APC Comparison - US Bradley vs UK Warrior

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by Vladd
I recall reading some time ago that the Warrior's cannon lacked auto-stabilisation...so it could only shoot accurately from the halt.

No idea if this is true however, but with typical MoD parsimony it wouldn't surprise me.

This is a major issue, On a Bradley once you put the sights on a spot and engage the stab virtually nothing will make those sights drift.  This is critical for shoot on the move since tracked vehicles vibrate when in motion and almost no road/field is smooth.  Something a lot of people don't realize though is just because the weapons are stabilized does not mean the crew is.  It's tough to shoot things when you are bouncing around the turret like a radioactive isotope.

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by Nilsen
BMP-3 looks great and its available in a fully amfib version....no idea if the armor is any good tho.

Alot of IFV's around and most of them gets the job done well i would think. its mostly all about how you use them that matters. The most important factor in the long run that has not been mentioned is reliability and fuel economy witch are both important in war and peacetime....TCO.

BMP's are cheap for a reason...  If you want combat surviveabilty and lethality they are not in the same class as western weapons systems.

[Grits]

LAV-25, same gun as the Bradley, costs less, faster, more manuverable and amphibious.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Grits
LAV-25, same gun as the Bradley, costs less, faster, more manuverable and amphibious.

AHEM...     BTW is bradely still amphibious?

From post above.

There are a number of factors but for combat tracks are much better than wheels.

wheels:

Higher road speeds for a given HP
Less damage to roads
Much cheaper to operate. Tracks require replacement about every 3k miles.

Tracks:

Huge traction bonus, this is very important if you want to climb over debris like cars and roadblocks. Can drive through houses as well.
Much better weight distribution, much better on soft ground, climbing, pushing trees out of the way.
Can turn in own length with pivot, major advantage in urban area
Generally higher off road speeds
Can handle much higher vehicle weights
Much higher combat survival, wheels burn and blow apart.
Much more stabile gun platform, more area takes the shock from Motars and large caliber guns

[Replicant]

The guys I spoke to who used the Warrior looked at me strangely when I mentioned the 30mm RARDEN since most of their Warriors at fitted with the 7.62mm chain gun.  They actually prefer the 7.62mm since they can use it more effectively against other infantry/light objects.  I think this is a secondary 7.62mm directly in place of the 30mm RARDEN.  You have to remember that Warriors often go in with support of other vehicles that are more better equipped to engage other light tanks and in the current climate there really hasn't had much use for the 30mm.

These are however used by mostly light infantry regiments and not tank regiments and in the text below it appears that only the infantry command and section vehicles are equipped with the 30mm.  Probably in a few years when some of the tank regiments lose their Challenger II they'll move onto a heavier armed Warrior?

Other vehicles include:

FV 430 Series

Challenger 2

Sabre

Samaritan

Samson

Saxon

Scimitar

Spartan

Striker

Sultan


Warrior

The Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle has the speed and performance to keep up with Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks over the most difficult terrain, and the firepower and armour to support infantry in the assault. A highly successful armoured fighting vehicle, Warrior can be fitted with Enhanced Armour and is continuously being updated; for example, the Battlegroup Thermal Imager (BTI) is being fitted to increase its night-fighting capability.
Warrior infantry command and section vehicles carry a turret mounted 30 mm Rarden cannon that will defeat light armoured vehicles out to 1,500 m. An 8x magnification image-intensifying night sight is fitted, and eight 94 mm Light Anti-Armour Weapon (LAW) HEAT rockets can be stowed in the vehicle.

Warrior variants include artillery observation post vehicle (OPV) and command post vehicle (CPV), and a Royal Mechanical and Electrical Engineers (REME) recovery and repair vehicle. All variants are equipped with a 7.62 mm chain gun: both chain gun and Rarden cannon have an anti-helicopter capability.

 
Crew 3 + 7 troops.
Hull Length 6.34 m.
Height to Turret Roof 2.791 m.
Width 3.034 m
Ground Clearance 0.49 m.
Combat Weight 24,500 kg.
Main Armament 1 x 30 mm L21 Rarden cannon.
Secondary Armament Co-axial 7.62 mm chain gun. Smoke grenade dischargers.
Engine Rolls Royce CV8 diesel.
Maximum Speed 75 kph.
Maximum Range 660 km.

[_Schadenfreude_]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What were you doing in the south african army?

Invading Angola.

[_Schadenfreude_]

Originally posted by Dowding
Are wheels as good as tracks in most situations?

No, only in some situations, they are however much easier to maintain and offer a cheaper solution.

In open grassland a 6x6 or 8x8 give very good speed and manouverability over tracks, but tracks can take you anywhere.

[Nilsen]

rabbidrabbit

i would doubt that modern BMP's are very much inferior to their western counterparts.

the best "IFV" must be the Iraeli Merkava although it is technically a tank with plenty of room for infantry.

Bozon may have an insight into these...dunno

[Boroda]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
BMP's are cheap for a reason...  If you want combat surviveabilty and lethality they are not in the same class as western weapons systems.

Sure, not in the same class. Any Western battlefield personell carrier (BMP means "infantry combat vehicle" - another class already) has rapidfire 30mm rifled cannon together with 100mm equipped with guided projecties?

As for surviveability - BMP has an engine in front part of hull, it is a good protection for the crew. Light armour carriers are not supposed to withstand antitank weapons, so armor must be balanced anyway.

The appearence shows the big difference between M2 and BMP-3, like the differece between T-34 and Sherman. Sherman was known as "best tank for peace-time service" in USSR.

[rabbidrabbit]

The engine and drive gear are in the front on a Bradley too..

You can't compare just numbers and say "Oh, it's 5 mm bigger!  it must be a better gun!'

The stabilization system in the Bradley is very percise as is the thermal imaging system.  You can easily see mice running about through the grass from 800 plus meters away.   The APDS rounds on the 25mm head downrange at around a kilometer per second and have close to a flat trajectory over the first K or so.  Thats why it's deadly against anything within 3 K's.  Even at 3k plus they will go straight through a BMP like butter.  The only thing the chain gun won't blow through is a MBT but it will take everyhting off it except for the hull and the turret.  Thats where the TOW's come in.

I'm not saying the Bradley is the best thing since sliced bread but many of the counter arguements I'm hearing are not based on real world information.

7.62mm is a med cal machine gun, not a chain gun.  Very different mechanism.  FYI, the Bradley has a 7.62 mm coaxial for anti personnel since it's not quite legal to blow folks into chowder with the chaingun.  In reality its a politically correct item used for backup.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by AKIron
"It's the man, not the machine" and everyone knows that American troops are superior.

[_Schadenfreude_]

Chain gun refers to the operating mechanism, ie it is still 7.62mm in calibre but instead of using the recoil to eject and load rounds it is mechanically driven and therefore faster and more reliable.

The 30mm Rarden has better penetration and explosive capacity than the 25mm but the Warrior lacks the full stability and thermal suite of the Bradley.

Bradley costs more than most MBT's, it is interesting to note that the US Marines chose the LAV from Canada as their MICV, less sophisticated, cheaper and more of them for their money.

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
The engine and drive gear are in the front on a Bradley too..

You can't compare just numbers and say "Oh, it's 5 mm bigger!  it must be a better gun!'

The stabilization system in the Bradley is very percise as is the thermal imaging system.  You can easily see mice running about through the grass from 800 plus meters away.   The APDS rounds on the 25mm head downrange at around a kilometer per second and have close to a flat trajectory over the first K or so.  Thats why it's deadly against anything within 3 K's.  Even at 3k plus they will go straight through a BMP like butter.  The only thing the chain gun won't blow through is a MBT but it will take everyhting off it except for the hull and the turret.  Thats where the TOW's come in.

I'm not saying the Bradley is the best thing since sliced bread but many of the counter arguements I'm hearing are not based on real world information.

7.62mm is a med cal machine gun, not a chain gun.  Very different mechanism.  FYI, the Bradley has a 7.62 mm coaxial for anti personnel since it's not quite legal to blow folks into chowder with the chaingun.  In reality its a politically correct item used for backup.

Just out of curiosity, rabbit, and please don't take this as an attempt at provocation, but what practical, applied experience do you have with IFVs, specifically Bradleys and top-of-the line BMPs?

[_Schadenfreude_]

Chain gun refers to the operating mechanism, ie it is still 7.62mm in calibre but instead of using the recoil to eject and load rounds it is mechanically driven and therefore faster and more reliable.

The 30mm Rarden has better penetration and explosive capacity than the 25mm but the Warrior lacks the full stability and thermal suite of the Bradley.

Bradley costs more than most MBT's, it is interesting to note that the US Marines chose the LAV from Canada as their MICV, less sophisticated, cheaper and more of them for their money.

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Chain gun refers to the operating mechanism, ie it is still 7.62mm in calibre but instead of using the recoil to eject and load rounds it is mechanically driven and therefore faster and more reliable.

The 30mm Rarden has better penetration and explosive capacity than the 25mm but the Warrior lacks the full stability and thermal suite of the Bradley.

Bradley costs more than most MBT's, it is interesting to note that the US Marines chose the LAV from Canada as their MICV, less sophisticated, cheaper and more of them for their money.

I spent 3 years on them in a Mechanized Infantry Regiment.  Specifically the 1/15th of the 3rd Infantry division.  I'm not putting myself forward as the super uber expert but what I can tell you is from personal experience while training and talking with other soldiers during the mid 90's from countries using these vehicles.  Again, not trying to bang heads, just sharing what I know.  Take it for whatever value you desire.

Didn't know about a chain fed 7.62...  What benefit would there be beyond positive feed for all that extra weight and complexity?  ROF can go above 2000 RPM with belt fed..

Schaden...  I'm pretty sure the Marines went with the LAV because it was designed to be amfibious whereas the Bradley's swimming capabilites are much more dubious. They have similar weapons packages but the Bradley is tracked and is decidedly better armored.  Of course, the Marines might well value the lower cost and speed of the wheeled approach.  Not to mention tracks eat roads.

Don't know the Rarden well so no dispute there if you have the facts.

And yes, the Bradley costs more than its worth IMHO.