Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on April 16, 2004, 09:58:12 AM
-
I wondering which is considered the more capable machine. I know little about AFVs. They seem very similar.
Bradley:
Crew: 3 + 6
Armament: 1 x 25 mm cannon,
1 x 7.62 mm MG (coaxial),
2 x TOW ATGW launcher,
2 x 4 smoke grenade dischargers
Ammunition: 900 x 25 mm,
2,200 x 7.62 mm,
7 x TOW ATGW
Length: 6.55 m
Width: 3.61 m
Height (Turret Roof): 2.565 m
Height (Gunners Sight): 2.972 m
Power To Weight Ratio: 20.38 hp / tonne
Ground Clearance: 0.432 m
Weight (Combat): 22,940 kg
Weight (Empty): 19,005 kg
Engine: Cummins VTA-903T
turbocharged 8-cylinder diesel
developing 500 hp at 2,600 rpm
Maximum Road Speed: 66 km / hr
Maximum Water Speed: 7.2 km / hr
Maximum Range: 483 km
Fuel Capacity: 662 lit
Fording: Amphibious with preparation
Vertical Obstacle 0.914 m
Trench: 2.54 m
Gradient 60 %
Side Slope: 40 %
Armour: Classified
Armour Type: Aluminum / Laminate / Steel
NBC System: Yes
Night Vision: Yes (passive for commander, gunner & driver)
Warrior
Crew: 3 + 7
Armament: 1 x 30mm cannon,
1 x 7.62mm MG,
2 x 4 smoke grenade dischargers
Ammunition: 250 x 30 mm, 2,000 x 7.62 mm
Length: 6.34 m
Width: 3.034 m
Height (Turret Roof): 2.791 m
Height (Hull Roof): 1.93 m
Power To Weight Ratio: 21.4 bhp / tonne
Ground Clearance: 0.49 m
Weight (Combat): 25,700 kg
Engine: Perkins CV8 TCA V-8 diesel
developing 550 hp at 2,300 rpm
Maximum Road Speed: 75 km / hr
Maximum Road Range: 660 km
Fuel Capacity: 770 lit
Fording: 1.3 m
Vertical Obstacle 0.75 m
Trench: 2.5 m
Gradient 60 %
Side Slope: 40 %
Armour: Classified
Armour Type: Aluminium (hull), steel (turret)
NBC System: Yes
Night Vision: Yes (passive for commander, gunner & driver)
The warrior is faster, has a more powerful engine and has a longer range - it also possesses a larger calibre cannon and carries more troops. It doesn't have the TOW capability and I'm not sure on the type of ammo for the main weapon. The warrior always looks bigger to me on TV, but it is actually smaller than the Bradley.
-
TOW capability would seem to be an easy modification.
-
Yes, according to another website which went into detail about the Warrior, it says TOW is available:
"TOW missile launchers are mounted on each side of the turret. The TOW wire guided anti-tank missile from Raytheon Missile Systems travels at 200m/s to a range of 3,750m. The vehicle has the capacity to carry four TOW missiles in the vehicle and two in the launchers."
-
"It's the man, not the machine" and everyone knows that American troops are superior. :p
-
Dowd,
What one has better armor?
-
*cough* bollocks *cough*
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
*cough* bollocks *cough*
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
What he said :D
-
Bradley but it's a lot more expensive...
-
At least some of your info on the Bradley is very dated. They have had 600 hp turbo's installed since the early 90's. It will do 45mph easily before the governor kicks in. I don't know much about the warrior specifically but I know a bradley quite well.
Some other things to consider, fire control systems, and the A3 varient of the Bradley now in service has an integrated computer system that tells the crew positions of all forces as well as opfors. They can recieve direct feeds from nearby aircraft as well as use the gps system to designate targets. Don't discount technology.
BTW, what can you tell me about the 30mm on the Warrior? The 25mm Bushmaster chaingun on the Bradley will pump out 200 rpm of selectable on the fly HE or APDS. I have hit targets beyond 3k with the APDS without much trouble. You can't just look and say "OH, the 30mm is 5 mm bigger, it must be a better weapon system!" There are many other factors that come into play with a weapons system than just the caliber.
Oh yes.. the max slope deal is about what kind of slope it is supposed to go up without risk of rolling over. I have gone up and down stuff in a Bradley that came as close as you can to tumbling both ways. It can go 80 degrees straight up or down but trust me when I say It's really not the best idea if you care about details such as your life.
-
what i can tell you about the Bradley is it does a good job on Iraqi ground forces!!! :eek:
-
(http://legion.wplus.net/guide/army/ta/bmp3-1.jpg)
-
Bmp3? Met some guys who used Bmp2's in Angola - they thought it was awesome
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Bmp3? Met some guys who used Bmp2's in Angola - they thought it was awesome
What's the smaller cannon mounted alongside the main barrel?
-
BMP's are shorter but are basically lunch meat on a modern battlefield.
-
BMP-3 has a 30mm cannon coaxial to the main 100mm cannon.
-
Downside to Bradley - you have to get out of the vehicle to reload.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Dowd,
What one has better armor?
The Warrior has removable chobham armour - it's bolted on in event of war/engagements but in training/transport it is removed to reduce weight.
The 30mm cannon on the Warrior is only available within certain light infantry regiments. A 7.62mm chain gun is also used instead on some support vehicles.
Is the Warrier 30mm gun the Raden cannon? If so that's the same gun on the Alvis Scimiter light tank, a very proven and tested weapon.
99% of the Warriers are based in Germany and were originally designed to counter the Warsaw pact countries during the cold war. It's more than a match for the Bradley and BMP-3, but like any weapon, it depends on how it's used and what environment it's suited for. I've been inside a Warrior, rather spacious considering. Haven't been in a BMP-3 but I have in a BMP-2, is there much difference inside?
-
On the Bradley, you have to open the rear hatch to reload the TOW's, everything else is reloaded from inside. As far as a combined arms weapon system the Bradley must be holding the edge. On the individual basis any of those vehicles could defeat the others depending on the circumstances. Though I would still give the edge to the Bradley, especially at range, inclement weather or during the night.
-
I did loan my copy of "Rapid Fire" to my friend but IIRC 30mm gun in Warrior is Aden cannon, developed from Mauser MG213 "revolver" cannon.
In aircrafts Aden is having RoF 1200 rpm (about same with .303cal mg !) and Mv of 800m/sec (Hispano Mk5 820m/s).
Not sure if gv's are using same ammunition.
-
Nah its not the ADEN in the Warrior.
-
30mm RARDEN in the Warrior is clip fed (6 round IIRC).
Considering how much the US spent on it the Bradley better be the best of the two. I could buy a sizeable African nation with the development budget it had,
-
They certainly spent way more than it s worth so you can't make much of a value arguement for the Bradley. BTW, the bradley holds a total of 300 rounds in the ammo bins. That 90 seconds of continous fire at max cycle rate before reload. I would imagine that a 6 round clip would be a major problem considering kill policy for the 25mm is to pump at least 4 through a BMP.
-
Interesting info guys, thanks. I thought the info I posted was up to date - the website seemed quite authorative. Shame we haven't got anyone here with direct experience of the Warrior.
-
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.
-
The Warrior is getting a new turret from 2006, fitted with a 40mm CTA gun.
There's some nice pics of the ammo in the brochure:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/cta.pdf
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Interesting info guys, thanks. I thought the info I posted was up to date - the website seemed quite authorative. Shame we haven't got anyone here with direct experience of the Warrior.
Was a Ratel man myself....
(http://[img]http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_66_1062146074.jpg)[/IMG]
-
Are wheels as good as tracks in most situations?
-
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.
-
What were you doing in the south african army?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Are wheels as good as tracks in most situations?
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
LAV-25, same gun as the Bradley, costs less, faster, more manuverable and amphibious.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_fv430.htm)
Challenger 2 (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_ch2.htm)
Sabre (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_sab.htm)
Samaritan (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_sam.htm)
Samson (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_sms.htm)
Saxon (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_sxn.htm)
Scimitar (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_scm.htm)
Spartan (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_spn.htm)
Striker (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_str.htm)
Sultan (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_sul.htm)
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.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What were you doing in the south african army?
Invading Angola.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
"It's the man, not the machine" and everyone knows that American troops are superior. :p
:rofl :rofl
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
why not?
-
You really want to start that thread on top of this one? :confused:
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
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..>
-
with 2x120hp gasoline engines?
-
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
-
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.