Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/29/2003 5:00:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 9:07:50 AM EDT by CB1]
Out of the "Big 3" who do you think has the best Infantry Fighting Vehicle? since I am biasd toward the M2-Bradley I am not voting. #1 The M2A3 Bradley - 25mm Chain Gun [img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=12832[/img] #2 The Warrior IFV - 30mm Automatic Cannon [img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=12834[/img] #3 The Russian BMP3 - 100mm Cannon and 30mm Cannon [img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=12833[/img] Vote away fellow treadheads!
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:21:36 AM EDT
LAV-25 system.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:25:40 AM EDT
yea, the Lav-25 [img]http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/b54eb957c0d3b17a852562830058111b/Image/0.2A?[/img]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:07:21 AM EDT
True, but the LAV-25 is not a tracked vehicle. thats for the next poll.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 11:55:21 AM EDT
After reading the poll topic, I thought it was the same as the thread topic. Poor attention to detail I suppose. However, the LAV is no slouch. Plus it's cheaper which means more bang for the buck, carries the same number of Infantry and goes amphibious in less time. It can be air delivered by a wider variety of aircraft as well. I've seen a great photo two CH-53E's with LAV-25's slung under them as they take on fuel from a USMC C-130. So, back to your regularly scheduled thread; For tracked IFV's, from what little I know, I'll take the Bradley.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 12:00:51 PM EDT
I was never a fan of the Russian IFV's I tihnk I lean towards the Warriordue to its better gun. If anyone is ever in the Maryland area check out the Tank meusam in Aberdeen MD. You can sit in and play with over a 100 tanks and APC's Its really awsome.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 2:34:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:19:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 3:21:53 PM EDT by Delta_3_63]
Our scouts had Bradley's. They're good but TALL. During FTX's in Germany we made them follow behind the M1's because the smoke from their engines and the high profile made them easier to spot than the tanks. Probably didn't matter as much in the Gulf since there's nothing to hide behind at any height. BMP's were good in their day but on the modern field they leave a lot to be desired. Don't know much about the Warrior but that 30mm sure sounds sexy.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 5:59:35 PM EDT
The Bradley, hands down. Of course being a Bradley Gunner tends to make me bias. But after seeing the BMP1 and 2 in action, Russian IFV are crap, averaged 10-12 rounds of 25MM to kill one. And if you think the LAV-25 is better than the M2, then you need to lay the crack pipe down for awhile.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 2:07:48 PM EDT
im gonna vote BMP-3, I was gunner myself, love the bushmaster( you only miss once ), still love the Brad, but... Very good buddy from Baumholder is a MG down at Kelly Hill, next door to MG school, told me they had aquired a BMP 3 from Chechnya, they tested it, blew it up, shot at it, shot it, peed on it, rebuilt it, and they all stood around in awe of it. I cant remember all the stuff he told me, I was sneaking out of TSIRT at the time, but it can dig itself into turret defilade in 30 minutes, frontal armor protection from front and oblique is like 30 cm, pull pack and change motor in 60 minutes. I cant remember all of it, but we hadnt seen each other in 10 years, bumped into him in Benning, the BMP is all we talked about. FWIW Im just telling you what he told me, Ill take my Size 10 1/2 LPCs now. Been 11b for 8 years.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 3:45:36 PM EDT
What are you judging "best" on? Mobility? Reliability? Protection? Firepower? Capacity? Adaptability? I have to admit I do like the Swedish CV90 (no first hand experience, I just like the modular capabilities concept of the vehicle). [url]http://www.wendel.se/rswa/cv90derivat.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 5:08:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GarethB: What are you judging "best" on? Mobility? Reliability? Protection? Firepower? Capacity? Adaptability? I have to admit I do like the Swedish CV90 (no first hand experience, I just like the modular capabilities concept of the vehicle). [url]http://www.wendel.se/rswa/cv90derivat.htm[/url]
View Quote
The poll is a general poll. just our opinions of what is the best. Since I was a Bradley Gunner I could write a hundred reasons why the Bradley is the best. I did not vote in this poll. I chose the three listed because out of all the "super-powers" these three countries offer strong vehicles, and since I made the poll, I felt that the US/Britian/Russia made the leading IFVs. No other reason needed.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 6:46:06 PM EDT
I wasn't trying to jump down your throat about anything. People asking that the "best" X is a pet peeve of mine. To me it's like asking what the "best" flavour of icecream is, "best" based on what? Let me put this in a bit of a different perspective. I'm Australian. Our defence force and defence budget are tiny compared to the US, UK or Russia. What's affordable for you guys is prohibitive or often outright wishful thinking for us. I wasn't trying to say the CV90 is particularly "better" under all circumstances compared to an M-2/Warrior/BMP, just that I like the adapatability of the basic chassis. Armour recovery vehicle, air defence, IFV with choices of 25mm, 30mm and 40mm gun, 105mm and 120mm anti-tank with applique armour packs, 120mm dual mortar, command vehicle. I can't speak to it's reliability, mobility or protection. For a country with a small budget, a common chassis that can fill so many roles (but not all of them, there are still roles it doesn't address such as bridge laying, and the 120mm mortar version isn't a genuine substitute for large calibre self propelled artillery) can be a "better" option than any of the three you listed. Sure, there's the "jack of all trades, master of none" issue, but when you can't afford an extensive inventory of specialised vehicles and the support/logistical tail neccessary to keep all of them running, picking a middle ground option that simplifies support becomes highly attractive. What a military force can achieve is limited by logistics more than any other factor. For everyone in a vehicle or foxhole at the front, how many other people and how many vehicles are keeping that person supplied with what they need? What resources is the logistical tail burning up just to do their job? Those are resources/supplies consumed by the tail which will never get to the people needing them the most simply because the logistical tail needs to support itself before it can even begin to support the people it's actually there to support. Complicate the support and you swing ratio further towards the logistical tail and further away from the combat force at the head (supply trucks need fuel and spare parts, just like any tank or IFV). Compared to Australia, the US has a mind boggling defence budget. If you have the money, and can tolerate the size of logistical tail neccesary to support more highly specialised vehicles in different roles, by all means, do it. The specialised vehicles will be more effective in their particular roles, so what you loose in terms of manpower diverted to support roles, you gain my making the remaining manpower at the pointy end more effective. When the bag of money is a lot smaller, even small efficiencies in streamlining the logistics tail can help put more warm bodies into the pointy end where they can really count. On a man for man basis, they may not be quite as effective as their more specialised counterparts, but as one WW2 Russian General (Zukhov?) said "Quantity is a quality in it's own right". When money, manpower and support are no object, as far as I'm concerned it's a coin toss between the Bradley and the Warrior. Warrior has the better gun, but Bradley has TOW. I can't comment on their crew protection. When the object of the exercise is to put as many warm bodies at the pointy end while operating on a limited budget, I'm inclined to steer away from any of the choices you've given and point to the CV90 as a more likely method of achieving that. It has the diversity of armaments to fill multiple roles, and the commonality of key mechanical systems to reduce support complications (when all your major vehicles use the same engine/transmission pack, you don't need to make sure the right ones go to the right units, they're all right, no matter which unit they go to).
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 6:35:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 6:43:58 AM EDT by CB1]
Wow, you read too deep into my reply! I agree with you on how we can get deep into the capabilities of each class of IFV. And that was a GREAT post! Thanks for your insight to AUS IFVs Chris For those of use who do not know what a CV90 is... Here are two versions of the CV90 made by Sweden [img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=13230[/img] and [img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=13231[/img]
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 5:44:28 PM EDT
We don't use the CV90 here in Aust. The M113's are still soldiering on along side some LAV's. Aust's MBT's are Leopard 1's with 105mm (dated, but they still outclass anything in our neighbour's inventories).
Top Top