Statisoris Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Ok, while playing the third mission in the CM:SF campaign my lone M2A3 kept getting knocked out by the AT-3s that are sitting across the field. I started to wonder, those AT-3s sure are old, I wonder how the basic AT-3B and AT-4A penetration power stacks up to an RPG-7 round, which fails to penetrate the front of my M2A3 about 30-40% of the time with the standard PG-7V round, so I went and compared them. ---------------------------------------------- AT-3B & AT-4A w/ associated warheads, penetration potential Straight on - 400mm RHA at a 60* angle - 200mm RHA ---------------------------------------------- RPG7 with PG7V round penetration Straight on - 330mm RHA at a 60* angle - 130mm RHA ---------------------------------------------- I was wondering, since the penetration on these weapons arent too different and the RPG is sometimes innefective when hitting the front of the Bradley, I was wondering if the Bradley should have a greater chance at avoiding dammage when hit by these particular ATGMS. Right now, when these ATGMs hit from the frontal arc of the Bradley, they always seem to result in a penetration and almost total kill. Maybe the chance of penetration should be toned down for these ATGMs, to give the Bradley a real chance against them. Since the armor equivalency and effectiveness on the new Bradley ERA are classified secret at present, there is a little wiggle room for making the Bradleys tougher from the front from older, non-tandem HEAT charges. The new ERA on the Bradley probably helps out alot against these older types of shaped charges. So is the Bradley's ERA simulated in CM:SF even though it is not graphically shown? If it is not simulated why not, it seems to be on almost all the Bradleys these days and certainly would be on the ones going into Syria. Have any of you heard of a Bradley surviving a frontal hit from a ATGM? Do you think the front of the M2A2/M2A3s with ERA should be a little bit tougher against low end, older, non-tandem shaped charges? I feel like I'm just blabbering now, I'm going to bed. References: http://www.bazalt.ru/rpg-7v-eng.htm (RPG 7) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/at3sagger.htm (AT 3) http://www.wonderland.org.nz/fagot.htm (AT 4) [ October 16, 2007, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Statisoris ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 If a 20-50% difference in penetration capability(according to your figures) "isn't too different" then please o please o please can I have you sitting across the table next time I negotiate a deal? "we've just put the price up 35%" "oh, well, that's not too different, fine" ATGM = anti tank. I would guess AT3's were designed with M60's in mind. Bradley ain't a tank, it is an IFV. One surviving a second generation ATGM hit would be a surprise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Statisoris, I'm with Wisbech_lad on this, not to mention the very real damage potential these substantial ATGMs have to cause KE damage. Why do I say this? The Army used to fire inert TOWs against maneuvering M103 heavy tanks (uber M48s with 120mm guns) with live crews in them, only to find that KE effects were smashing in vision blocks, jamming turrets, etc. This forced significant hardening of these vehicles in order to prevent crew casualties, in addition to the installation of special interior padding to keep the crews from taking a shock beating. Even this didn't cut it when much faster and heavier Hellfire entered the inventory. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 AT3s knocked out a LOT of heavily armored M60s and Centurions during the 1973 war. I'm not sure, but even with its special ceramic armor Bradley shouldn't be considered tougher than an M60A1, maybe the frontal equivalent of 130mm RHA? Also, Bradley's got the disadvantage of being as big as a barn. You're only counting the AT3 hits on your vehicles, if you include the duds that crash halfway to the target the missile's kill rate goes way down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statisoris Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 Ok, just wasnt sure since there really isnt any reliable data on the armor equivalency of the Bradleys front hull armor or the ERA mounted on the Bradley. In my experience, civilian estimated figures on armor equivalency and toughness of US vehicles is usually too conservative. What I meant by there isnt much difference between them in penetrating power is, there isnt much difference between the RPG-7 and the older ATGMs when compared to the penetrating power of the newer ATGMs and the upgraded AT-3 and AT-4. 70mm difference vs 200-700mm difference for the others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Statisoris, The Bradley was originally designed to be immune to the 14.5mm KPVT fitted to the BTR-60 and up and the BRDM-2. This was hurriedly revisited when the Russians fielded the 30mm armed BMP-2 resulting in adding tons of applique armor to provide the needed protection. Thus, armor protection per se isn't much. The real leverage is in ERA against certain HEAT threats, particularly early RPG warheads, not the tandem stuff. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardaukar Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 M3A3 is still based on IFV vehicle that was never designed to withstand weapons that were designed to kill tanks. If Bradley crew starts to think they are MBT, that is what is going to happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 For some fun try playing Blue on Blue and hunt a couple Bradleys using your intantry AT4 LAW instead of a Syrian AT-4 ATGM. MUCH more challenging 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statisoris Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 I like cheese ........ Interpret as you see fit :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Withstand Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 When I look at the in-game Bradley 3D model...I'm not seeing any ERA blocks there....for whatever reasons they just don't have the common ERA blocks found on Bradleys in Iraq 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I believe they were SO CLOSE to getting Bradley ERA blocks into the game, even had the polygons constructed. But, from what I could understand, they had trouble tracking down who in the chain-of-command had the power to order ERA block installation. An obscure debate but they're sticklers for correct TO&E. Before steps could be taken they were overwhelmed by more pressing release date-related issue and the ERA block debate was put aside (or forgot). -man, this sounds familiar. Did i recently type this on another post? I got some major deja-vu thing going on right now. 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.