User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:13:47 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But if this is in preparation for a big war vs China+Iran+North Korea I have to imagine that we will need to be rolling through the streets of their cities, which arent' all nice broad thoroughfares I said armor hasn't been on those streets in over a decade. However prior to that heavy armored vehicles were the norm in large cities. Lighter units may be more maneuvable but that doesn't mean an armored unit can't go into a city. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:17:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have we given up completely on EW, I recall early in my career we used to have some of those capabilities? ETA: N/M That's where the 17 series MOS comes into play. Now I remember. The EW realm has broadened past the CIED fight into active ground jamming, SIGINT, DF, and EMS reconnaissance among other things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 1:23:52 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-announces-serial-production-of-new-advanced-eitan-apc/ https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2020/02/1-e1581249635659-640x400.jpeg We co-developed with Israel, just buy these. I don't see the point of tracked vehicles for carrying personnel for the cost/maneuverability when the Bradleys and Abrams are your front. The AMPV isn't being adopted into the ABCT as an APC, its a platform giving enabling assets the same level of mobility as the rest of the formation, ie replacing the existing functions of the M113 and creating an open platform for emerging technologies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:27:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yay, more antennas. Probably still easier to troubleshoot than a BFIST. It never helped when the douchbags in B Co would steal the Turret Power Box that you specifically need for the BFIST. At least with the BFIST you got some space. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:31:58 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wasn’t this what the Bradley was supposed to look like? I loved the 113. Unless they made it lighter and faster, meh. Yep. Battle bus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:43:26 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tanks and Brads get the cake, everything else gets the crumbs. Mortar tracks and ambulances were at least pacing items, and would get a little love. The infantry and armor 1SGs' g-rides? Not so much, as they didn't normally like them or use them. We would damn near have to fund support vehicle parts under the cover of darkness. Because it apparently it takes a genius to realize that if you focus solely on combat power and ignore your broken M88s before railing everything across the country for an NTC rotation...well, that's not good. Id vehemently disagree with the part in red. FSO for a tank company for a while. Me and the 1SG had a great relationship, and with our maintenance section, decked out his ride. Humidor for the cigars, wired in coffee pot and a welded bracket to hold it. Set it up with some camo nets on the back so when we lagered up for the night, we dropped ramp and had the nets out in a matter of minutes. Done training for the day, we had the coleman grill in the BFIST, and everyone had a cooler of stuff in their tanks. Every field exercise basically became a camping trip. Loved that unit. Easily my best 18 months in the Army. A well run tanker unit knows how to live in the field. Even made NTC bearable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 3:45:48 PM EDT
[#7]
Some of the old OPFOR M113s with hulls modified to look a bit more BMP-1ish were given to Lebanon and are still in use
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 4:08:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Cool, since we are making more M113s can we start making M551 Sheridan's again? Keep the 152mm Gun/Launcher, just upgrade the Shillelagh. That was the most fun vehicle I ever crewed/'commanded. Small, fast with a massive gun. Sort of like me in my prime.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 4:24:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Didn't the Bradley fill that role?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 4:44:37 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn't the Bradley fill that role? The Bradley replaced the M113 for direct combat roles There is the need for vehicles with more internal volume, ie ambulances, command posts, or mortar vehicles, that a bradley with a turret didnt have. The M113 stayed in these roles largely because we had them, most likely this is what would have happened in the early 90s if the wall hadnt fell. These should provide greater mobility protection and most importantly access to more electrical power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 4:47:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not everything can be heavy just because you saw the need for that over the GWOT. You need units that can rush forward and sieze objectives to even get your armor to the FLOT. The last time I checked the biggest threats for conflict are China and Russia, and its been proven that ABCTs would have a hell of a time even going from port to the FLOT due to tons of water crossings, unsuitable infrastructure and terrain. COIN is a rear guard fight in a convenentional conflict, you have to dominate the conventional aspect to even make it to that point. There still exists the propensity for standalone low intensity conflict, which is one reason we are moving to the JLTV fleet and keeping our MRAPs stockpiled. We have learned plenty of lessons, the biggest one being that we can't make every unit functional in every capability. We need a tiered approach mixing armor vs speed in order to work through every contingency. Mobility vs armor vs firepower. Still not sure why the 113 wasn't essentially replaced by the Stryker, which does the same thing, if a bit heavier and rolling on wheels. Not to mention the M1117, though you'd be hard-pressed to squeeze more people into that tin can. As far as mobile firepower goes, I'm surprised the US military doesn't already field something akin to the 3T German Wiesel, a 2-man armored weapons platform or "mini-tank" the size of a hummvee but rocking a 20mm canon, or any number of other weapons. IIRC, Wiesel 1 chassis are being tested as unmanned land vehicles by DARPA... There's a lot of shit you can do with an IFV that small and fast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2020 10:46:32 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tanks and Brads get the cake, everything else gets the crumbs. Mortar tracks and ambulances were at least pacing items, and would get a little love. The infantry and armor 1SGs' g-rides? Not so much, as they didn't normally like them or use them. We would damn near have to fund support vehicle parts under the cover of darkness. Because it apparently it takes a genius to realize that if you focus solely on combat power and ignore your broken M88s before railing everything across the country for an NTC rotation...well, that's not good. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I believe you, I just don't remember ever noticing one in service, not even stateside. Clearly, I was just in the wrong unit since I've now learned that some units in some places are still using them for whatever. I guess you really can learn something new every day. To be fair, they didnt move under their own power very much. Tanks and Brads get the cake, everything else gets the crumbs. Mortar tracks and ambulances were at least pacing items, and would get a little love. The infantry and armor 1SGs' g-rides? Not so much, as they didn't normally like them or use them. We would damn near have to fund support vehicle parts under the cover of darkness. Because it apparently it takes a genius to realize that if you focus solely on combat power and ignore your broken M88s before railing everything across the country for an NTC rotation...well, that's not good. After we had all 7 M88A1 down at the same time, they became pacer items. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 1:36:50 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It never helped when the douchbags in B Co would steal the Turret Power Box that you specifically need for the BFIST. At least with the BFIST you got some space. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yay, more antennas. Probably still easier to troubleshoot than a BFIST. It never helped when the douchbags in B Co would steal the Turret Power Box that you specifically need for the BFIST. At least with the BFIST you got some space. Ah, the BFIST recliner. Second most comfortable chair in the motor pool, after the driver's seat in the M1. With the added bonus that it didn't smell like piss like 99% of the tanks. M992 was the easiest thing to work on comms-wise, though. You could stand up the whole time except for checking the driver's intercom |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 1:39:17 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Id vehemently disagree with the part in red. FSO for a tank company for a while. Me and the 1SG had a great relationship, and with our maintenance section, decked out his ride. Humidor for the cigars, wired in coffee pot and a welded bracket to hold it. Set it up with some camo nets on the back so when we lagered up for the night, we dropped ramp and had the nets out in a matter of minutes. Done training for the day, we had the coleman grill in the BFIST, and everyone had a cooler of stuff in their tanks. Every field exercise basically became a camping trip. Loved that unit. Easily my best 18 months in the Army. A well run tanker unit knows how to live in the field. Even made NTC bearable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Tanks and Brads get the cake, everything else gets the crumbs. Mortar tracks and ambulances were at least pacing items, and would get a little love. The infantry and armor 1SGs' g-rides? Not so much, as they didn't normally like them or use them. We would damn near have to fund support vehicle parts under the cover of darkness. Because it apparently it takes a genius to realize that if you focus solely on combat power and ignore your broken M88s before railing everything across the country for an NTC rotation...well, that's not good. Id vehemently disagree with the part in red. FSO for a tank company for a while. Me and the 1SG had a great relationship, and with our maintenance section, decked out his ride. Humidor for the cigars, wired in coffee pot and a welded bracket to hold it. Set it up with some camo nets on the back so when we lagered up for the night, we dropped ramp and had the nets out in a matter of minutes. Done training for the day, we had the coleman grill in the BFIST, and everyone had a cooler of stuff in their tanks. Every field exercise basically became a camping trip. Loved that unit. Easily my best 18 months in the Army. A well run tanker unit knows how to live in the field. Even made NTC bearable. Well I'm glad to hear about one getting some love. I liked the M113 myself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 1:44:41 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just pulled up google maps, and surprising, in a lot of those cities there are plenty of areas of buildings packed tightly together with relatively thin roads Now compare how many cities there is to rural areas. Iran and North Korea aren’t Amsterdam or Tokyo  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 3:00:46 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know that scene in "Crocodile Dundee" with the mugger and the knife? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Basically a Bradley without a turret pardon my ignorance, but isnt that thing on top a turret ? or does turret mean something else ? You know that scene in "Crocodile Dundee" with the mugger and the knife? This shows the depth of your wit. You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 3:20:08 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just pulled up google maps, and surprising, in a lot of those cities there are plenty of areas of buildings packed tightly together with relatively thin roads Dense urban terrain is a big concern for the Pacific, but mainly because of cities like Singapore, Seoul, Jakarta, etc. But like I said, you can't make every unit able to do everything. The primary mission of an ABCT isn't MOUT in cities, there are other units more equipped for that. With that said reality doesn't always work that way and units make due with the cards they were dealt. Baghdad had some pretty tight spots and Abrams tanks with TUSK and Bradleys with ERA had to stick to larger thoroughfares. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 3:34:21 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What about the Bradley? This |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 3:46:00 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This What about it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 4:14:28 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This Its literally been explained multiple times in this thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 8:31:37 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dense urban terrain is a big concern for the Pacific, but mainly because of cities like Singapore, Seoul, Jakarta, etc. But like I said, you can't make every unit able to do everything. The primary mission of an ABCT isn't MOUT in cities, there are other units more equipped for that. With that said reality doesn't always work that way and units make due with the cards they were dealt. Baghdad had some pretty tight spots and Abrams tanks with TUSK and Bradleys with ERA had to stick to larger thoroughfares. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:htjn in I just pulled up google maps, and surprising, in a lot of those cities there are plenty of areas of buildings packed tightly together with relatively thin roads Dense urban terrain is a big concern for the Pacific, but mainly because of cities like Singapore, Seoul, Jakarta, etc. But like I said, you can't make every unit able to do everything. The primary mission of an ABCT isn't MOUT in cities, there are other units more equipped for that. With that said reality doesn't always work that way and units make due with the cards they were dealt. Baghdad had some pretty tight spots and Abrams tanks with TUSK and Bradleys with ERA had to stick to larger thoroughfares. Even dismissing Urban warfare, there are steep mountains out areas and there are heavily wooded areas. If you can't operate Heavy equipment, your infantry operates dismounted and/or you bring in specialized formations. You can't just ignore the majority of wide open land and fixate on fighting in the densest parts, any more than you can stop operating a blue water navy because most of your fighting lately has been on land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 9:21:26 AM EDT
[#23]
Somebody help me count, please:
AMPV wiki says 2897 vehicles planned. Also says (roughly) that 33% of the 346 vehicles in an ABCT are M113s, which would make 114 vehicles...and 2897/114 = ~25 ABCTs across Active and Guard? Huh? I didn't think there were going to be that many ABCTs left? I thought it was more like 15? So where are the other AMPVs going? There aren't that many at echelons above brigade, are there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 10:23:08 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Somebody help me count, please: AMPV wiki says 2897 vehicles planned. Also says (roughly) that 33% of the 346 vehicles in an ABCT are M113s, which would make 114 vehicles...and 2897/114 = ~25 ABCTs across Active and Guard? Huh? I didn't think there were going to be that many ABCTs left? I thought it was more like 15? So where are the other AMPVs going? There aren't that many at echelons above brigade, are there? Some will go to prepositioned stock or equipment sets. Some to the schoolhouses at Benning and Lee for training. I'm not exactly sure on the numbers, but some Engineer units have M113s on the MTOE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2020 10:46:52 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @Manic_Moran do you still have the pics of you rolling into Iraq in an M113? I remember you live blogging this back in the tank-net days No, I rolled into Iraq in an open-topped M998. https://web.archive.org/web/20150602175637/http://data.primeportal.net/iraq/Rollover.JPG We did have the 1SG's M113 along, though, so it did get some use. https://web.archive.org/web/20150603001006/http://data.primeportal.net/iraq/drvPC.JPG so did the ambulance, actually. https://web.archive.org/web/20150603003356/http://data.primeportal.net/iraq/drvamb.JPG |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 10:06:41 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The sarcasm of FightingHellfish runs thick. I don't have the mad modelling skills to hang with the Gavin advocates. Also, I don't have the courage to see if that fellow still has a web page. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Still not a Gavin. I hope you're joking.  Kharn I don't have the mad modelling skills to hang with the Gavin advocates. Also, I don't have the courage to see if that fellow still has a web page. @MattM_Gilbert His website's still around and was maintained by the members of his cult when I looked through it a few months back, but he died. I need to dig it up again to see if they're shitting on the AMPV or loving it.  Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 10:08:21 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like a Bradley if you got rid of the turret.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBAIt is an idle Bradley hull with the turret removed and the electronics modernized. The Army has a metric shit-ton of Bradleys in storage. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 10:23:17 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is an idle Bradley hull with the turret removed and the electronics modernized. The Army has a metric shit-ton of Bradleys in storage. Kharn The Army is trying to use the Bradley hull as a common platform for several things. The Paladin M109A7 uses a Bradley hull as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 10:37:10 AM EDT
[#29]
Our A7 Paladins are coming in the spring. Seems like we just finished swapping barrels on the last A6s.
And sorry 19Ks, but the 13Bs usually had the better names.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 10:38:38 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Army is trying to use the Bradley hull as a common platform for several things. The Paladin M109A7 uses a Bradley hull as well. I want to turn some of them into IFSVs. Infantry fire support vehicles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 11:58:35 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I want to turn some of them into IFSVs. Infantry fire support vehicles. So....Bradleys? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 12:36:49 PM EDT
[#32]
Replace the M7 BFIST with these?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 12:54:54 PM EDT
[#33]
Four pages and no one asked...
Does this mean that 113s will be sold off as surplus? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 1:06:39 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So....Bradleys? Shitload of ammo instead of dismounts, bigger gun (GAU-12, maybe the new 40mm CTA), TOW replaced by a configurable “weapon station” that could employ various options as mission needs dictated, such as ATGM, 84mm Gustav, mortar, 70mm rocket pod, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 1:38:19 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Army is trying to use the Bradley hull as a common platform for several things. The Paladin M109A7 uses a Bradley hull as well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It is an idle Bradley hull with the turret removed and the electronics modernized. The Army has a metric shit-ton of Bradleys in storage. Kharn The Army is trying to use the Bradley hull as a common platform for several things. The Paladin M109A7 uses a Bradley hull as well. The MLRS does, but I thought the M109's were a different hull. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 1:39:51 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shitload of ammo instead of dismounts, bigger gun (GAU-12, maybe the new 40mm CTA), TOW replaced by a configurable “weapon station” that could employ various options as mission needs dictated, such as ATGM, 84mm Gustav, mortar, 70mm rocket pod, etc. So you want a CFV with new guns? The CFV/IFV is a completely different capability that has nothing to do with the AMPV outside of sharing a chassis. The AMPV already is being fielded in a heavy mortar config for ABCT HHD mortar 120mm teams. The Carl Gustav is a dismounted weapon system with >300m range, has absolutely nothing to do with the vehicle it resides in. You arent going to get a configurable heavy weapons system on the fly. There is no desire to increase the demand on the forward logistics train, no ability to test the systems in gunnery before use, and even the personnel MOS involved with the weapons systems themselves are different. Also no real identified need for this to happen. Sounds like a cool idea for a GI Joe toy though. I expect a lot more enabler variants like engineer models, CUAS/SHORAD, EW/SIGINT, etc, but heavy firepower is not something an ABCT has found themselves lacking in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 1:44:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The MLRS does, but I thought the M109's were a different hull. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is an idle Bradley hull with the turret removed and the electronics modernized. The Army has a metric shit-ton of Bradleys in storage. Kharn The Army is trying to use the Bradley hull as a common platform for several things. The Paladin M109A7 uses a Bradley hull as well. The MLRS does, but I thought the M109's were a different hull. A6 and earlier was different, but the A7 uses a Bradley hull to make maintenance/supply easier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 1:45:19 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The MLRS does, but I thought the M109's were a different hull. They did. Now they use Bradley hulls. I was out there when they were testing them, the different dimensions were causing all kinds of loading issues and shearing fuzes. Supposedly they got better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 1:50:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Four pages and no one asked... Does this mean that 113s will be sold off as surplus? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 1:57:33 PM EDT
[#40]
So any M113 going to show up in surplus auctions.......
Could really use that to pull.....uhhh.....something on the property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 2:03:44 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We put 22 people in a M113 once. It wasn't fun. Have you ever been riding in the back and the driver tried to run over a tree he figured the M113 would knock over. But he was wrong. The tree was very strong a stopped it |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 2:06:16 PM EDT
[#42]
One time I had an M106a2 doing 40 mph downhill at Fort Irwin. My Cpl yelling at me over the CVC and I was too scared to touch either latteral for fear of flipping us. There is a damn good reason the governor is set at 22
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2020 2:09:41 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you ever been riding in the back and the driver tried to run over a tree he figured the M113 would knock over. But he was wrong. The tree was very strong a stopped it Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We put 22 people in a M113 once. It wasn't fun. Have you ever been riding in the back and the driver tried to run over a tree he figured the M113 would knock over. But he was wrong. The tree was very strong a stopped it I ran over a smallish tree when I first began driving one. Just to do it ya know. Tree broke on the trim vain very nicely. Then something knocked the shit out of me from behind. Seems the tree broke and hit my Sgt who was in the CP hatch at the time. He then returned the favor by pulling the safety pin from my drivers hatch. Good times 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 4:57:23 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @MattM_Gilbert His website's still around and was maintained by the members of his cult when I looked through it a few months back, but he died. I need to dig it up again to see if they're shitting on the AMPV or loving it. Kharn Thank you for the follow up and the information. Whereas Sparky was a character, I am in no way pleased to learn of his passing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 6:11:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you want a CFV with new guns? The CFV/IFV is a completely different capability that has nothing to do with the AMPV outside of sharing a chassis. The AMPV already is being fielded in a heavy mortar config for ABCT HHD mortar 120mm teams. The Carl Gustav is a dismounted weapon system with >300m range, has absolutely nothing to do with the vehicle it resides in. You arent going to get a configurable heavy weapons system on the fly. There is no desire to increase the demand on the forward logistics train, no ability to test the systems in gunnery before use, and even the personnel MOS involved with the weapons systems themselves are different. Also no real identified need for this to happen. Sounds like a cool idea for a GI Joe toy though. I expect a lot more enabler variants like engineer models, CUAS/SHORAD, EW/SIGINT, etc, but heavy firepower is not something an ABCT has found themselves lacking in. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Shitload of ammo instead of dismounts, bigger gun (GAU-12, maybe the new 40mm CTA), TOW replaced by a configurable “weapon station” that could employ various options as mission needs dictated, such as ATGM, 84mm Gustav, mortar, 70mm rocket pod, etc. So you want a CFV with new guns? The CFV/IFV is a completely different capability that has nothing to do with the AMPV outside of sharing a chassis. The AMPV already is being fielded in a heavy mortar config for ABCT HHD mortar 120mm teams. The Carl Gustav is a dismounted weapon system with >300m range, has absolutely nothing to do with the vehicle it resides in. You arent going to get a configurable heavy weapons system on the fly. There is no desire to increase the demand on the forward logistics train, no ability to test the systems in gunnery before use, and even the personnel MOS involved with the weapons systems themselves are different. Also no real identified need for this to happen. Sounds like a cool idea for a GI Joe toy though. I expect a lot more enabler variants like engineer models, CUAS/SHORAD, EW/SIGINT, etc, but heavy firepower is not something an ABCT has found themselves lacking in. AMPV is stingy with their hulls. Stryker accepts payment for new production assets. No hulls = no low density variants. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 6:41:12 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So....Bradleys? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I want to turn some of them into IFSVs. Infantry fire support vehicles. So....Bradleys? I assume he means something like the Cockerill 105 turret the Brits are considering for Ajax,here on a CV90 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 6:48:55 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I assume he means something like the Cockerill 105 turret the Brits are considering for Ajax,here on a CV90 https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CMI-Defence-Cockerill-105mm-CV90.jpg That or a BMPT. Something with a high focus on infantry support |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 6:50:19 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mobility vs armor vs firepower. Still not sure why the 113 wasn't essentially replaced by the Stryker, which does the same thing, if a bit heavier and rolling on wheels. Not to mention the M1117, though you'd be hard-pressed to squeeze more people into that tin can. As far as mobile firepower goes, I'm surprised the US military doesn't already field something akin to the 3T German Wiesel, a 2-man armored weapons platform or "mini-tank" the size of a hummvee but rocking a 20mm canon, or any number of other weapons. IIRC, Wiesel 1 chassis are being tested as unmanned land vehicles by DARPA... There's a lot of shit you can do with an IFV that small and fast. 100% accurate WRT to the current M113 role. Stryker based is a much better solution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:01:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They did. Now they use Bradley hulls. I was out there when they were testing them, the different dimensions were causing all kinds of loading issues and shearing fuzes. Supposedly they got better. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The MLRS does, but I thought the M109's were a different hull. They did. Now they use Bradley hulls. I was out there when they were testing them, the different dimensions were causing all kinds of loading issues and shearing fuzes. Supposedly they got better. Are they replacing the CATs with Bradley-hull based models as well? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:12:35 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are they replacing the CATs with Bradley-hull based models as well? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The MLRS does, but I thought the M109's were a different hull. They did. Now they use Bradley hulls. I was out there when they were testing them, the different dimensions were causing all kinds of loading issues and shearing fuzes. Supposedly they got better. Are they replacing the CATs with Bradley-hull based models as well? Yeah, M992A3s. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
