Author Topic: APC Comparison - US Bradley vs UK Warrior (Read 1325 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #45 on:** April 17, 2004, 03:44:05 PM »

A balance of the LAV and the Bradley makes perfect sence both from an economic view and the needs on the ground. You dont need the expencive and more capable Bradley everywhere, the LAV will do the everyday stuff while the bradleys goes in on the first wave. One good ex is the situation in Iraq atm. The LAV's would be available in greater numbers and with the quicker roadspeed would be able to respond to "situations" over greater distances with the added benfit if sparing the infrastructure of damage.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #46 on:** April 17, 2004, 04:00:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
A balance of the LAV and the Bradley makes perfect sence both from an economic view and the needs on the ground. You dont need the expencive and more capable Bradley everywhere, the LAV will do the everyday stuff while the bradleys goes in on the first wave. One good ex is the situation in Iraq atm. The LAV's would be available in greater numbers and with the quicker roadspeed would be able to respond to "situations" over greater distances with the added benfit if sparing the infrastructure of damage.

Yup, that's the concept of the Stryker though I doubt it will be able to do the job like intended.

Nilsen · « **Reply #47 on:** April 17, 2004, 04:03:45 PM »

why not?

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #48 on:** April 17, 2004, 04:16:15 PM »

You really want to start that thread on top of this one?

Heh, start up a new thread if ya want. some other folks might have an opinion on it as well.. unless we want this one to tag on for another 30 posts...>

What I know about it is based on what I have read and from a friend who helped roll out the first Stryker brigade here at FT. Lewis and just go back from Iraq to head off to SF school next month. If you guys have questions let me know. I'll be taking him and his wife out to the Metropolitan Grill in Seattle as a welcome home gift next week.

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #49 on:** April 17, 2004, 04:58:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
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.

Yes - I know, always wondered the reasoning behind chain operated MG's - can understand it in autocannon where clearing a round can be diff but have no idea why they went for an lmg version.

Don't you guys have very small infantry sections or dismounts I think you call them? I read somewhere it's like 6 or maybe 7 guys?

That would to me be the disadvantage of the Bradley - also TOW is probably overkill for a micv - I mean it's not going to slug it out with MBT's - far better to have dismounted infantry field your long range atgw stuff....

It's interesting how diff armies come up with such different solutions to essentialy the same probs.

This btw was my Band of Brothers 20 years ago....

http://www.lib.sun.ac.za/military/military.exe?ML=1&EX=Smoke61

my unit was 61 Mech Bttn

http://www.geocities.com/sadf_association/61ff.html

Staga · « **Reply #50 on:** April 17, 2004, 05:04:44 PM »

Few years ago some company was selling BTR-70 APCs in Caliber magazine (local Guns'n'Ammo) here in Finland, price was about 10k$ (used vehicles from some east europen country). Not a bad price when you get two engines, quite good cross-country charasteristics, you don't need a boat when you go fishing and you don't have to worry if someone scratches the paint or throws a beer bottle on your roof...

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #51 on:** April 17, 2004, 05:36:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
Few years ago some company was selling BTR-70 APCs in Caliber magazine (local Guns'n'Ammo) here in Finland, price was about 10k$ (used vehicles from some east europen country). Not a bad price when you get two engines, quite good cross-country charasteristics, you don't need a boat when you go fishing and you don't have to worry if someone scratches the paint or throws a beer bottle on your roof...

Not to mention you always get the right of way in traffic..>

Nilsen · « **Reply #52 on:** April 17, 2004, 05:37:55 PM »

with 2x120hp gasoline engines?

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #53 on:** April 17, 2004, 05:50:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Yes - I know, always wondered the reasoning behind chain operated MG's - can understand it in autocannon where clearing a round can be diff but have no idea why they went for an lmg version.

Don't you guys have very small infantry sections or dismounts I think you call them? I read somewhere it's like 6 or maybe 7 guys?

That would to me be the disadvantage of the Bradley - also TOW is probably overkill for a micv - I mean it's not going to slug it out with MBT's - far better to have dismounted infantry field your long range atgw stuff....

It's interesting how diff armies come up with such different solutions to essentialy the same probs.

There are 6 dismounts on each Bradley, this would be called a fire team. 2 fire teams make a squad. Every guy getting out of it is armed/armored to the max so they do throw a lot of lead downrange. On the combined ranges our platoon would throw an average of 20 thousand rounds of ammo down range per minute. This includes light weapons as well as the heavy weapons. The TOW is a slightly outdated but effective long range system designed to take out just about anything. It is there for stand off fire or emergency vs MBT's. If you look at it, the launcher rises above the turret so all that is exposed is the launcher and sights in a defensive position. You might think of the TOW as the long segment of a layered system. The Infantry weapons are designed for close in (<1000m) while the TOW is for distance vs MBTs. Don't discount the 25mm with depleted uranium shot. It can disable a MBT in a pinch but IFV's are not MBT's hence they work side by side with M1's, Apache's, A-10's, artillery etc. It's a combined system that is now fully integrated thanks to networking. This is what I was saying earlier.. don't pull one thing out and say something without considering the whole package. Hope this helps.

This btw was my Band of Brothers 20 years ago....

http://www.lib.sun.ac.za/military/military.exe?ML=1&EX=Smoke61

my unit was 61 Mech Bttn

http://www.geocities.com/sadf_association/61ff.html

Staga · « **Reply #54 on:** April 17, 2004, 06:20:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
with 2x120hp gasoline engines?

I believe they were same models we used to had, ie old models with dual engines and not side doors in troop compartment (roof hatches were quite cramped with full gear to get out).
IIRC newer types are having single engine.