LukeFF Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 http://www.janes.com/article/51988/us-army-once-again-seeks-new-ifv-designs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Interesting. As Always the two choices of radically new concept and traditional design will have to fight each other. One thing is sure: the main gun won't be a 25mm again, given the ideas for the Stryker upgrades. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 As long as it looks absolutely nothing like the GCV. Looking back at that project, it's readily apparent whoever was running the program had missed the point of IFVs or even APCs in general. Which is something I'm worrying we're simply rushing back towards, less something designed to be part of a combined armor team, and more a tracked MRAP-Stryker hybrid to safely move troops through Baghdad circa 2006, and continue to provide job security for General Dynamics/BAE/etc maintenance teams well into 2050. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I feel this is relevant even though it isn't entirely accurate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 If it ain't a hovercraft with 40mm Bushmaster IV sponsons, it ain't craaaaaaap! Think of the benefits: self-producing continuous smoke screen; easy to cross any terrain; no IED worries (if it blows, a bit of skirt goes); no more lawn-mowing details; etc., etc. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyland Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 "Less armor than a snowblower..." Awesome! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gray man Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 LOL!! That was awesome!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I thought Fraser Crane was in that movie somewhere?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Too funny and too true.But I must be in the mind set of them generals, because in game use of them is great, I love those Bradley's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Nah. The movie hyped up a lot of the friction in the Bradley design, it wasn't nearly so nutragous as portrayed, and the counter-Bradley crew had some pretty stupid ideas too (namely either a APC that could take direct fire from tanks, OR something cheap and low capability that was going to basically try to beat the Soviets with numerical superiority because you KNOW the American people would have loved that). As the case is actually the M2/M3 has worked out pretty well at what it was supposed to do, and the upgrades have kept it pretty relevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currahee150 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) I get annoyed when War is Boring runs articles essentially saying the Bradley is still under armored, overpriced, and inefficient. "Did you even watch Operation Desert Storm?" The Bradley does its job. Not saying it doesn't need a replacement, but it does what it is designed to do - even if the media tries to say it doesn't. I also get annoyed when WSJ calls a BMP " a tank," but that is another matter entirely. Found the articles. First one talks about that "heavy" IFV Panzer mentioned. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-army-wanted-to-replace-the-bradley-38-years-ago-dffb6728dd11 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-comedy-the-pentagon-wishes-wed-forget-2bc6aaa69457 If there is one thing that needs to be changed about the Bradley...FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY REPLACE THE TOW-2! Seriously. Modify the FGM-148, give it a bigger rocket motor for some more range, and put it on the M2/M3. Yeah, it will cost a lot of money. But from my experiences in CMBS, the TOW on the Bradley is pretty much a statement saying "If we are really lucky, we can take out a T-90 at 2 clicks." The TOW is pasts its prime. It's too slow - the target usually moves into cover before the missile is even halfway there - and if the OPFOR sneezes in the gunners general direction, he flinches and the TOW elects to try and join NASA. Edited June 22, 2015 by Currahee150 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdolmartin Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Currahee150, From what I've read, the problem with the Javelin is not the rocket motor - it's the seeker. The rocket is powerful enough for a 4km range, but the seeker isn't sensitive enough for that. Improved cooling can increase seeker range, though, so it is a possible addition to the Bradley if the cooling equipment is also added. But I agree about the TOW-2. I get very very happy when I get a T-90 kill with it, because it makes me realise that it's my lucky day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currahee150 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) Huh. I thought it was the other way around. Interesting. I wasn't really sure. I kinda just assumed it was the motor. Thanks for the info. I know the Jav was suppose to be put on the USMC Expeditionary Infantry Fighting Vehicle, so it's possible. They just haven't done it for cost reasons I imagine. Or they think the TOW can still do the job, which, if we are allowed to use a computer game as any guide, just isn't true. Edited June 22, 2015 by Currahee150 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Mitsubishi looking to produce for the Marine Corp https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/mitsubishi-eyes-technological-leap-exports-armored-vehicle-211002206--sector.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currahee150 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) Yeah, its about time the Marines get a AAV that wasn't around for the Apollo moon landings. Of course, on that note, you could say the same about 90% of the equipment in the US Military's inventory. Edited June 24, 2015 by Currahee150 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I also get annoyed when WSJ calls a BMP " a tank," but that is another matter entirely. i get the same annoyance when Vietnam documentaries talk about the NVA overrunning that special forces camp near Khe Sanh and the commentator mentions PT76s as tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) It was actually a tank, the chassis of the PT-76 was used for other Soviet vehicles that were not. "The tank was developed for the Russian Army to meet their requirement of an amphibious light reconnaissance tank after the World War II. It was developed along with an armoured personnel carrier (APC), BTR-50P, and they share common automotive and suspension systems. The first prototype was developed in 1950 and after further trials and improvements it entered into service in 1952. The variant PT-76B was the final production model of the tank built at the Volgograd Tractor Plant." http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pt-76lat/ Edited June 24, 2015 by Nidan1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) i stand corrected. from stalingrad too. Edited June 24, 2015 by Sublime 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdolmartin Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I should correct my statement about the Javelin. The missile's seeker also has a range of over 4km. The reason for the 2.5 km range of the infantry-portable system, is the CLU's limited detection range. As far as Wikipedia says. Still, should be able to be mounted on vehicles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Sublime, The very designation of the vehicle says it's a tank, "floating tank," as explained here. As for the Special Forces, there were two attacks on their camps involving PT-76s: Ben Het and Lang Vei. There was a very unpleasant discovery made at Lang Vei. Seems the flotation chambers on the PT-76's sides nullified LAW hits! See 122 et seq in the official Army history. Ben Het Lang Vei Regards, John Kettler 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.