41 replies to this topic

[AZZKIKR]

1.Bradley with TOWs pwn tanks but a shot to them and there goes your bradley. additionally TOWs can only be fired when stationary and the loader is vulnerable to anti-personnel weapons.
2. BMP-3. powerful armanent as 30mm>low-flying transport helicopters and ATGWs>tanks. but i read somewhere that the laser guided ATGW brings problems but i forgot what.
3. Bionix,said to be similar to bradley with same armanent. sources say that it's armour is incredibly powerful. lacks amphibious ability considering singapore surrounded by water

the rest i have no idea yet.

[smooder]

The warrrior is a bag of shit. Does the dardo count as an APC? because that should be there and is reasonably modern.

[LCPL Carrow]

AZZKIKR, on 11 Nov 2007, 7:09, said:

1.Bradley with TOWs pwn tanks but a shot to them and there goes your bradley. additionally TOWs can only be fired when stationary and the loader is vulnerable to anti-personnel weapons.

Not so. TOWs can be fired while moving, and the Bradley isn't as poorly armored as you make it sound. Obviously one hit from some kind of antitank munition is gonna fuck the Bradley's world up, but one shot with antitank munitions will fuck up any APC's world. APC's are only really intended to protect from small arms fire, not large caliber or explosive ordinance. However, you are right that the TOW gunner is exposed during firing.

That said, I don't know enough about the other APCs on the list to cast a vote, nor am I particuarly inclined to find out, I just felt that my little two cents needed to be said.

[Soul]

Voted for the Bradley since I know it so well .

[narboza22]

Bradley's are being equipped with Javelin missile launchers instead of TOW II launchers these days. Javelins are fire and forget, and are arguably one of the best ATGM's out there with their top attack capability.

[The_Hunter]

I beleive some of those mentioned vehicles are ifantry fighting vehicles (IFV) and not armored personal carriers (APCs).

The difference is that a IFV is usualy armed with heavy weapons that can possible destroy enemy armored targets while a APC is usaly limited to a basic weapon (heavy MG) or no weapons.

[Sgt. Rho]

most of these are IFVs....tracked APC: M-113.

[Eddy01741]

Yep, these are all IFVs that can carry out the mission of an APC to an EXTENT. THey're basically APCs with less carrying capacity but more firepower and a lil more armor.

[AZZKIKR]

oookkk. for the bradley stuff i found it here
<a href="http://www.enemyforces.com/apc/bradley.htm" target="_blank">http://www.enemyforces.com/apc/bradley.htm</a>

as for dardo, i forgot about it

(wow, hunter's post count is like 9995)

Edited by AZZKIKR, 12 November 2007 - 00:24.

[CoLT]

Pvt. Carrow, on 12 Nov 2007, 1:46, said:

AZZKIKR, on 11 Nov 2007, 7:09, said:

1.Bradley with TOWs pwn tanks but a shot to them and there goes your bradley. additionally TOWs can only be fired when stationary and the loader is vulnerable to anti-personnel weapons.

Not so. TOWs can be fired while moving, and the Bradley isn't as poorly armored as you make it sound. Obviously one hit from some kind of antitank munition is gonna fuck the Bradley's world up, but one shot with antitank munitions will fuck up any APC's world. APC's are only really intended to protect from small arms fire, not large caliber or explosive ordinance. However, you are right that the TOW gunner is exposed during firing.

That said, I don't know enough about the other APCs on the list to cast a vote, nor am I particuarly inclined to find out, I just felt that my little two cents needed to be said.

Actually, he meant a shot to the TOW launcher.


I voted for the Bionix.  I've found out a lot about it and it's quite a good machine.  It's slightly smaller and more compact than other IFVs, making it good for manouvering through tight areas like the jungles and forests, as well as urban areas.
They are able to be reconfigured with many different weapons and for different roles.
I don't know too much about the armour, but it has some really sophisticated electronics. It has computers onboard that can track friendly vehicles in real time, allowing for precise and well-coordinated movements.
The 25mm Bushmaster chain-gun (now being upgraded to the newer 30mm) is the same as that in the Bradley, so it's pretty much on par when it comes to fire support.
It has some kind of anti-armor ability too but I don't remember it at this time.
The Bionix is slated for an upgrade that would allow it to have amphibious ability. Information on this is hard to find at best, but it seems like something is in the works in that deparment.
In any case, it is small and light enough to be deployable via landing crafts or be air transportable.

Overall, it's a very modern system.  Unfortunately, it has yet to be battletested and so in the real world, I'm just not sure how good it is.  It still gets my vote.

EDIT: It seems like the Bradley is leading this vote.

So, I'd like to say something about it.
The bradley has been properly battletested, just like the BMP-3 and the Warrior, however, it's a mixed bag. It's not a great IFV. Losses in combat are significant and the hazards of operating in it cannot be ignored.
Firstly, the TOW launcher. It is mounted in a very vulnerable position and if it is hit, it does a lot of damage to the turret of the bradley. In most cases, if the launcher is loaded, the turret becomes inoperable.
Next, the armor of the bradley. It is made in a similar way to the armour on the Abrams. Except it is much thinner. It has been known to leak toxic gases into the troop compartment when the unit takes a hit. In several tests, the bradley fireballed on the inside when hit with a HEAT shell and some other armaments. It would burn at temperatures high enough to incinerate those inside.
This is a serious problem because the troop unloading door is made in such a way that in most cases it would jam if the Bradley took a hit from the rear.
The tracks of the Bradley are quite exposed on the front and are prone to taking damage which would immobilise the ifv.

These are quite serious flaws in the Bradley's design but granted, it is one of the older designs on the board.

Edited by CoLT, 12 November 2007 - 14:00.

[TehKiller]

I vote for BMP-3....its simple,manuverable,can carry more troops than most of these IFV's even though its not armed with "omg pwnage" rockets its cannon is still quite powerfull

[Axel of Sweden]

i voted CV90

Americans base most of their vehicles upon humvees

the Swedish do the same thing with the CV90

Reasons:

carries 7 troops

Very powerfull 40mm Bofors gun(Strongest in Europe)

can have RB56 Missile pod

Can be modified into anti - air role

Best Terrain capabilites(Supperior to bradley in this matter)

Easy to maintain

good armour

lot,s of upgrades

Can be rearmed with a 120mm tank gun

Can be rearmed with 2 120mm Mortars(AMOS)

currently fighting in Afghanistan

[General Kirkov]

LAVIII. Well armed, well equiped, good engineplant carries a section of troops and sure as hell more manuevrable than the ones on the list if not as but less armour. BTW Oh I know it's not tracked but most APCs are not these days and I'm not being patriotic. So I did not vote

Stats:
LAV III
Place of origin Canada
Specifications
Weight 16.95 t
Length 6.98 m (275 in)
Width 2.7 m (106 in)
Height 2.8 m (110 in)
Crew 3 (+ 6 or 7 passengers)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary
armament M242 25 mm chain gun with TIS
Secondary
armament C6/M240 7.62 mm machine gun
C9A2/M249 5.56 mm machine gun pintle mounted
Engine Caterpillar 3126 diesel

Suspension Hydropneumatic
Operational
range 450 km
Speed 100 km/h


------------------------
From a different source
This fast, well-armed LAV III is a state-of-the-art troop carrier that will serve the needs of mounted infantry well into the new century. The vehicle is well protected and can be used day and night, in all weather conditions, in battlefield smoke and on most types of terrain. Capable of speeds of up to 100 kilometres per hour on roads, the LAV III will give the commander many more options in both combat and non-combat situations. For example the commander may choose to keep the troops mounted and protected while using the 25-mm stabilized cannon - an option not available in the past. The driver and the commander have display terminals for the Tactical Navigation System (TACNAV), as well as thermal viewers. The TACNAV links a Global Positioning System (GPS) with a digital magnetic compass and laser range finder. Good anti-mine performance and an automatic fire and explosion suppression system provide additional safety for the crew. When used as an infantry section carrier, the LAV III deploys with a vehicle commander, a gunner, a driver and seven infantry soldiers. When deployed as a Tactical Command Post, it carries six soldiers. Three other variants are being procured including a Forward Observation Officer (FOO), TOW Under Armour (TUA) and an Engineer variant.


Variants:
313 LAV Infantry Section Carriers
181 LAV Command Post variants
71 LAV TOW Under Armour (TUA) variants (Turret equipped with 2 TOW launchers)
47 LAV Forward Observation Officer (FOO) variants
39 LAV Engineer variants


Armament:
25-mm stabilized M242 chain gun
7.62-mm stabilized coaxial machine gun (C6)
5.56 or 7.62-mm top-turret mounted machine gun
76-mm grenade launcher (2 clusters of 4 launchers)


Specifications:
Length: 6.98 m
Width: 2.7 m
Height: 2.8 m
Speed: 100 km/hr
Range: 450 km
Weight: 16 950 kg
Gradient: Maximum 60%
Side slope: Maximum 30%
Trench crossing: 2 m wide
Fording: Up to 1.2 m
Sights: Daytime optical, Thermal Imagery (TI), Generation III Image Intensification (II)
Spotlight: Maxa Beam, 6 million candle power, portable, with infra-red filter
Winch: Double Capstan constant pull winch
Engine: 350 hp Caterpillar diesel
Transmission: 6 forward gears, 1 reverse
Transfer case: 2 speed
Suspension: Hydropneumatic
Brakes: Power (air) with ABS
Wheels: 8 x 8 drive
Entered service: 1999
Number in service: 651

Edited by General Kirkov, 12 November 2007 - 17:33.

[smooder]

The dardo.
Look at its stats. Its faster than most I've looked at and has nice armour and nice weapons. And is very mobile, can transverse greater gradients than most.
Its not just nationalism.

The Italian army is very underated. Except possibly the helibopters.

[Razven]

I would say that the Bradley comes first, being combat tested to be better armoured than the LAV-25 and although not-amphibious due to the armour upgrade, the upgrades do tend to help make it fare better against high caliber munitions and RPGs. I'm sure somebody has thought of putting the catcher's mask system on a Bradley chassis, making it fare as do well against RPGs to a even further extent.

Well, that's my 2 bits on IFVs.


But if it was a APC you were talking about, then the M113.

[AZZKIKR]

good necromance, but the loader is still vulnerable to infantry weapons though

[Razven]

it was less than a month old, but oh well..


With 2 TOW missiles, I doubt the loader really needs to go reloading, it's not like the Bradley is the only thing out in the field, there's probably M1A2 tanks following in the back and other Bradley's for support. They could just duck behind the front line, reload and charge right back up.

[AZZKIKR]

but if in urban warefare? where armoured units are priority and infantry in buildings are not

Edited by AZZKIKR, 07 December 2007 - 01:49.

[Warbz]

IM GONNA GO WITH THE BRADLEY

oops sorry caps locks

Edited by Warbz, 07 December 2007 - 08:54.

[Razven]

If you look at Iraq now, you can see that both the Bradley, Warrior, Stryker and even the older Bulldogs can take a beating from RPGs while the coaxial machine gun and 30mm are providing adequate firepower in a urban environment.



Can't say much about the new MRAP though, the vehicle itself is too high, it'll break the over head wires that is common in urban environments. Too wide, too high, can't fit through to where the troops need them to be. The last thing you need it for a multi-ton armoured truck to destory the electricity supply and make a bad impression to the civilians.

[LCPL Carrow]

People's Liberation Army, on 7 Dec 2007, 11:06, said:

Can't say much about the new MRAP though, the vehicle itself is too high, it'll break the over head wires that is common in urban environments. Too wide, too high, can't fit through to where the troops need them to be. The last thing you need it for a multi-ton armoured truck to destory the electricity supply and make a bad impression to the civilians.

Not necessarily. There are different classes of MRAPs, classified by size. There are small MRAPs and there are large MRAPs. There are medium MRAPs. The Cougar is the most well-known, and has met with great success. The only real problem with the Cougar and less well-known Buffalo are that EFPs can still take them out, but I think that asking for invulnerability from that is impractical. EFPs take out main battle tanks, and MRAPs are not MBTs. Besides, most IEDs encountered are not EFP IEDs. That takes a specialized skill and knowledge that most hajji IED makers don't possess. We've shut down most of the big-time, professional IED makers and so most of them now are just small-time amatures. Most of the EFPs encountered now come from - hey, surprise surprise - Iran. And the world wonders why we're so eager for an excuse to blast on them next...

MRAPs are a good thing, we just need to get more of them over there. Hopefully, we can do that before my unit, 1/3 (1st Bn, 3rd Marines) goes over.

As for the LAV25, it's good, but it's too thin-skinned. I feel sorry for all the 0313s that hafta roll in those. I think I'd rather ride in an AAV-7.

[Ilves]

Nothing strange that Bradley wins, cuz most of voters are from USA
Make a poll where will be an American tractor vs. T-95 and I'm sure once again US-made stuff will be victorious =)

I would vote for BMP-3M and I can explain why. For first, it has an armament heavier than many tanks: 100-mm tank cannon + 30-mm APDSF autocannon + 3x PKT machineguns and a very special one - Arkan ATGM missiles which can hit target from app. 5000 m. Compare it with Javelin's 2500 m

Armor: ERA available. That means it couldn't be killed by guy with an RPG-7, and remind how many Bradleys where trashed in Iraq by these way + BMP-3M has Arena and Shtora active defenses that hide it from laser beam of ATGM missiles and still if they managed to be guided at BMP-3 - to destroy these missiles in flight.

Can be re-equipped with various types of turrets, including mortar and twin AA cannon.
And as a final bonus, BMP-3 has higher speed, lower height, more passengers and amphibious ability.

So explain, why your Bradley is so cool then?

Edited by AL_Hassan, 11 December 2007 - 05:57.

[AZZKIKR]

no patriotism is involved. facts are facts. we need to see both sides of story.
Bradley: combat proven. bushmaster cannon has superb accuracy and so does TOW.
BMP-3M: it is dangerous for it to have ERA as long as it supports and carries infantry, ERA will just kill the infantry near the BMP-3. i read somewhere that there are various problems with the Arkan missiles.

PS: and not everyone who said the bradley is good is from US. some are from Wales, Hong Kong, canada.

can anyone show me the battle-worthiness of the BMP--3

at hassan, i thought the arkan has a range of only 4000m? and stop the patriotism.

Edited by AZZKIKR, 11 December 2007 - 06:05.

[Rot Front]

Quote

Bradley: combat proven. bushmaster cannon has superb accuracy and so does TOW.

Oh, yes... It is very good proven as a target for RPGs and even 12,7 mm MGs. TOW missiles are very hard to guide and unreliable. Armor of bradley easily penetrated by 12,7 and 14,5 mm machineguns (in Iraq, at least 3 Bradleys was lost by such way). It haven't ERA, so one RPG is enough to kill vehicle with crew and infantry inside.

Quote

can anyone show me the battle-worthiness of the BMP--3

BMP-3 fighted in Chechnya, showed their high combat effectivness, and, unlike Bradley, no one vehicle was lost

Quote

BMP-3M: it is dangerous for it to have ERA as long as it supports and carries infantry, ERA will just kill the infantry near the BMP-3. i read somewhere that there are various problems with the Arkan missiles.

During the fight, Russian mechinfantry sit inside BMP and fires through loopholes. Even if they marching outside... you think it is better to lose vehicle, trained crews than few infantrymen injured?

Quote

there are various problems with the Arkan missiles.

No one problems with Arkan. It have more powerfull warhead than TOW and easily guide system.

Quote

at hassan, i thought the arkan has a range of only 4000m?

No, it have 5000 m range. Check any sources.

Quote

and stop the patriotism.

will not wait

P.S. American vehicles, as usuall, are too advertised. If operate the facts, Bradley is expensive, unreliable, have weak (for modern fight) armament and paper armor. Then it is developed (in 1983) it was good vehicle, but now... It is not correct to compare old Bradley with such modern monsters as BMP-3M or CV-9040. They are differnt generations, if possible to say so.

[Ilves]

Quote

at hassan, i thought the arkan has a range of only 4000m? and stop the patriotism.

The figures vary from various sites. Most sites say 5000 m, some American - 4000...
However it's still enough to make Javelin's 2500 m look pity

Quote

Bradley: combat proven. bushmaster cannon has superb accuracy and so does TOW.

Oh yeah, it's maybe the only advantage of Bradley - it's 'battle proven' and gained a reputation of a moving tomb.

Quote

BMP-3M: it is dangerous for it to have ERA as long as it supports and carries infantry, ERA will just kill the infantry near the BMP-3.

Old ERA could injure surrounding infantry, modern - much less chance of it
And it's a small pay, after all, for making the vehicle invulnerable against light AT weapons. Also I heard the most modern ERA's protect as against missiles as against tank shells. Bot bad at all

Quote

i read somewhere that there are various problems with the Arkan missiles.

For ex.?

Quote

can anyone show me the battle-worthiness of the BMP--3

The material provement of its capabilties is for example that fact, that many independent Arab countries already ordered it for their armies

Edited by AL_Hassan, 11 December 2007 - 06:33.