggressive use stood a good chance of working. Michael I'll disagree to a degree. The surplus M3s were extensively used in 56/67. By 73 when the M113s were used the M3s were for the most part used by support and reservists. The M113s sprouting all those machine guns was in response to the Arabs effective use at the beginning of the 73 war of sagger and rpg tank hunting teams. After the 67 war the Israeli army became tank dominated and the mech infantry and artillery neglected. They paid a heavy price for the imbalance when their initial tank heavy charges got chopped up. Quickly realizing this they rebalanced and started putting Machine guns on M113 and coordnating them with tank and artillery. The MGs were used to lay down suppressive fire to distract sagger crews who had to fly their atgms using a joystick controller. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The video is funny, but of course the Bradley was a great operational success despite the silly aspects of the design. In the first gulf war, all of 3 were taken out by enemy fire, another 17 were lost in friendly fire incidents. In return they took out more Iraqi armor than M-1s did. But sure, a 30 ton ATGM and autocannon platform is basically a tank. The point of my citing them, of course, is that WW II halftracks were not infantry fighting vehicles - and that in WW II, actual tanks, even seemingly antiquated lights like the Russian T-70, completely outclassed all carriers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The video is funny, but of course the Bradley was a great operational success despite the silly aspects of the design. In the first gulf war, all of 3 were taken out by enemy fire, another 17 were lost in friendly fire incidents. In return they took out more Iraqi armor than M-1s did. But sure, a 30 ton ATGM and autocannon platform is basically a tank. The point of my citing them, of course, is that WW II halftracks were not infantry fighting vehicles - and that in WW II, actual tanks, even seemingly antiquated lights like the Russian T-70, completely outclassed all carriers. Yup, which is why post-war armored carriers became more like tanks. The hybrid approach used in WW2 got them the worst of both worlds more than the best of both. It's no surprise it was abandoned. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I would guess a coordinated attack of tanks, infantry and aggressive use of Hanomags or M3s could be very effective. Relative balance of forces being in account. Like any other attack, proper recon would be critical. You could and should expect the tracks to suffer regardless. There was a reason why you saw during the Lebanon incursions after 73, M113s being covered in blow out armor blocks and being coordinated with tanks. The trend has been towards APC s to become like tanks. The Bradley weighs as much as WW2 Sherman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 "during the Lebanon incursions..." Against militias. With AKs and RPGs. Not exactly the challenge level of WW II eastern front... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 If I'm not mistaken Lebanon became what some labeled Israel's Vietnam and produced a lot of dissent. Just as well the militas didn't put up a more coordinated and fierce fight as it could have been quite bloody in built up terrain with lots of civilians. There were reports of Merkava tank crews panicking on a few occasions when faced by Syrian choppers armed with second generation ATGMs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The Bradley is one of many examples of recent US Military weapons development programs that eventually resulted in a pretty darn effective weapons system, but only after many revisions and a ridiculous amount of time and money. V-22 Osprey, Seawolf Submarine, F-22 Raptor would be other examples. The U.S. military-industrial complex has got it down to a system: Overpromise on the capabilities in the initial pitch, and then demand more money to fix it once the first prototypes don't work as promised. Of course, all the boondoggling and pork barrel politics in Congress doesn't help, either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Making sense or the American Industrial Military Complex is an exercise in futility. Base realingment is another exercise in futility. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 So the Bradley did well against third rate opposition in an environment perfectly suited for its design, not saying much is it really. It was designed to take on a far tougher opponent in far more restrictive terrain, where full spectrum dominance was but a pipe-dream. Surely if the Germans has not wanted aggressive SPW tactics they would not have made the front proof against rifle calibre rounds. You don't angle armour plates, which take time and resources to make, just to stop the odd stray bullet. I talked to the son of an Arnhem veteran and he said the Germans were very aggressive using half tracks, so aggressive, he managed to lob a grenade into one at short range as it was trying to conduct an over run. Then again Grabner's dash was pure folly, so perhaps it was horses for courses, tactically. As for the SPW blitz, it really worked, but first you allowed your FO's to fire rocket projected smoke first into the majority of the enemy set up zone! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H1nd Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Nothing new here just my five cents: HT infantry is at it's best when exploiting static defence with limited depth. Mostly this would be in CM scale to taxi infatry from one schwehrpunkt to another so that you can rapidly switch your main assault effort to different place or flank the defender. It's mainly usefull when the battle is larger than company level and the distances become straining for your infantry stamina. My emphasis is the quick and preferably unexpected lateral movement along the front and exploitation of success. HT's mobility also very handy in local counter attacks and reinforcing with reserves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H1nd Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Mechanized infantry also have the advantage of not having to commit to a certain jump off position early on. One of the most vulnerable positions for foot Infantry is in jump off position that has been identified by the enemy. Mortars and other indirect fire on the infantry massed for attack is a disaster wich can be migitated or avoided by reducing the time they spend in this position by moving them in at the last possible moment with HT's. In CM scale this can be as simple as moving 300m from your deployment zone but it could still be vital. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 One of the things to emerge during WW II was that rapid movement was a force multiplier. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c2yeung Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I use them pretty much the way you described, nothing more than a glorified truck. However, I usually load up my troop with ammo first. In a large battle filed, I do use them to transport troop forward to another staging area when I am pretty sure the way is cleared. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Only time I ever use HT's to transport infantry into enemy territory is if I am bombarding their positions with pre-planned heavy artillery. So basically never But I have done it on occation and it usually pays off if done in concert with multiple pre-planned heavy arty drops. Just have to be careful to not get too close with your own troops. Other than that, use them at very long ranges to put down supporting fire with their machine guns (and even then they are to be treated like fragile eggshells) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostRider3/3 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 As with C2Yeung, I first load my troops up with ammo. For me depending on the scenerio I either keep them in the back or move them forward with security. I usually deploy them in a Armored Recon Element with fast moving AC's again with security. Either I have already prepped up the tree line toward my axis of advance... Shooting at upper floors with MG, or HE rounds... Rapid advance up. Michael Emry has a good point in only move few units to contact first.. so even when I have a forward Armored Recon element either platoon or Company size, I will only move a few first. AT guns are a nightmare! Basically I mostly have them in the rear moving behind Armor, but at a lengthy distance as they are easy targets for AT and HE rounds, also if a FO gets a bead on where your Motorpooling your transports they will not hesitate to try to obliterate them.. usually. Once I have fire superiority, I wont hesitate to use them to assist with suppression, or taking out, capturing routing troops. 0 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.