Sergei Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Oh, so there's a buffet section. That explains! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Though I'm happy to believe that US designers were not as Spartan in their design as they could have been, I reckon the weight difference is mostly armour. The BMP isn't exactly a wonder of passenger protection. It's frontal arc is good enough, but sides and rear are hard pressed to stop an MMG round whereas Bradley, and I think Warrior too, were designed to offer all around HMG protection. That adds up, weight wise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I had the oddest game experience last night. I managed to get my Scimitar to round a corner and bump into a BMP-2 from near point-blank range. BMP-2 fired first, hit the Scimitar but no damage, Scimitar put a couple rouds into BMP-2, which burst into flames. All I can think is Scimitar caught BMP with its proverbial pants down and all they had queued to fire was HE. My Scimitar should have been toast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 What I don't understand is that how Bradley and Warrior of the 1980's can weigh over 10 tons more than BMP-1 of the 1960's yet basic functionality is the same: you bring 7 dismounts to the battlefield, fire a few shots, get hit and explode. All around protection from 14.5mm HMG rounds. Better... hell everything except weight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryujin Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 What I don't understand is that how Bradley and Warrior of the 1980's can weigh over 10 tons more than BMP-1 of the 1960's yet basic functionality is the same: you bring 7 dismounts to the battlefield, fire a few shots, get hit and explode. At least in the case of the Bradley, I think it's actually up to around 20mm protection on the front arc. You also have a larger turret, bigger engine, and ERA. Weight is exchange for extra functionality as a weapons platform and improved survivability. Yes, it carts 7 dismounts to the battlefield, but when you get there with a Bradley, your more likely to spot the enemy, effectively engage them, and hopefully survive. At least in CMSF there is a HUGE difference in the combat performance. BMPs cart the infantry to the battle and can be employed carefully as some extra fire support for the infatry, but they have no survivability and poor optics, meaning they can only be carefully employed in relatively safe situations. A platoon of Bradley on the other hand is a force to be reckoned with, from my play experience at least they provide a formidable tool against anything short of ATGMs or MBTs (although they can ambush MBTs effectively). The extra 10 tons get you "light tank" functionalty ontop of it being a battlefield taxi. It's much like comparing a T-55 to an M1A1. Yes, their both tanks with cannons and have exactly the same "basic functionality", but I'd rather have something a bit less rusty than a T-55, the extra weight on the M1A1 is all technology and armor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__Yossarian0815[jby] Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 He didn't say better, but that they can take out an MBT (generally a big complaint against the warrior). Compared to an ATGM the 30mm is a spitball, but if you can get a rear or sometimes a side shot you can do damage. Usually best done with 2 or so warriors so you can concentrate fire. Far from ideal, but it can be done. Hmm, in game or RL? Just for fun I tried to kill a T55 in one of the campaign missions by rushing it with warriors. Both front&sides of the T55 were impenetrable at point blank range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Protection, schmotection. In tanks extra protection is worth its weight in gold, but IFV's are just glamourized APC's. If it can't survive an RPG hit then it is not sufficiently protected. Or when was the last time you saw insurgents running around with 20mm guns? Also, lack of amphibiousness is a serious defect - something which Gavin can do, btw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yair Iny Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Yeah but the GAVIN is the best APC in the world, and is in fact the solution to everything, silly Douglas Adams thinking it was 42, when in fact it was 113! But on a more serious note, ERA surely weighs quite a bit, and protects the Brad from most RPGs (except for dual warhead new-gens). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Yeah but the GAVIN is the best APC in the world, and is in fact the solution to everything, silly Douglas Adams thinking it was 42, when in fact it was 113! Now 'Gavin', we all know, but what is a '113', please? Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryujin Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Protection, schmotection. In tanks extra protection is worth its weight in gold, but IFV's are just glamourized APC's. If it can't survive an RPG hit then it is not sufficiently protected. Or when was the last time you saw insurgents running around with 20mm guns? Also, lack of amphibiousness is a serious defect - something which Gavin can do, btw. Actually, yes, the Bradley can and has taken RPG hits (I've heard of cases where bradleys shrugged off multiple RPGs without serious damage). With ERA it should be pretty safe from single warhead rounds and have at least some protection vs tandem warheads. With a Bradley A2/A3 with ERA you have a LOT more survivability, even if the vehicle is knocked out, compared to a BMP/M113 (since you use the term "gavin", which is really an incorrect term for the M113, I assume your one of those people). I believe the front armor (with out any extras) can stop not 20mm, but 30mm (according to FAS.org). Protection, schmotection is easy to say when you don't have to ride in it. Then you might appreciate a little extra schmotection on the BMP if it comes under fire from well... almost anything bigger than 7.62. However, you shouldn't be relying on armor and the nice optics and weapons go a long way in improving survivability. Is the Bradley perfect? Of course not, it certainly has it's flaws. But those extra ten tons of weight do have a purpose is what I'm trying to say, it has a record of killing MBTs and decent survivability. Since it falls under more of a fighting vehicle than a mobility vehicle like the BMP/M113, you can't completely compare the two. Firepower and protection is a much bigger factor on the M2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yair Iny Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Now 'Gavin', we all know, but what is a '113', please? Best regards, Thomm The M113 APC of course. It has never really been called Gavin, but that name is being promoted by the looney that is Mike Sparks. One of the darker corners of the internet, to be sure 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Do not worry, I was only kidding ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Protection, schmotection. In tanks extra protection is worth its weight in gold, but IFV's are just glamourized APC's. If it can't survive an RPG hit then it is not sufficiently protected. Or when was the last time you saw insurgents running around with 20mm guns? Also, lack of amphibiousness is a serious defect - something which Gavin can do, btw. Survivability and protection has been addressed by others, but just to expand upon it, accounts of Brads taking multiple RPG hits and not only surviving, but continuing to fight, undamaged, can be found in "Thunder Run" by David Zucchino and "The Take Down" by Jim Lacey. The one loss recorded during the Thunder Runs was when rucksacks strapped outside the Brad caught fire, which then spread to the vehicle itself. The lack of amphibious capability is a disadvantage, yes, but not everywhere in the world has a multitude of deep water obstacles running through. And the places with lots of them tend to be places where war is, at best, unlikely. An M113 can do a lot of things well; burst into flames at the slightest impact is one of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Gavin, schmavin. I'm simply resigned to losing any given IFV of mine (whether Warrior or Bradley) to the first RPG that hits it. Despite the evident real-world survivability of the Bradley and such, especially with ERA, 19 times out of 20 I suffer an IFV "destroyed" even though none of the crew are wounded and none of the vital systems (tracks, engine, etc.) are even damaged, let alone destroyed. I knows there's under-the-hood stuff going on to equal a knock-out from a hit which doesn't immobilize or incapacitate the vehicle, but I can't help but feel that either RPG rounds are more effective than I've thought or that there's some abstracting going on that seems to weight factors somewhat in favor of RPG rounds. It hearkens me back to my recent playing of "Red Stream" in which a T-62 of mine suffered its cannon destroyed (among other parts wrecked) and two crewmen wounded with two or three hits from enemy T-55s but was not only not knocked out but remained mobile so I could order it to reverse into defilade. I think tank-versus-tank battles will be more interest come CM:N, because (usually) tanks were for various reasons not able to just one-shot each other. Regarding the Warrior-versus-MBT question: In "Recipe For Disaster", after losing almost two platoons worth of Warriors to a single T-72M1, I finally sent a Warrior charging around a low hill to attack the immobilized tank from behind at less than 50 meters range, and after a dozen rounds into the rear of the hull and turret, the Syrian crew finally bailed out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Remotely related: Great RPG photos in this thread: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=101492 Best regards, Thomm 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.