User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:49:03 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't see why they'd need a high top variant. As for swimming... I've always found it a bit of a gimmick. Not sure why the Soviets obsessed with it so much, or why we tried to follow suit. Spend that money and effort on more bridging assets. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So replace a 113 series vehicle with an upgraded 113? lol Show me the 577 version. I once made my 577 aid station fly. I also almost drowned my TC fording a creek. I still want to see the hightop ride. It is as tall as a 577 already, then again, I think the floor inside is that much higher. Yea does this new pig swim? The M106A3 barely did a doggie paddle. I don't see why they'd need a high top variant. As for swimming... I've always found it a bit of a gimmick. Not sure why the Soviets obsessed with it so much, or why we tried to follow suit. Spend that money and effort on more bridging assets. Back in the 90s the Army was working on a command post vehicle based on the MLRS chassis. M4 I think. Got canned along with a lot of other stuff to fund Strykers and the transformation to BCTs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:54:12 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At what echelon were their bridging units held? It always seemed to me that the Soviet mindset was much more of a "gotta make do with what I can physically get my hands on" as opposed to any sort of trust that any support would ever be there when needed. That exists in all militaries (witness the every popular CAS debates here), but the Soviets seemed to obsess on it. My guess is hard-earned experience working within their own dysfunctional systems. It was reckoned that there would be a water obstacle every 30-50km when advancing west. There were T-55 based AVLBs and a bunch of truck carried bridges,I think it was 4 spans per regiment if memory serves,but one of the major ideas was that these would just slow the rate of advance to a crawl rather than just swimming or wading across. This is a completely off on a tangent subject but there was a big emphasis on gap crossing and bridging for follow up forces that was greater than defensively minded NATO militaries,like the railroad ferry bridges that I don’t believe had a Western equivalent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:57:38 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Back in the 90s the Army was working on a command post vehicle based on the MLRS chassis. M4 I think. Got canned along with a lot of other stuff to fund Strykers and the transformation to BCTs. At least a couple of these were absolutely used in Iraq. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 7:57:58 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Makes sense. When did funding dry up? When the GWOT officially ended as a named and funded operation in 2015 or 2016. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:02:14 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interestingly enough, many of the NATO heavy vehicles could wade, fairly well. The idea was to let the Soviets break their A divisions on our lines, then roll their B, and C, divisions up. Most of the Soviet ADA, and Engineer units were attached to their A divisions, at the time (80s-early 90s). The M1A1, Leopard II, Challenger, and Leclerc tanks were all equal to, or better than anything the soviets could field. They just had more of them. Granted, at the time, we were unsure of that. The soviets were assumed to go full NBC on the front, with an emphasis on chemical, to push through us. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Soviets didn’t want to wait for bridging units so they wanted everything to swim or wade. This was an obvious part of having an offensive rather than defensive mindset,like many of the decisions they made. Interestingly enough, many of the NATO heavy vehicles could wade, fairly well. The idea was to let the Soviets break their A divisions on our lines, then roll their B, and C, divisions up. Most of the Soviet ADA, and Engineer units were attached to their A divisions, at the time (80s-early 90s). The M1A1, Leopard II, Challenger, and Leclerc tanks were all equal to, or better than anything the soviets could field. They just had more of them. Granted, at the time, we were unsure of that. The soviets were assumed to go full NBC on the front, with an emphasis on chemical, to push through us. I loved the tank battles in Red Storm Rising |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:04:24 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I loved the tank battles in Red Storm Rising Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Soviets didn’t want to wait for bridging units so they wanted everything to swim or wade. This was an obvious part of having an offensive rather than defensive mindset,like many of the decisions they made. Interestingly enough, many of the NATO heavy vehicles could wade, fairly well. The idea was to let the Soviets break their A divisions on our lines, then roll their B, and C, divisions up. Most of the Soviet ADA, and Engineer units were attached to their A divisions, at the time (80s-early 90s). The M1A1, Leopard II, Challenger, and Leclerc tanks were all equal to, or better than anything the soviets could field. They just had more of them. Granted, at the time, we were unsure of that. The soviets were assumed to go full NBC on the front, with an emphasis on chemical, to push through us. I loved the tank battles in Red Storm Rising Fun game, Twilight 2000 was pretty fun, as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:10:17 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All that was GWOT centric, it would have never worked in a conventional near-peer style conflict. We figured it out with the MRAPs by using contracted civilian FSRs that were a huge pain in the ass, and they required static FOBs, they were not something capable of moving with the unit in a conventional FLOT. Thats why we also got rid of most of them once GWOT funding dried up, they were never meant to be enduring systems and were never programs of record for the most part. The concept now is creating 2 common chassis across an ABCT for all vehicles with commonality in maintenance and capabilities that can be supported in an actual large scale combat operation. Stryker units are doing the exact same thing, and light will mirror it with the JLTV being the base vehicle. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I am very familiar with the animal. What could the Bradley/ M113 solution offer that a Stryker could not already a lot more effectively? If you say logistics that is ridiculous at this point. We have brought in dozens of different MRAPs etc that were never in the system before but we seem to have figured it out very quickly. Strykers are already in the system. Arguing TOE is also moot. Last I seen Division organization makeup is not the same as the 2000s. Not by a long shot. All that was GWOT centric, it would have never worked in a conventional near-peer style conflict. We figured it out with the MRAPs by using contracted civilian FSRs that were a huge pain in the ass, and they required static FOBs, they were not something capable of moving with the unit in a conventional FLOT. Thats why we also got rid of most of them once GWOT funding dried up, they were never meant to be enduring systems and were never programs of record for the most part. The concept now is creating 2 common chassis across an ABCT for all vehicles with commonality in maintenance and capabilities that can be supported in an actual large scale combat operation. Stryker units are doing the exact same thing, and light will mirror it with the JLTV being the base vehicle. So they're going to do an NBC Recon variant and get the Strykers out of the ABCTs? As a side bar, we never had the balls to take an M93 Fox out for a swim in Lower McKellar's Pond, though we pondered it. I'm sure we could have winched it out with an M88 if we sank it, but the bill for fixing it would have been insane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:10:25 PM EST
[#8]
M113's beat humping ... BUT damn I hated being in those things!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:12:59 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At least a couple of these were absolutely used in Iraq. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Back in the 90s the Army was working on a command post vehicle based on the MLRS chassis. M4 I think. Got canned along with a lot of other stuff to fund Strykers and the transformation to BCTs. At least a couple of these were absolutely used in Iraq. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:16:53 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So they're going to do an NBC Recon variant and get the Strykers out of the ABCTs? As a side bar, we never had the balls to take an M93 Fox out for a swim in Lower McKellar's Pond, though we pondered it. I'm sure we could have winched it out with an M88 if we sank it, but the bill for fixing it would have been insane. STB's are the weird one off's I believe because the enabler platoons are so small they tend to get lost in the shuffle. Nobody wants to build them three different vehicles. MP ASV's and Chem Strykers have always been different with the Fox and the old MP patrol vehicle before the ASV. The STB is also assumed to be more of a rear guard function with individual augmentees pushed forward as needed so they can get away with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:47:12 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Totally different units. Stryker-based units sacrifice survivability for deployability. They are a compromise. Adding Strykers to heavy formations would add another type of fleet, and less capable vehicle platform than a Bradley. True Armored formation are a wholly different animal than Stryker units, and meant to go up against the worst anyone can throw at us. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Except now all HBCT combat vehicles will be one of two hulls. Thats a pretty big win for logistics. Are you referring to M1 and M2 Hulls? You still have the M113 in logistic system. Replacing it with a Stryker chassis would get rid of one whole different system (M113) that can be easily replaced. Stryker is already in logistic system and I would be hard pressed to find a reason to keep the M113. Totally different units. Stryker-based units sacrifice survivability for deployability. They are a compromise. Adding Strykers to heavy formations would add another type of fleet, and less capable vehicle platform than a Bradley. True Armored formation are a wholly different animal than Stryker units, and meant to go up against the worst anyone can throw at us. There are several Stryker hulls in ABCTs (the former Heavy BCTs) today, with more coming, because AMPV won't share their shiny new toy. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:55:04 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So they're going to do an NBC Recon variant and get the Strykers out of the ABCTs? As a side bar, we never had the balls to take an M93 Fox out for a swim in Lower McKellar's Pond, though we pondered it. I'm sure we could have winched it out with an M88 if we sank it, but the bill for fixing it would have been insane. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am very familiar with the animal. What could the Bradley/ M113 solution offer that a Stryker could not already a lot more effectively? If you say logistics that is ridiculous at this point. We have brought in dozens of different MRAPs etc that were never in the system before but we seem to have figured it out very quickly. Strykers are already in the system. Arguing TOE is also moot. Last I seen Division organization makeup is not the same as the 2000s. Not by a long shot. All that was GWOT centric, it would have never worked in a conventional near-peer style conflict. We figured it out with the MRAPs by using contracted civilian FSRs that were a huge pain in the ass, and they required static FOBs, they were not something capable of moving with the unit in a conventional FLOT. Thats why we also got rid of most of them once GWOT funding dried up, they were never meant to be enduring systems and were never programs of record for the most part. The concept now is creating 2 common chassis across an ABCT for all vehicles with commonality in maintenance and capabilities that can be supported in an actual large scale combat operation. Stryker units are doing the exact same thing, and light will mirror it with the JLTV being the base vehicle. So they're going to do an NBC Recon variant and get the Strykers out of the ABCTs? As a side bar, we never had the balls to take an M93 Fox out for a swim in Lower McKellar's Pond, though we pondered it. I'm sure we could have winched it out with an M88 if we sank it, but the bill for fixing it would have been insane. The bill to fix a foundered Fox was pretty high. Especially when the unit left it underwater for over 24 hours before they could get an M88 there. Thank fucking God all the Soldiers got out, so it was just awarding a mod and shuffling funds. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 8:57:28 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are several Stryker hulls in ABCTs (the former Heavy BCTs) today, with more coming, because AMPV won't share their shiny new toy. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Except now all HBCT combat vehicles will be one of two hulls. Thats a pretty big win for logistics. Are you referring to M1 and M2 Hulls? You still have the M113 in logistic system. Replacing it with a Stryker chassis would get rid of one whole different system (M113) that can be easily replaced. Stryker is already in logistic system and I would be hard pressed to find a reason to keep the M113. Totally different units. Stryker-based units sacrifice survivability for deployability. They are a compromise. Adding Strykers to heavy formations would add another type of fleet, and less capable vehicle platform than a Bradley. True Armored formation are a wholly different animal than Stryker units, and meant to go up against the worst anyone can throw at us. There are several Stryker hulls in ABCTs (the former Heavy BCTs) today, with more coming, because AMPV won't share their shiny new toy. Kharn Sounds like the new Fox is one of them. Certain units will always get relegated to second fiddle... or shot as OPFOR. Less than ideal, but if it's amongst other wheeled assets where the heavy trucks and what not are already, I suppose it's manageable. In this case it's more of an upgraded truck than a downgraded track. It's handicapping any maneuver battalion they decide they have to ride along with (though maybe at the same time making such a thing less likely). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 9:01:02 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The bill to fix a foundered Fox was pretty high. Especially when the unit left it underwater for over 24 hours before they could get an M88 there. Thank fucking God all the Soldiers got out, so it was just awarding a mod and shuffling funds. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am very familiar with the animal. What could the Bradley/ M113 solution offer that a Stryker could not already a lot more effectively? If you say logistics that is ridiculous at this point. We have brought in dozens of different MRAPs etc that were never in the system before but we seem to have figured it out very quickly. Strykers are already in the system. Arguing TOE is also moot. Last I seen Division organization makeup is not the same as the 2000s. Not by a long shot. All that was GWOT centric, it would have never worked in a conventional near-peer style conflict. We figured it out with the MRAPs by using contracted civilian FSRs that were a huge pain in the ass, and they required static FOBs, they were not something capable of moving with the unit in a conventional FLOT. Thats why we also got rid of most of them once GWOT funding dried up, they were never meant to be enduring systems and were never programs of record for the most part. The concept now is creating 2 common chassis across an ABCT for all vehicles with commonality in maintenance and capabilities that can be supported in an actual large scale combat operation. Stryker units are doing the exact same thing, and light will mirror it with the JLTV being the base vehicle. So they're going to do an NBC Recon variant and get the Strykers out of the ABCTs? As a side bar, we never had the balls to take an M93 Fox out for a swim in Lower McKellar's Pond, though we pondered it. I'm sure we could have winched it out with an M88 if we sank it, but the bill for fixing it would have been insane. The bill to fix a foundered Fox was pretty high. Especially when the unit left it underwater for over 24 hours before they could get an M88 there. Thank fucking God all the Soldiers got out, so it was just awarding a mod and shuffling funds. Kharn Thanks, I'll let the boys know our out of character moment of caution was well founded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 9:05:32 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At least a couple of these were absolutely used in Iraq. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Back in the 90s the Army was working on a command post vehicle based on the MLRS chassis. M4 I think. Got canned along with a lot of other stuff to fund Strykers and the transformation to BCTs. At least a couple of these were absolutely used in Iraq. Interesting. I’ve never seen one. I guess they must have fielded a few before calling it quits, similar to what happened with the M104 Wolverine that was supposed to replace the AVLB. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 9:05:50 PM EST
[#16]
Do they still use the M981-FISTV?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 9:06:59 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do they still use the M981-FISTV? No, it's been the B-FIST for years. I actually crewed a B-FIST in Iraq for a while that was extra and was just being used as a regular Bradley. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 9:11:49 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interesting. I’ve never seen one. I guess they must have fielded a few before calling it quits, similar to what happened with the M104 Wolverine that was supposed to replace the AVLB. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Back in the 90s the Army was working on a command post vehicle based on the MLRS chassis. M4 I think. Got canned along with a lot of other stuff to fund Strykers and the transformation to BCTs. At least a couple of these were absolutely used in Iraq. Interesting. I’ve never seen one. I guess they must have fielded a few before calling it quits, similar to what happened with the M104 Wolverine that was supposed to replace the AVLB. Fortunately, I understand the M104 replacement is also M1 tank hull based. We actually got an old AVLB off hanger queen status back in the day by removing a torsion bar from a static display tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 9:14:28 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interesting. I’ve never seen one. I guess they must have fielded a few before calling it quits, similar to what happened with the M104 Wolverine that was supposed to replace the AVLB. Quote HistoryQuoted: Interesting. I’ve never seen one. I guess they must have fielded a few before calling it quits, similar to what happened with the M104 Wolverine that was supposed to replace the AVLB. M4 Command and Control Vehicle, U. S. Army, Fort Stewart, Georgia, 3rd Infantry Division The M4 Command and Control Vehicle was used by the 3rd Infantry Division in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It was used as a mobile command platform. The speed and cross country capability of the chassis enabled the division's leadership to keep up with maneuver forces equipped with M1 Abrams tanks and M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The M4 program was terminated in 2004. Of the 25 vehicles manufactured, 24 were scrapped. "Maximus" is the last of it kind. (Source: U. S. Army, sign at the site.)  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 9:18:14 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Never knew about these. Off to rabbit holes for the rest of my evening to read about these. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Back in the 90s the Army was working on a command post vehicle based on the MLRS chassis. M4 I think. Got canned along with a lot of other stuff to fund Strykers and the transformation to BCTs. At least a couple of these were absolutely used in Iraq. Wikipedia claims it was the M4 and about 25 were produced for the Army before it was cancelled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 9:21:45 PM EST
[#21]
I can't imagine that M4 was a fun ride. The MLRS's we had always seemed like damn smokestacks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 9:25:31 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought the Bradley replaced the M113. It did for mechanized infantry, all the support chains (maintenance, mortars, scouts, medics, etc) still use some version of the M113. I'm not sure what current MTOEs are since I've been out for over a decade but it used to be that a battalion HHC would have ~15 M113s and variants IIRC. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with for AMPV versions of the M106 Mortar track, M981 FISTV and M577 Command vehicle. ETA: Read more of the thread. Didn't realize we already had a B-FIST to replace the FISTV. I haven't been combat support since 99. I guess it shows.  Do they already have replacements for the 577 and M106 too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 9:35:45 PM EST
[#23]
Anyone know the current breakdown of the non-Maneuver Battalion ABCT units and their assigned vehicles?
Are any of these new toys supposed to go to those Bde level units, or just the Battalions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 10:00:32 PM EST
[#24]
Answered my own question.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 10:50:48 PM EST
[#25]
The only thing I don't understand about this buy is the timing. Why replace the M113 variants being used in supporting roles with a Bradley derivative which is itself soon to be replaced by a new IFV? Seems it might have been smarter to wait a few years and see what the design teams came up with. Maybe it would have been possible to use the same chassis for everything. By going with the AMPV, soon we'll be right back in the same situation we are now with the M113. You'll have a brand new IFV that will have nothing in common with the AMPV. Of course that is being optimistic and assuming we ever manage to field a Bradley replacement. The previous attempt was less than awe inspiring to say the least. Let us hope the new attempt gets better results.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 10:52:52 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only thing I don't understand about this buy is the timing. Why replace the M113 variants being used in supporting roles with a Bradley derivative which is itself soon to be replaced by a new IFV? Seems it might have been smarter to wait a few years and see what the design teams came up with. Maybe it would have been possible to use the same chassis for everything. By going with the AMPV, soon we'll be right back in the same situation we are now with the M113. You'll have a brand new IFV that will have nothing in common with the AMPV. Of course that is being optimistic and assuming we ever manage to field a Bradley replacement. The previous attempt was less than awe inspiring to say the least. Let us hope the new attempt gets better results. Doesn't sound like that'll be happening any time soon. https://www.stripes.com/news/army-cancels-45-billion-bradley-replacement-competition-after-only-one-bid-qualified-1.615177 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 10:55:34 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only thing I don't understand about this buy is the timing. Why replace the M113 variants being used in supporting roles with a Bradley derivative which is itself soon to be replaced by a new IFV? Seems it might have been smarter to wait a few years and see what the design teams came up with. Maybe it would have been possible to use the same chassis for everything. By going with the AMPV, soon we'll be right back in the same situation we are now with the M113. You'll have a brand new IFV that will have nothing in common with the AMPV. Of course that is being optimistic and assuming we ever manage to field a Bradley replacement. The previous attempt was less than awe inspiring to say the least. Let us hope the new attempt gets better results. Any Brad replacement is probably at least 20 years out. I think the OMFV is the newest attempt, and it is in very fledgling stages. If the funding is there, the answer when it is fielded is to replace everything else. But, there won't be enough funding, and they won't. The alternative is tank battalions with M113s still 20 years from now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 11:09:57 PM EST
[#28]
Compared to an M113?
Yeah I’d take that Bradley all day long. That said, I think the Israelis were on the right track with the Nammer (Namur?). Once you are the size and weight of a Bradley, you may as well scale up to tank armor. Glancing at the load charts, it de facto doesn’t make a difference in actual deployability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 11:25:58 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only thing I don't understand about this buy is the timing. Why replace the M113 variants being used in supporting roles with a Bradley derivative which is itself soon to be replaced by a new IFV? Seems it might have been smarter to wait a few years and see what the design teams came up with. Maybe it would have been possible to use the same chassis for everything. By going with the AMPV, soon we'll be right back in the same situation we are now with the M113. You'll have a brand new IFV that will have nothing in common with the AMPV. Of course that is being optimistic and assuming we ever manage to field a Bradley replacement. The previous attempt was less than awe inspiring to say the least. Let us hope the new attempt gets better results. If I had to guess, we will see an A4 bradley before we see a complete replacement. Remote Weapons station, 50mm gun, upgraded power plant/electricity generation, armor and ability to mount hard kill anti-atgm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 11:37:20 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks, I'll let the boys know our out of character moment of caution was well founded. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am very familiar with the animal. What could the Bradley/ M113 solution offer that a Stryker could not already a lot more effectively? If you say logistics that is ridiculous at this point. We have brought in dozens of different MRAPs etc that were never in the system before but we seem to have figured it out very quickly. Strykers are already in the system. Arguing TOE is also moot. Last I seen Division organization makeup is not the same as the 2000s. Not by a long shot. All that was GWOT centric, it would have never worked in a conventional near-peer style conflict. We figured it out with the MRAPs by using contracted civilian FSRs that were a huge pain in the ass, and they required static FOBs, they were not something capable of moving with the unit in a conventional FLOT. Thats why we also got rid of most of them once GWOT funding dried up, they were never meant to be enduring systems and were never programs of record for the most part. The concept now is creating 2 common chassis across an ABCT for all vehicles with commonality in maintenance and capabilities that can be supported in an actual large scale combat operation. Stryker units are doing the exact same thing, and light will mirror it with the JLTV being the base vehicle. So they're going to do an NBC Recon variant and get the Strykers out of the ABCTs? As a side bar, we never had the balls to take an M93 Fox out for a swim in Lower McKellar's Pond, though we pondered it. I'm sure we could have winched it out with an M88 if we sank it, but the bill for fixing it would have been insane. The bill to fix a foundered Fox was pretty high. Especially when the unit left it underwater for over 24 hours before they could get an M88 there. Thank fucking God all the Soldiers got out, so it was just awarding a mod and shuffling funds. Kharn Thanks, I'll let the boys know our out of character moment of caution was well founded. The accident report detailed several pre-float PMCS steps that indicated the vehicle was not ready to float. The Germans floated their Fuchs all the time and numerous other units floated their M93s without incident. Fort Stewart even did it with theirs before turning them in[/url], might as well have some fun with it since you have to bring your junk to 10-20 standard before COMPO 2 and 3 will take it. If it passes a thorough and honest PMCS, I would go for it. Very few Soldiers can say they've floated a vehicle. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2020 11:47:35 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's pretty much all they were ever used as. The dawn of the drone has led to a fascinating new relevance for short range ADA, with the Army scrambling to adapt. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We were still waiting for our ADA variants to come when I left in late 89. Guess they never got around to it? Along with a few other things? The Bradley was supposed to take care of a lot of things, that it didn't. Sort of like the whole Sgt York stuff...granted, at least the Bradley was effective. The Bradley Linebacker did enter service but the original idea was that Stingers carried in Bradleys would replace the M163 and M167. The Linebackers were converted back to normal Bradleys about 15 years ago though. That's pretty much all they were ever used as. The dawn of the drone has led to a fascinating new relevance for short range ADA, with the Army scrambling to adapt. An autonomous mini-CROWS with a belt-fed 12 gauge shooting goose loads would be really funny for defense against COTS drones. Of course, it would actually be 11-gauge, 3.75" all-brass shells, etc, so the military would pay $40 per shell, etc. Or a .22WMR minigun. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 12:09:51 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Please regale us with more lines from a movie. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No portholes?!?!? Please regale us with more lines from a movie. The original M2's had portals. I never saw any of the portal guns issued though. Maybe I am missing something here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 12:16:18 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What about the Bradley? In summation, what you have before you is...A troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance... And a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snow-blower, but carries enough ammo to take out half of D.C. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 1:03:40 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In summation, what you have before you is...A troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance... And a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snow-blower, but carries enough ammo to take out half of D.C. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What about the Bradley? In summation, what you have before you is...A troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance... And a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snow-blower, but carries enough ammo to take out half of D.C. In the real world, they have worked pretty well. It is an entertaining movie though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 1:47:56 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An autonomous mini-CROWS with a belt-fed 12 gauge shooting goose loads would be really funny for defense against COTS drones. Of course, it would actually be 11-gauge, 3.75" all-brass shells, etc, so the military would pay $40 per shell, etc. Or a .22WMR minigun. Kharn Kinetic attack against drones are at the very bottom of a long list of viable solutions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 2:26:08 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kinetic attack against drones are at the very bottom of a long list of viable solutions. yup  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 6:09:14 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Compared to an M113? Yeah I’d take that Bradley all day long. That said, I think the Israelis were on the right track with the Nammer (Namur?). Once you are the size and weight of a Bradley, you may as well scale up to tank armor. Glancing at the load charts, it de facto doesn’t make a difference in actual deployability. Their M113 replacement has wheels. The Namer is too heavy and expensive to be a 1:1 M113 replacement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 6:46:57 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The original M2's had portals. I never saw any of the portal guns issued though. Maybe I am missing something here? I remember seeing this photo and stopping to read the caption just because there was a firing port weapon. A couple days later was watching CNN when they listed soldiers who had been killed in Iraq recalled his name. Ross McGinnis was awarded the Medal of Honor for smothering a grenade that had been thrown into his Humvee.  Just FWIW,the Soviet BMP idea was not the same as the US notion of using APCs just to move troops around with more protection from artillery than in trucks. The firing ports were meant to be used as the BMP was supposed to be a mobile fighting position. If you have had the misfortune of being inside a BMP you would know how awful of an idea this was but still the plan was mostly that they would be riding through a nuked or slimed wasteland hosing down the survivors.  AKM in the firing port installed |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 7:00:09 AM EST
[#39]
looks like the APC with a turret for the machine gunner to sit in. Nothing new....................
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 7:10:59 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Interesting. I’ve never seen one. I guess they must have fielded a few before calling it quits, similar to what happened with the M104 Wolverine that was supposed to replace the AVLB. M4 Command and Control Vehicle, U. S. Army, Fort Stewart, Georgia, 3rd Infantry Division The M4 Command and Control Vehicle was used by the 3rd Infantry Division in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It was used as a mobile command platform. The speed and cross country capability of the chassis enabled the division's leadership to keep up with maneuver forces equipped with M1 Abrams tanks and M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The M4 program was terminated in 2004. Of the 25 vehicles manufactured, 24 were scrapped. "Maximus" is the last of it kind. (Source: U. S. Army, sign at the site.) https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56204/53CA62EC-BC8F-49FB-9571-ADC58090AA8E_jpe-1589483.JPG I wonder if the 24 were too risky/expensive to bring back from theater once the invasion was over and Maximus was the division commander's ride so it was saved for prosperity. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 2:24:58 PM EST
[#41]
It's too bad that the trials for Bradley's replacement were cancelled/delayed. I was looking forward to seeing how the Lynx performed
  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 2:49:29 PM EST
[#42]
So an updated 113..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 2:56:19 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's too bad that the trials for Bradley's replacement were cancelled/delayed. I was looking forward to seeing how the Lynx performed https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Rheinmetall_Lynx_Fahrzeug_1DMJ1874.jpg https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/europe/germany/light_armoured/kf41_lynx/KF41_Lynx_IFV_tracked_armored_Infantry_Fighting_Vehicle_Rheinmetall_Defence_German_Germany_industry_925_001.jpg https://fragoutmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/rheinmetall-lynx-kf41-04.jpg Definitely a good looking vehicle and the interior looks like a futuristic drop ship.  The British AJAX looks like a good vehicle also, based on a proven platform. It will be interesting what a year or two delay will result in with these vehicles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 2:57:07 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So an updated 113.. No. Like not even a little bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 5:49:54 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I remember seeing this photo and stopping to read the caption just because there was a firing port weapon. A couple days later was watching CNN when they listed soldiers who had been killed in Iraq recalled his name. Ross McGinnis was awarded the Medal of Honor for smothering a grenade that had been thrown into his Humvee. https://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.537911.1531715672!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_900/image.jpg Just FWIW,the Soviet BMP idea was not the same as the US notion of using APCs just to move troops around with more protection from artillery than in trucks. The firing ports were meant to be used as the BMP was supposed to be a mobile fighting position. If you have had the misfortune of being inside a BMP you would know how awful of an idea this was but still the plan was mostly that they would be riding through a nuked or slimed wasteland hosing down the survivors.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17PuAAqAsyw
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 7:16:34 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Definitely a good looking vehicle and the interior looks like a futuristic drop ship. https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/produktbilder/Lynx_KF41~5.jpg The British AJAX looks like a good vehicle also, based on a proven platform. It will be interesting what a year or two delay will result in with these vehicles. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's too bad that the trials for Bradley's replacement were cancelled/delayed. I was looking forward to seeing how the Lynx performed https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Rheinmetall_Lynx_Fahrzeug_1DMJ1874.jpg https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/europe/germany/light_armoured/kf41_lynx/KF41_Lynx_IFV_tracked_armored_Infantry_Fighting_Vehicle_Rheinmetall_Defence_German_Germany_industry_925_001.jpg https://fragoutmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/rheinmetall-lynx-kf41-04.jpg Definitely a good looking vehicle and the interior looks like a futuristic drop ship. https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/produktbilder/Lynx_KF41~5.jpg The British AJAX looks like a good vehicle also, based on a proven platform. It will be interesting what a year or two delay will result in with these vehicles. Idunbolieveit. No maintenance panels? Ammo & anti-tank storage? Troop commander telephone? An interior that sterile will be a disaster for storing material in the field, it will be one big shifting pile of MREs, water, dip logs, and Toughbooks full of pornography waiting to twist ankles. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 7:35:39 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's too bad that the trials for Bradley's replacement were cancelled/delayed. I was looking forward to seeing how the Lynx performed https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Rheinmetall_Lynx_Fahrzeug_1DMJ1874.jpg https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/europe/germany/light_armoured/kf41_lynx/KF41_Lynx_IFV_tracked_armored_Infantry_Fighting_Vehicle_Rheinmetall_Defence_German_Germany_industry_925_001.jpg https://fragoutmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/rheinmetall-lynx-kf41-04.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 7:38:46 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We put 22 people in a M113 once. It wasn't fun. Who farted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2020 10:12:22 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd feel great about riding around a CBRNE environment in a Russian made vehicle Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I remember seeing this photo and stopping to read the caption just because there was a firing port weapon. A couple days later was watching CNN when they listed soldiers who had been killed in Iraq recalled his name. Ross McGinnis was awarded the Medal of Honor for smothering a grenade that had been thrown into his Humvee. https://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.537911.1531715672!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_900/image.jpg Just FWIW,the Soviet BMP idea was not the same as the US notion of using APCs just to move troops around with more protection from artillery than in trucks. The firing ports were meant to be used as the BMP was supposed to be a mobile fighting position. If you have had the misfortune of being inside a BMP you would know how awful of an idea this was but still the plan was mostly that they would be riding through a nuked or slimed wasteland hosing down the survivors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17PuAAqAsywWith the vehicle's collective protection running, all the spent propellant from the AK's ejection ports would be blown out that flexible hose vs hanging around in the interior of the vehicle. Pretty nice that they thought of that, I don't recall the M231 having such a fitting and just relied on being open bolt. Kharn |
|
|
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.
