Site Notices
8/19/2014 4:57:02 PM
Page:  / 5
Author
Message
crurifragium
Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 15180
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 12:36:12 PM
Originally Posted By Recon_by_Fire:
So if you use them hybrid batteries for maneuvering, doesn't that leave you a bit short on power then when shut down and using batteries for turret, ISU, radios, etc...? Doesn't sound like a good idea in practice.


If the hybrid system was programmed anything like a Prius, it would probably switch over to JP8 at about 5 or 6 miles per hour, and even less than that on a slope or unpaved surfaces.

madbarbarian87
Member
Military
Online
Posts: 1147
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 12:36:37 PM
Originally Posted By Recon_by_Fire:
So if you use them hybrid batteries for maneuvering, doesn't that leave you a bit short on power then when shut down and using batteries for turret, ISU, radios, etc...? Doesn't sound like a good idea in practice.


Why not just use the diesel for maneuvering and then switch to electric when in place?

According to the article though, the main benefit for the electric is when it iss used in conjunction with the diesel motor, the vehicle can accelerate super fast.
GSL
meh
Online
Posts: 307
Feedback: 100% (74)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 12:37:51 PM
[Last Edit: 5/29/2013 12:46:45 PM by GSL]
Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:


.

We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.



Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.
All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.



They are going back to carrying 9 instead of 7 in the track. Its just a larger vehicle all around. Plus I have not seen anyting concerning atgm launchers, so there will be no space taken up by reloads for it.


I think this is where the IFV, packing in troops, weaponization, and utilitarianism starts to screw up the conversation. The day dreamers want to pack 10 dudes into an Abrams, have it pull scouting duty, engage MBT's, shoot down helicopters, fit inside a Chinook and weight 20 tons, and be able to float made out of unobtainium.

This is why Pentagon Wars is so ludicrous, because it's a bunch of out of touch Generals, checking boxes off their wish list and ending up with an APC that can't carry troops, a tank that can't fight tanks.

At some point the APC armed with a TRT .50cal to 25MM and a co-ax M240, is going to have to sit behind the IFV/AFVs who sit behind and next to the MBT's and have enough room to hold 8-10 guys with their gear, and still take some hits that it isn't expecting.

The only thing that is going to foot the bill is something based on an MBT sized chassis.
That was the Bradley. What a mess that became.

Edit:

Lt Manson asked Cpt Becton if he thought they'd have to abandon ship, to which he snapped, "No! I'll never abandon ship as long as a gun will fire."

USS Laffey DD-724

The ship that would not die
swede1986
Dei Gratia Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex
Offline
Posts: 21063
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 12:46:17 PM
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.
All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?


Yes. 40mm is in a different league.
"Fapping to dead chicks was only weird until Bea Arthur died. Then it became acceptable."- DanTSX
JoeCoastie
You have chosen poorly
Military
Offline
Posts: 15984
Feedback: 100% (71)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 12:47:37 PM
Tanks are heavy enough as it is. Imagine how much more it would be with the batteries installed.
You can't smash a head as effectively with an empty G19 as you can an empty CZ-75B, 92FS or 1911.~Grin
Top_Secret
Learn to swim.
Instructor
Offline
Posts: 4608
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 12:47:41 PM
Originally Posted By GSL:
THat was the Bradley. What a mess that became.



Maybe they can name this new one the Bradley II in honor of the previous clusterfuck.

I started to highlight all the stuff you said that was dumbass but was afraid the internet would run out of red. -Aimless
1Andy2
Grand Wizard of the Human Supremacist Movement
Offline
Posts: 46274
Feedback: 100% (69)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 12:48:12 PM
The "silent mode" benefit is a non-starter with today's battery tech, isn't it?


Silent mode for all of what? 100 yards? What's the benefit of a "silent" tank that can't remain silent long enough to sneak anywhere?
You won't get wise
with the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dream might be
GrandfatherCoyote
Member
Offline
Posts: 3976
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 12:48:33 PM
I'd be all for anything that our military could use to kick ass, without the "supply" issues related to oil/fuel. BUt, I'd want it to actually work at LEAST as well as what they currently have, and would prefer it work even better.

But not just for the sake of "doing it" or tossing money at some "green" company.
Member: National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Glock Shooting Sports Foundation
GSL
meh
Online
Posts: 308
Feedback: 100% (74)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 12:48:51 PM
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.
All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?


Yes. 40mm is in a different league.
How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.

Lt Manson asked Cpt Becton if he thought they'd have to abandon ship, to which he snapped, "No! I'll never abandon ship as long as a gun will fire."

USS Laffey DD-724

The ship that would not die
swede1986
Dei Gratia Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex
Offline
Posts: 21064
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 12:53:41 PM
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.
All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?


Yes. 40mm is in a different league.
How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.



I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.
"Fapping to dead chicks was only weird until Bea Arthur died. Then it became acceptable."- DanTSX
mousehunter
Member
NRA
Offline
Posts: 11859
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 12:54:35 PM

Originally Posted By optimus:
Nope, M1's a gas turbine... Yeah, our MBT is an armored jet.

People who don't see better fuel economy as a big seller have never planned combined operations.
My understanding that quite a few of the locomotives are diesel turbine as well. For trains at least, the hybrid transition equals a better way to handle power and traction - but ultimately multiple locomotives make for a more complicated transmission than a track.
swede1986
Dei Gratia Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex
Offline
Posts: 21070
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:11:35 PM


Here's a video on the 3P round.
"Fapping to dead chicks was only weird until Bea Arthur died. Then it became acceptable."- DanTSX
GSL
meh
Online
Posts: 309
Feedback: 100% (74)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:12:33 PM
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.
All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?


Yes. 40mm is in a different league.
How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.



I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.
Have you seen a 25mm in action against dismounts behind cover? Aircraft engagement need's to have a dedicated platform as well to provide the air cover as well as to keep up with the maneuvering units. Let the infantry do their thing, and not worry about threats that are not in their lanes. We're losing focus here.

From 30 plus tons to 70 plus tons, is incredulous. I'm all for the real armor, meaning steel, and to get our boys what they need, but this isn't a tank. The gun should be able to kill other IFV's, and it can since what we have now can obviously say 'bye to tanks now.
Lt Manson asked Cpt Becton if he thought they'd have to abandon ship, to which he snapped, "No! I'll never abandon ship as long as a gun will fire."

USS Laffey DD-724

The ship that would not die
swede1986
Dei Gratia Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex
Offline
Posts: 21071
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:13:48 PM
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.
All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?


Yes. 40mm is in a different league.
How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.



I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.
Have you seen a 25mm in action against dismounts behind cover? Aircraft engagement need's to have a dedicated platform as well to provide the air cover as well as to keep up with the maneuvering units. Let the infantry do their thing, and not worry about threats that are not in their lanes. We're losing focus here.

From 30 plus tons to 70 plus tons, is incredulous. I'm all for the real armor, meaning steel, and to get our boys what they need, but this isn't a tank. The gun should be able to kill other IFV's, and it can since what we have now can obviously say 'bye to tanks now.


Does the 25mm have programmable rounds?
"Fapping to dead chicks was only weird until Bea Arthur died. Then it became acceptable."- DanTSX
Combat_Jack
Green Suited Salaryman
NRAMilitary
Offline
Posts: 69680
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:15:14 PM
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.
All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?


Yes. 40mm is in a different league.
How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.



I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.


A 40mm can hold a proximity fuse, and enough HE to make it worth it. We should be using 40mm.
"You can't stop what's comin'. That's vanity."
stickfigure
Generally Disagreeable
Offline
Posts: 7935
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:18:01 PM
This is all you need to know to figure out how much white gas those guys were huffing...

We're invaders from another planet, we're invaders from another world... Martian Men look out for your planet... Earth Man's comin', to take control!!! EARTH MAN!!!
crurifragium
Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 15182
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:28:22 PM
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

A 40mm can hold a proximity fuse, and enough HE to make it worth it. We should be using 40mm.


A 40mm could also probably be used for situations where TOWs would otherwise be used.
GSL
meh
Online
Posts: 310
Feedback: 100% (74)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:30:05 PM
[Last Edit: 5/29/2013 1:32:57 PM by GSL]
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.
All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?


Yes. 40mm is in a different league.
How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.



I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.


A 40mm can hold a proximity fuse, and enough HE to make it worth it. We should be using 40mm.
Is this a want or an actual need?

Meanwhile, our own SPG's have a sorry rate of fire that I shudder if our boys were to engage in a real live artillery duel with an enemy that has actual on par equipment or better, and every time we were going to fix that, each system get's canned, and no dedicated SPAAG system. Yet here we are, with a newer Bradley fiasco monster.

Priorities, we haz none of it.
Lt Manson asked Cpt Becton if he thought they'd have to abandon ship, to which he snapped, "No! I'll never abandon ship as long as a gun will fire."

USS Laffey DD-724

The ship that would not die
Combat_Jack
Green Suited Salaryman
NRAMilitary
Offline
Posts: 69685
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:32:53 PM
Considering proximity fusing was important enough that they tried to get that capability to the Infantry, I don't think we should be arguing it doesn't make sense for mechanized units.

Is it a NEED? Well, define need. We could continue with the 25, or we could move forward with a better system at the same time as we get a new chassis.

WRT artillery, don't get me started. The Euros and South Africans have us beaten by two generations on tube artillery.
"You can't stop what's comin'. That's vanity."
Cheesebeast
N is for Neville who died of Ennui.
Offline
Posts: 9362
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:33:06 PM
Originally Posted By Quarterbore:
What I want to see is when the libs come up with a solar powered Battleship... err I mean solar Littoral Combat Ship


We have a wind powered warship. It is docked in Boston Harbor.

rtintwo
Member
Offline
Posts: 1742
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:36:54 PM
Diesel/electric "hybrid" technology has been used by the railroads for nearly a century now. However i can picture the pentagon picking a design that is revolutionary and completly ignores that century of knowledge and experience. We will end up with 20 years of development and trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet to reinvent tech that is on the tracks right now.

Dont take my pessimissim as a statement that i think hybrid tech shouldnt be applied to tanks, ifv, etc... Hybrid tech is out there and up to the task and can lower the logistics train of our military. It's just that i think the design, testing and production will be one huge boondoggle and i am tired of seeing the tax dollars wasted.
BobRoberts
65% more bullet
Military
Offline
Posts: 5803
Feedback: 100% (25)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:40:25 PM
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.
All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?


Yes. 40mm is in a different league.
How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.



I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.
Have you seen a 25mm in action against dismounts behind cover? Aircraft engagement need's to have a dedicated platform as well to provide the air cover as well as to keep up with the maneuvering units. Let the infantry do their thing, and not worry about threats that are not in their lanes. We're losing focus here.

From 30 plus tons to 70 plus tons, is incredulous. I'm all for the real armor, meaning steel, and to get our boys what they need, but this isn't a tank. The gun should be able to kill other IFV's, and it can since what we have now can obviously say 'bye to tanks now.


what difference does it make if it is not a tank? It will still be engaged by EFP's RPG-29, atgm, etc. So armor the damn thing to deal with the threats it will realistically face. The Brad is 30 tons and for 10 years we have been bolting on additional armor as new threats emerge . Just so you know the bare bones model of GCV is 53 tons, it goes to 70 with additional armor packages installed.
"George said "TAX? Fuck that, I THE FUCKING MAN!" Then took a bunch of shots of the whiskey he made himself and shot King George in the goddamned face." -RustedAce
hobbsar
Member
Offline
Posts: 10932
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:45:21 PM
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.
Growing old is inevitable. Growing up is optional.
GSL
meh
Online
Posts: 311
Feedback: 100% (74)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:52:11 PM
[Last Edit: 5/29/2013 2:04:40 PM by GSL]
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By GSL:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By GSL:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.
All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?


Yes. 40mm is in a different league.
How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.



I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.
Have you seen a 25mm in action against dismounts behind cover? Aircraft engagement need's to have a dedicated platform as well to provide the air cover as well as to keep up with the maneuvering units. Let the infantry do their thing, and not worry about threats that are not in their lanes. We're losing focus here.

From 30 plus tons to 70 plus tons, is incredulous. I'm all for the real armor, meaning steel, and to get our boys what they need, but this isn't a tank. The gun should be able to kill other IFV's, and it can since what we have now can obviously say 'bye to tanks now.


what difference does it make if it is not a tank? It will still be engaged by EFP's RPG-29, atgm, etc. So armor the damn thing to deal with the threats it will realistically face. The Brad is 30 tons and for 10 years we have been bolting on additional armor as new threats emerge . Just so you know the bare bones model of GCV is 53 tons, it goes to 70 with additional armor packages installed.
One Bradley took not one, not two, not even just three, but seven RPG hits, and kept rolling along, no casualties. The Stryker has actually saved lives, and we have MRAP's like the RG-33, a success story.

Listen, I'm not against this entirely, but what we have on hand is good for now, and should be eventually replaced. That is a want, a real world want that will eventually be a real need. But what we actually need is a SPG that can go toe to toe against a modern equivalent threat, and a SPAAG that can actually engage fast movers and armored gunship beasts with a system like that 40mm. We all know how SGT York became an abysmal failure, and the M7 Linebacker was an adhoc joke by replacing the TOW's with measly FIM-92's, and not even a radar for the 25mm to find, track, and kill with.

The SGT York was a disaster. The M7 was a laughable joke, and the Avenger was meant for light infantry divisions. We had a newer missile system that could kill all airborne threats and tanks, they killed it. We had a newer Chapparal design on a Bradley chassis that carried AIM'9's and hellfires, for both threats, they said no. WTF.

We had the Crusader, and Dumbsveld said no. We had the XM1203, and they said no. WTF.

WE have a Bradley, it still works great, and they want a replacement. WTF.

AND, our uniforms are a gucci jealous impulse joke to be like the Marines, when the BDU worked. Multicam should be the one, and to stop wasting more money we don't have on a newer replacement. This shit makes you want to scream.

But we wantz a newer IFV.

The Pentagon and TACOM needs to unfuck their heads from their fifth point of contact.
Lt Manson asked Cpt Becton if he thought they'd have to abandon ship, to which he snapped, "No! I'll never abandon ship as long as a gun will fire."

USS Laffey DD-724

The ship that would not die
BobRoberts
65% more bullet
Military
Offline
Posts: 5804
Feedback: 100% (25)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:52:41 PM
Originally Posted By hobbsar:
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.


How big is the namer? Where is it designed to work?

Essentially you are saying it is too big, but the Isrealis are doing it with a similar sized vehicle in an urban environment. Where have brads operated that the M-1 has not?
"George said "TAX? Fuck that, I THE FUCKING MAN!" Then took a bunch of shots of the whiskey he made himself and shot King George in the goddamned face." -RustedAce
stickfigure
Generally Disagreeable
Offline
Posts: 7936
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:53:10 PM
[Last Edit: 5/29/2013 1:54:41 PM by stickfigure]
Originally Posted By hobbsar:
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.


So if the two are supposed to be working with each other why does your IFV need to be more mobile than your MBT?

At 70T sharing a common chassis have the some level of mobility?

Especially when you are artificially governing the mobility level of your MBT?
We're invaders from another planet, we're invaders from another world... Martian Men look out for your planet... Earth Man's comin', to take control!!! EARTH MAN!!!
GTwannabe
Gun-toting Psychotard
NRA
Online
Posts: 10720
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:55:37 PM
70 ton bloated Bradley... holy fail, Batman!
I mean if this goes tits up...
Firefinder37
Member
Online
Posts: 1454
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 4:48:23 PM

Originally Posted By crurifragium:
Originally Posted By Firefinder37:
I spent my entire career Mechanized, in general terms we called them "Tracks", as in "The POL shed is behind those tracks over there." When referring to a specific vehicle type, we used the model number, as in "Go find the Lt in the 577 and tell him we need the 88 to pull the XO's 113 out of the mud." Anyone who was Mech would understand that perfectly.


For me, the 577 will always be "The 113 with the Jed Clampett add on"

True, but what about the 548? And didn't the Army nix the NLOS Cannon? Wasn't that supposed to be diesel / electric hybrid with all rubber tracks?


Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss.
Robert A. Heinlein

"Leave the Artillerymen alone, they are an obstinate lot. . ."
Napoleon Bonaparte
crurifragium
Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 15185
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 5:03:53 PM
Originally Posted By Firefinder37:

Originally Posted By crurifragium:
Originally Posted By Firefinder37:
I spent my entire career Mechanized, in general terms we called them "Tracks", as in "The POL shed is behind those tracks over there." When referring to a specific vehicle type, we used the model number, as in "Go find the Lt in the 577 and tell him we need the 88 to pull the XO's 113 out of the mud." Anyone who was Mech would understand that perfectly.


For me, the 577 will always be "The 113 with the Jed Clampett add on"

True, but what about the 548? And didn't the Army nix the NLOS Cannon? Wasn't that supposed to be diesel / electric hybrid with all rubber tracks?




Lol-I drove a 548 with the TACJAM (AN/MLQ-17) shelter on the back with an incredible top speed of almost 25 mph completely floored. It was so gutless and overweight that the turret ring never saw the planned M2 mounted, and it would literally take three or four seconds of flooring the gas pedal before it would even move.

On the plus side, it did have A/C and 120V outlets inside, so you could have microwaved popcorn in the field.

R2point0
"Member" (Beavis and Butthead style)
Offline
Posts: 6729
Feedback: 100% (27)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 5:19:37 PM
An idea whose time has come: The Bolo

Although I think a 175% scale Ontos would work better.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
buck19delta
Member
Offline
Posts: 9465
Feedback: 100% (22)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 5:27:34 PM


introducing the new prius MBT. " its, for the children".

While crushing freedom, Feinstein whined. The NRA is blocking my assault weapons ban. :-( They, come after you! They use large amounts $ to defeat you, did it in '93, and intend to continue it.! :-(
FlyingGorilla
Member
Offline
Posts: 2203
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 6:05:46 PM
Originally Posted By dport:
Now, you probably wouldn’t boast about the acceleration or the stealth of your Toyota Prius...

I was boasting about the stealth of my hybrid Camry two days ago. It's fun to sneak up on pedestrians in a parking lot then blare the horn right behind them.


Stealth is one thing a hybrid industry does offer the military. Lockheed Martin had some interesting prototypes for the Army back in the late 1990s when I worked for them. We had several hybrid Humvees, a couple of hybrid deuce and a halfs and a pair of hybrid Oshkosh heavy transports. All offered battery-only operation and the Army guys really liked being able to drive silently for the 100 miles range battery only operation allowed. And all of those vehicles could be used as stationary generators when they weren't being driven.

Since then I have not heard anything about those vehicles. I would imagine that the hybrid Humvees would be something that could have entered production for use by scout units. But so far nothing I've heard points to anything besides hybrid buses being built using the Lockheed Martin's technology.
Arfcom: I came for the tech, I stayed for GD

Proud member Team Ranstad
swede1986
Dei Gratia Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex
Offline
Posts: 21096
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 6:08:36 PM
Hägglunds developed a hybrid IFV, the SEP.

It wasn't purchased by anyone, despite showing great promise.
"Fapping to dead chicks was only weird until Bea Arthur died. Then it became acceptable."- DanTSX
texassooner
Member
Offline
Posts: 8547
Feedback: 100% (257)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 6:17:22 PM
I'm still looking for the hybrid tank
#REF!
FunYun1983
Member
Offline
Posts: 8133
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 7:12:25 PM

Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Originally Posted By hobbsar:
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.


So if the two are supposed to be working with each other why does your IFV need to be more mobile than your MBT?

At 70T sharing a common chassis have the some level of mobility?

Especially when you are artificially governing the mobility level of your MBT?

What support does a IFV that is as heavy as a MBT, but with less armor, and less firepower, provide?

The whole point of a IFV is that you sacrifice armor and firepower for mobility and troop capacity.

In the end, its still going to be vulnerable, modern ATM are very powerful, cheap, and plentiful.
dport
Bringing back the BB - one 16-inch shell at a time
Military
Offline
Posts: 37415
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 7:28:13 PM
If the Army does adopt a hybrid IFV, they'll have to pay an additional tax if they operate them in North Carolina.
It follows than as certain as that night succeeds the day, that without a decisive naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it, everything honorable and glorious.
~ George Washington
BobRoberts
65% more bullet
Military
Offline
Posts: 5807
Feedback: 100% (25)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 7:31:09 PM
[Last Edit: 5/29/2013 7:31:45 PM by BobRoberts]
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:

Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Originally Posted By hobbsar:
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.


So if the two are supposed to be working with each other why does your IFV need to be more mobile than your MBT?

At 70T sharing a common chassis have the some level of mobility?

Especially when you are artificially governing the mobility level of your MBT?

What support does a IFV that is as heavy as a MBT, but with less armor, and less firepower, provide? it saves the crew when it hits a mine or large IED

The whole point of a IFV is that you sacrifice armor and firepower for mobility and troop capacity. In what way is the bradley in anyway more mobile than a modern mbt?

In the end, its still going to be vulnerable, modern ATM are very powerful, cheap, and plentiful. Less so than a 30 ton version


"George said "TAX? Fuck that, I THE FUCKING MAN!" Then took a bunch of shots of the whiskey he made himself and shot King George in the goddamned face." -RustedAce
fr3d
Offline
Posts: 504
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 7:35:31 PM
Originally Posted By GSL:
Nice edit at the end to clarify it's not a tank. How about those liberal douch's have a Janes on them or at least bite the politicaly BS bullet and hire vets to help unfuck their reports for them, so they don't go looking like retards as usual. Surprised it wasn't called a Bushmaster tank as well, FFS.

On topic, 70 tons is massive for an IFV, WTF.


They Bradley does use a Bushmaster
Gunnerpalace
Team Member
Offline
Posts: 6395
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 7:38:56 PM
Originally Posted By rtintwo:
Originally Posted By stickfigure:
$29B?

It seems that the Bradley can hold out a few more years while GD or BAE can design a common chassis for about 95% of our tracked vehicles.

An MBT, IFV, APC, AAA, SPA, EOD, MLRS, recovery, breacher, bridgelayer, the Abrams chassis fills about 4-5 roles now, and there are concepts for others.

Add in an IFV, APC AAA, SPA and it would fill most of the Army's larger system deficiencies.


So what you are sayin is that we need a F-35 type program for the Abrams replacement.





YES

GaryM
Offline
Posts: 12351
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 7:42:02 PM
As an ex-tanker I say no.
Tanks need to be reliable, tough as hell and compact as possible. I do not see a hybrid being able to meet this criteria.
Zardoz
Offline
Posts: 15920
Feedback: 100% (28)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 7:42:29 PM
Originally Posted By Firefinder37:

Originally Posted By crurifragium:
Originally Posted By Firefinder37:
I spent my entire career Mechanized, in general terms we called them "Tracks", as in "The POL shed is behind those tracks over there." When referring to a specific vehicle type, we used the model number, as in "Go find the Lt in the 577 and tell him we need the 88 to pull the XO's 113 out of the mud." Anyone who was Mech would understand that perfectly.


For me, the 577 will always be "The 113 with the Jed Clampett add on"

True, but what about the 548? And didn't the Army nix the NLOS Cannon? Wasn't that supposed to be diesel / electric hybrid with all rubber tracks?


I always thought of a '548 as a sort of super-sized van on tracks. In the FA, the M109 or M110 was "the gun". The only other vehicle we didn't refer to by it's number was the '577. To us, it was the FDC track.

Pegasus6
Leg
NRAMilitary
Offline
Posts: 4663
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 7:49:33 PM
So the bitch has 2 drivers?
'Well, Grant' Sherman said to his friend, 'we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?' 'Yes,' replied Grant, 'lick 'em tomorrow, though.'

Always one more thing...
Skibane
Brown Marmorated Stinkbug
Online
Posts: 30661
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 7:49:51 PM
Originally Posted By dport:
If the Army does adopt a hybrid IFV, they'll have to pay an additional tax if they operate them in North Carolina.


But they'll be able to drive 'em in the HOV lanes in Portland or Frisco without getting ticketed.
Q: Is Hostcentric really the worst web-hosting company on the planet?
A: Yep!
Firefinder37
Member
Online
Posts: 1455
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 9:35:16 PM
[Last Edit: 5/29/2013 9:42:44 PM by Firefinder37]

Originally Posted By Zardoz:
Originally Posted By Firefinder37:

Originally Posted By crurifragium:
Originally Posted By Firefinder37:
I spent my entire career Mechanized, in general terms we called them "Tracks", as in "The POL shed is behind those tracks over there." When referring to a specific vehicle type, we used the model number, as in "Go find the Lt in the 577 and tell him we need the 88 to pull the XO's 113 out of the mud." Anyone who was Mech would understand that perfectly.


For me, the 577 will always be "The 113 with the Jed Clampett add on"

True, but what about the 548? And didn't the Army nix the NLOS Cannon? Wasn't that supposed to be diesel / electric hybrid with all rubber tracks?


I always thought of a '548 as a sort of super-sized van on tracks. In the FA, the M109 or M110 was "the gun". The only other vehicle we didn't refer to by it's number was the '577. To us, it was the FDC track.


We called it the "FDC Track" as well, long with this beauty the "VTR"



And this sexy pig, the "CATV" or "FAASV", I had one spontaneously discharge it's Halon fire suppression on me, with all the hatches closed. When it did all the power shut off and the lights went out. You try finding the side hatch, in the dark while holding your breath.


Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss.
Robert A. Heinlein

"Leave the Artillerymen alone, they are an obstinate lot. . ."
Napoleon Bonaparte
GSL
meh
Online
Posts: 314
Feedback: 100% (74)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 10:12:20 PM
[Last Edit: 5/29/2013 10:13:04 PM by GSL]
^^ A ground guide in the field, 1st CAV patch...must be Fort Hood. God 1st CAV leaders are retards.
Lt Manson asked Cpt Becton if he thought they'd have to abandon ship, to which he snapped, "No! I'll never abandon ship as long as a gun will fire."

USS Laffey DD-724

The ship that would not die
hobbsar
Member
Offline
Posts: 10934
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 11:32:24 PM
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By hobbsar:
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.


How big is the namer? Where is it designed to work?

Essentially you are saying it is too big, but the Isrealis are doing it with a similar sized vehicle in an urban environment. Where have brads operated that the M-1 has not?


Isrealis designed the Merkava as a primarily a defensive weapon. Their tactics also support this. They are not going to be carrying out major operations outside their borders so being able to transport their armor over long distances is not a major consideration.
Our armor on the other hand has to be able to operate in many different theaters. We have to consider roads and bridges not just in the Middle East but worldwide.

A 70 ton IFV would not work well in many environments. For instance in an arctic or sub arctic environment you can run that 70 tons pretty well anywhere while the ground is frozen but in summer it is gonna sink.
In a jungle environment there are lots of river and stream crossings. Unless you control the major bridges you have to bridge many of these. Now you have to have AVLB capability for that where with a 35 ton IFV you can use lesser bridges.
Just from a support standpoint a lighter vehicle is better.

Now we get to transporting them. Yes most armor is going to be deployed overseas by ship. But what about once you get there? A 70 ton IFV would require a HET to move it quickly to where it is needed.
You can move a 35 ton IFV with a Freightliner and a 4 axle lowboy. Then you can use that truck to haul other supplies too. A HET is good for one thing. Moving heavy armor.


Growing old is inevitable. Growing up is optional.
BobRoberts
65% more bullet
Military
Offline
Posts: 5811
Feedback: 100% (25)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 11:47:04 PM
Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By hobbsar:
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.


How big is the namer? Where is it designed to work?

Essentially you are saying it is too big, but the Isrealis are doing it with a similar sized vehicle in an urban environment. Where have brads operated that the M-1 has not?


Isrealis designed the Merkava as a primarily a defensive weapon. Their tactics also support this. They are not going to be carrying out major operations outside their borders so being able to transport their armor over long distances is not a major consideration.
Our armor on the other hand has to be able to operate in many different theaters. We have to consider roads and bridges not just in the Middle East but worldwide.

A 70 ton IFV would not work well in many environments. For instance in an arctic or sub arctic environment you can run that 70 tons pretty well anywhere while the ground is frozen but in summer it is gonna sink.
In a jungle environment there are lots of river and stream crossings. Unless you control the major bridges you have to bridge many of these. Now you have to have AVLB capability for that where with a 35 ton IFV you can use lesser bridges.
Just from a support standpoint a lighter vehicle is better.

Now we get to transporting them. Yes most armor is going to be deployed overseas by ship. But what about once you get there? A 70 ton IFV would require a HET to move it quickly to where it is needed.
You can move a 35 ton IFV with a Freightliner and a 4 axle lowboy. Then you can use that truck to haul other supplies too. A HET is good for one thing. Moving heavy armor.




And yet when have we deployed Bradley's deployed without MBT in company? The major bridges are going to have to be taken regardless, because IFV's are not going anywhere without MBT in tow and it is unlikely that M1A3 is going to shed 20 tons.

Brads got moved by HET's in every instance I have seen them moved inter theater.

"George said "TAX? Fuck that, I THE FUCKING MAN!" Then took a bunch of shots of the whiskey he made himself and shot King George in the goddamned face." -RustedAce
Zardoz
Offline
Posts: 15924
Feedback: 100% (28)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/29/2013 11:59:05 PM
Originally Posted By GSL:
^^ A ground guide in the field, 1st CAV patch...must be Fort Hood. God 1st CAV leaders are retards.
We didn't have to have GG's in the field back when I was in the 3/82FA. Of course, back then, we didn't have FAASV's, radios, NV, or any of the other cool (and expensive) shit they get these days, either.


GSL
meh
Online
Posts: 315
Feedback: 100% (74)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/30/2013 12:35:00 AM
[Last Edit: 5/30/2013 12:35:29 AM by GSL]
Originally Posted By Zardoz:
Originally Posted By GSL:
^^ A ground guide in the field, 1st CAV patch...must be Fort Hood. God 1st CAV leaders are retards.
Of course, back then, we didn't have FAASV's, radios, NV, or any of the other cool (and expensive) shit they get these days, either.


Such a hater. Tell us all what it was like doing PT in those banana suits again.



Lt Manson asked Cpt Becton if he thought they'd have to abandon ship, to which he snapped, "No! I'll never abandon ship as long as a gun will fire."

USS Laffey DD-724

The ship that would not die
JustaGunNut
Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 3900
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/30/2013 12:40:58 AM
Jesus, BAE really milks those government contracts.

I am pretty disappointed with them right now because they are doing a shitty job with a new weapon system.
Page:  / 5