Formerly Babra Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 The troop carrying capabilities of the Merkava are somewhat exaggerated and gets used for casualty evacuation more than anything else. ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, if the M2 or M3 Bradley IFV wasn't designed to go up against tanks, why is it fitted with TOW missiles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's like asking, "Well, if an Army supply clerk never gets sent into combat, why does he have to go through Basic Training?" It's insurance. They're not going to send the M2/M3 up against a tank division, but in case they do run into some armor, it's nice to be able to defend yourself to some extent. The TOW is a relatively easy weapon to fit on a vehicle without needlessly driving up the weight of the IFV. -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 The TOW gives the bradley some nice AT firepower, however the M2 is best off bugging out after a shot or two.. its one thing to execute a quick ambush, its an entirely differant matter to go toe to toe with a t-80. As for the M3, the firepower of the chaingun and the TOW come in handy.. not so much for the recon work itself, but for the important task of blinding [destroying] enemy recon assets. Or thats my understanding. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panic: Well, yeah - a Merkava. Seems to work alright for the Israelis... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Israelis have fought under very different conditions than NATO anticipated fighting under. For their needs, the Merkava, though a good and interesting AFV that deserves study, is much too slow. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CommanderC: Well, if the M2 or M3 Bradley IFV wasn't designed to go up against tanks, why is it fitted with TOW missiles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To kill tanks at long range from ambush and then get the **** on to the next defensive position before the enemy can bring them under effective fire. Don't forget the advantage that having a thermal imaging sight gave them for many years. In dark or smoke they could shoot without being shot at, to a very large extent. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Weaver Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 The Bradley, which was originally designed to be a cav scout, became the US Army's IFV due to the interaction of two unfortunate circumstances. First and probably most important, the Soviets introduced the BMP-1 in 1970, pioneering the Infantry Fighting Vehicle. There was an immediate demand in the US Army to match this latest Soviet innovation. Second, the Army was badly outnumbered in tank strength in Central Europe during the Bradley's design cycle. The M-60A1s that it did have could not reliably handle Soviet T-64s and T-72s. There was a definite need to provide as much anti-tank firepower as possible in order to keep US forces from getting overwhelmed. Enter the Bradley, with a heavy AT missile on every box. The Bradley isn't a bad vehicle, especially for the Central European terrain in which it was designed to fight. It's certainly a quantum leap over the M-113, which couldn't keep up with M-1s, was poorly armored, and was impotent against tanks. The current M-2A2 ODS version of the Bradley is fast, well armored, and well equipped to deal with tanks. Its real flaws are its large size and its lack of capacity. A US mechanized infantry platoon is too small to be much more than a security element for its four Bradleys. US mechanized forces are therefore enormously potent against armor and in open terrain but lack punch in close quarters. Dan [This message has been edited by Dan Weaver (edited 08-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CommanderC: Well, if the M2 or M3 Bradley IFV wasn't designed to go up against tanks, why is it fitted with TOW missiles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well some Humvees have TOWs as well, they aren't made to go head-to-head with tanks either. The Bradley TOW is as useful against tanks as it is against go old BMPs. The TOW also gives you better range and MUCH better one-shot-one-kill capability. As for the M3... the OPFOR doctrine has a tank in their recon elements. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 The "TOW" is a long-range tank killer. The Bradley is designed to fire from range and concealment, never to engage in a MBT duel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzvg Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 First off, recon elements are never supposed to engage the enemy unless they can kill them and disengage at once. Second, the Cav uses mixed platoons of Bradley's and Abrams for added weight. Thirdly, to make it worse, that's an aluminum-maganese alloy, same as a flare "twinkle,twinkle, little light, bradley burning in the night" (We air cav guys love P/Oing the cav) Lastly, The Chaffee was a redesign of the stuart, incorporating all the wartime lessons, and was also purpose-built to share many components with the Sherman, to ease the load on parts stocks, As far as light tanks go, it was one of the best ever made. ------------------ Pzvg "Murphy's law of combat #10, never forget your weapon is made by the lowest bidder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: First off, recon elements are never supposed to engage the enemy unless they can kill them and disengage at once. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's why BN scout's are given Humvees. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Second, the Cav uses mixed platoons of Bradley's and Abrams for added weight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not anymore. When I was with 1-1 Cav they were using the 5x3 platoon, 5 Bradleys and 3 M1s but they have since gone back to troops of 2 Braldey platoons and 2 M1 platoons. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Thirdly, to make it worse, that's an aluminum-maganese alloy, same as a flare "twinkle,twinkle, little light, bradley burning in the night" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well that is nothing compared to the 12 TOW missiles and 1200 rounds of 25mm... Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." -Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." -D. W. Brogan, The American Character [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 08-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Deych Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 The 4 mile range of the TOW definitely gives Bradley a good stand off punch. I'd rather be in a T-72BM with it's Refleks-M, though. 7.5 km trumps 4 miles every time, and I believe they cost roughly the same (T-72BM vs Bradley). Oh, and T-72 is better armored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Case in point: The average life expectancy of the gunner of a TOW launcher is about 9 seconds. The math is simple. A TOW rockets moves at, on avergae, 187 meters per second. The average time to max range (3750m) is about 20 seconds. Now... A .50 cal machine gun or even a 120mm rounds moves MUCH faster than that, aproximately 5x to 6x. A TOW gunner better pray they don't spot him before his missle reaches the target. Think about it.. A TOW gunner could fire at a tank at 3000 meters. Lets say the TC spots the incoming missle 5 seconds later. That puts the missle at 2000 meters from the tank. This gives the tank crew 11 seconds to respond. More than enough time to kill the TOW gunner and therefore make the TOW round miss. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 08-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gregory Deych: The 4 mile range of the TOW definitely gives Bradley a good stand off punch. I'd rather be in a T-72BM with it's Refleks-M, though. 7.5 km trumps 4 miles every time, and I believe they cost roughly the same (T-72BM vs Bradley). Oh, and T-72 is better armored. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey but at least you won't get stuffed into the main gun, on Bradley, by the auto-loader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: Case in point: The average life expectancy of the gunner of a TOW launcher is about 9 seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One often wonders where they get these statistics. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The math is simple. A TOW rockets moves at, on avergae, 187 meters per second. The average time to max range (3750m) is about 20 seconds. Now... A .50 cal machine gun or even a 120mm rounds moves MUCH faster than that, aproximately 5x to 6x. A TOW gunner better pray they don't spot him before his missle reaches the target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While this MAY be true, the .50cal has nether the lethality nor the chance to hit percentage of the TOW. Highly unlikly that the TOW and .50 cal would be fired on the same target. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Think about it.. A TOW gunner could fire at a tank at 3000 meters. Lets say the TC spots the incoming missle 5 seconds later. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What happens when they fire at a closer range and if the TC doesn't see the incomming missile? Tankers have tunnel vision. Where the gun is pointed is what they see. Flank and rear shots are likely to be un-noticed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That puts the missle at 2000 meters from the tank. This gives the tank crew 11 seconds to respond. More than enough time to kill the TOW gunner and therefore make the TOW round miss. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This assume they would fire on the position of the TOW gunner, if it was even know, over taking evasive actions. It would take a rather cool tank crew to sit in the open and line up a shot that could well miss. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Fauster Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: The M113 (and presumably the Bradley) used aluminium to make them airmobile. Hate the damn things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although I respect your opinion, as a former infantryman (11 Bulletstopper)and track driver (M113s), I must disagree. Riding into battle is much more pleasant than marching there: It's easier on the feet. That's what IFVs are for: to help the infantry keep up with the armor, they are not- in and of themselves- armor. Unfortunately, a lot of commanders forget this and invent classic "Movement to Contact" missions wherein the "Contact" may consist of heavy enemy armor. Dismount fast! Admittidly, I am suffering from a bit of nostalgia- but I miss my track. It was named "Prudence". My only complaint was how slow the bugger was. Downhill with a tailwind I almost hit 30mph, but quickly pulled back on the lats for fear of tossing a track. Good Hunting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Hey but at least you won't get stuffed into the main gun, on Bradley, by the auto-loader. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROFLMAO............. You know that whole Auto loader arm eating thing has been blown way out of proportion . Well, a T-72BM with KONTAKT-5 ERA isn't going to have to much to worry about from a TOW anyway . Regards, John Waters ------------------ Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Take a look at Achzarit. Technically classed as an infantry assault vehicle, it's basically a T-55 hull with chobham armor added and a troop compartnemt. Tough little beggar. Anoteher variant, I believe beginning with 'N' is based off the Centurion. The FSU are offering a similar vehicle on the T-72 hull I believe. Has anyone else seen 'Pentagon Wars' with Kelsey Grammar? Obviously it's kinda slapstick, but it seems close enough to the bone that that's about how the M2/M3 Bradley came to be as it is... "OK, so we have an infantry carrier that doesn't carry many troops, a recon vechicle that's too conspicuous to do its job, it looks like a tank, but it's not a tank, it has about as much armor as a snowblower, but carries enough weaponry to blow up half of D.C...." NTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: One often wonders where they get these statistics. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One, such as myself, gets said information from a friend who happens to be an Airborne Ranger in the 2nd Battalion, Charlie company. The other information comes from having atleast passing skills in math. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: This assume they would fire on the position of the TOW gunner, if it was even know, over taking evasive actions. It would take a rather cool tank crew to sit in the open and line up a shot that could well miss. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> With todays laser range finders, and general fire control, hitting a target is easier than spotting it. See, if you would have actually read my post, I said that the TOW gunner better pray that his target doesn't spot him, cause if they do, it doesn't take much to swing the main turrent on a modern MBT to line up a shot. Have you ever seen a TOW missle in flight? It is freakishly huge, slow, and noisy. When it takes on average 10 seconds for your round to impact, believe me, someone is going to see you steering it in. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 08-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Deych Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Trooper, It's the "eggshelled armed with hammers" syndrome. We can look to the seas for example of how well that works. US is not the only one prone to this, however. The Russians put an combo AGS/missile system turret on the BTR-90 (or is it 80A?), while leaving the same 14mm RHA armor. They are doing something interesting with their tank escort vehicles. Meant for urban engagements, with high angle elevation main armament, and ERA across most of the top surfaces. As for the FSU conversion, the one I've heard about was based on the T55 chassis - BTR-T, it was called. I believe that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzvg Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Hehe don't sweat it Cavscout, at least they gave you a whole 9 seconds (67N10, UH1-H crewchief, life expectancy in combat, 4.5 seconds) Ya know what? figures lie (actual combat time 38 minutes, Grenada) ------------------ Pzvg "Murphy's law of combat #10, never forget your weapon is made by the lowest bidder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: One, such as myself, gets said information from a friend who happens to be an Airborne Ranger in the 2nd Battalion, Charlie company. The other information comes from having atleast passing skills in math. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My point was not aimed at where YOU got those statistics but where they originate. I've heard the same "X second life span" numbers for years. They just don't add up. They used to tell us that scouts averaged 19 seconds... well, the Gulf was a 100 hours and well, I and my buddies are still here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> With todays laser range finders, and general fire control, hitting a target is easier than spotting it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anyone who has watched tankers fail Table VIII courses can contest that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> See, if you would have actually read my post, I said that the TOW gunner better pray that his target doesn't spot him, cause if they do, it doesn't take much to swing the main turrent on a modern MBT to line up a shot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, you said "Think about it.. A TOW gunner could fire at a tank at 3000 meters. Lets say the TC spots the incoming missle 5 seconds later. That puts the missle at 2000 meters from the tank. This gives the tank crew 11 seconds to respond. More than enough time to kill the TOW gunner and therefore make the TOW round miss." I simply dispute it is as easy to spot and as easy to remain a target to take a shot over excuting a "sagger drill". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Have you ever seen a TOW missle in flight? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes and have fired both live and 'dummy' ones. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is freakishly huge, slow, and noisy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The size is rather small from either the front view, the target's, or the rear view, the firer. It is relativly slow to other weapons perhaps but it hardly misses. I defy anyone to HEAR a tow being fired while a TC in a moving tank, at several thousand meters while wearing a CVC... That assumes nothing else is making noise on the battlefield. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> When it takes on average 10 seconds for your round to impact, believe me, someone is going to see you steering it in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> TOWs were effective in both the Gulf and when used by the Isralies. The TOW is hardly as ineffective as you seem to imply. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: Hehe don't sweat it Cavscout, at least they gave you a whole 9 seconds (67N10, UH1-H crewchief, life expectancy in combat, 4.5 seconds) Ya know what? figures lie (actual combat time 38 minutes, Grenada) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL! Was it 9 seconds.... dam... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts