Marder question

[JayMan]

Is it normal to have only 1 on 3 Marders loaded with ATGMs in a Plt ?

Maybe the question is stupid , but it's bloody frustrating to get them destroyed by a BMP1 because they are out of range of the autocannon. :(

And I think they are more efficient than the Brads as they can withstand a couple of shots before being destroyed.
Lower profile as well even if the 20mm autocannon is less powerfull than the Bushmaster. I still manage to get some T80 kills from behind with just the cannon.:)
As I had the idea of the poll, there should not be any things like "We do the best stuff", just technical, survivability,etc... I am sure some of you guys have a lot to say about these 2 good AFVs.

[LtHenkel]

Hi JayMan,

the Marder 1A3 Platoon today consists of 4 vehicles with 2 Milan launchers. The company now has 3 platoons and 2 Marders for Co and XO. Each launcher has 4 missiles. The disadvantage is that the vehicle commander has to concentrate on launching and steering the missile, so the cannon can not be used while firing milan...
The good thing is that each Milan has a seperate thermal sight, the MIRA. Also the MILAN can be used dismounted by a 2 men squad.
In the real world when you encounter tanks, you do just one thing: pop smoke and reverse into cover, then dismount an anti tank team (Panzervernichtungstrupp) with Panzerfaust 3 which is deadly and numerous (6 cartridges per Marder with 3 launchers) especially if you manage to get into a flank...

When the platoon still had 3 vehicles, only 1 Marder in a platoon had Milan.

As everyone needs to remember, especially the tankers among you: The Marder is built to fight with its dismount element against enemy infantry- not tanks. This is also the reason why the 20mm BMK is perfectly good.
If you have ever experienced its sustained rate of fire- against soft targets you don´t want anything else.

Because of the limitations in armament cover is especially important, in real life as in SB. If the enemy can see you from outside your own effective range, you did something wrong!
(and therefore deserve to be killed?)

[JayMan]

LtHenkel,
Like the avatar !

In SB I use the Marder and it's troops like that, but I find it strange to have only the head Marder to be equipped with missiles.

And for those who vote it will be good to have at least a little comment to say why they choose one or the other.

[gtrof]

I would take the Brad. 25mm Bushmaster and TOWs for every Bradley in the platoon.

[ShermansWar]

i like the brads, as it is a more lethal weapons platform.Brad Has a better gun, and the tow has double the range of the milan.TOW is also more lethal. A milan has a 3.5LB. warhead, as far as i remember, and a TOW has an 8LB. warhead.Also, the inf in a brad doesnt take the weapons the APC carries with it when they dismount.Brad also has more ammo, i think.

[Ratseal]

never having fought in either vehicle in real life, my answer is constrained by the application of the vehicles in the game. TOWs/25mm on every vehicle trumps what the simulated Marder every time.

[dejawolf]

but well, i guess you get the soviet advantage with a marder.
for every M2A2ODS, you can get around 2-3 marders AFAIK.
and as a wisecrack said, quantity has a quality all of it's own.
anyone heard about the combat potential table?

some russians figured it out.

they basically put a vehicle as a baseline (the italian VCC-80)
and gave it a value of 1.0
then compared other IFV's to it.

well, here it is:

BMP-3 1.73
M2A1 bradley 1.29
BMP-2 1.22
BMP-1 1.09
Marder 1 1.09
Warrior 1.03
AMX-10p 0.85
BTR-80 0.62
M113A1 0.59

well, note they don't say which version of the marder.

[Chaplain]

I picked the Bradley because if it was my tail on the line, I'd rather be in a Bradley than a Marder. This takes into account the fact that I know better than to allow a higher-ranking officer's misunderstanding of the vehicle force me into using my Brads as tanks.

[Hector]

I think Marders should be capable of defeating other IFVs. I understand IFV should not fight MBTs, but, it should be expected to fight other infantry. Marders do withstand a lot, if we only compare the vehicle virtues themselves, the marder wins. Better protected, better profile, high speed and mobility, and the Grenadiers have Panzerfausts. Is a good succesor to the SdKfz 250/251 series that was the vehicle of the WW2 PzGrenadiers. But, the 20 mm gun-and I did bug Ssnake himself about it- is not suficient to defeat other ifvs to which it is exposed in SB. Like Ratseal, i can only give my opinion within the frame of the sb simulation, and worse yet, since i have no military background at all. So for a leser tactical sense of mine, I will have to wait, maybe beyond SB2, to see a good partner for the Leopard 2.

Cheers

HG

[Paul_L]

If we are speaking protection then Marder is ahead of Bradely....

Basic models Marder has allround immunity to 12.7mm API HMG fire and 14.5mmAPI @ >500m range, while the basic Bradely has allround immunity to 7.62mmAPI.About 3/4 of the Bradely armor can be penetrated by 12.7mm API @ 400m range and 14.5mm API @ 600m range.The Bradley turret is at the same level of protection as the Marder hull.

The Russian 30mm API can get a ballistic limit penetration on the front of the Marder @ ~400m range [1/2 hits penetrate], although any hits on the glacis will likely fail and ricochet off.The Bradely frontal armor can be peirced to the same extent at 2km range, although ~ 3/4 of the frontal protection is spaced armor , which means ballistic limit penetration @ ~ 400m range.


Both APCs recieved armor upgrades in the late 1980s both vehiles now have similar levels of protection.The rear armor on both vehicles is the sameas the base models, but the side protection of Marder offers almost complete immunity to 30mm API while APDS can penetrate @ 1km. THis side armor also provides ballistic limit resistance to RPG-7 [pg-7 ] attacks from straight on, while this would become immunity @ 30° side angle.


The Bradely A2 side armor is slightly better with APDS ballistic resistance down to ~ 600m range , but to get a ballistic limit resistance to RPG-7 warhead you would need a 20° side angle.

The frontal resistance of Marder is better with immunity to 30mm APFSDS , while the glacis offers some immunity to RPG-7[PG-7 &7M warheads ] and good protection from RPG-7V. The Bradely A2 offers only a ballistic limit resistance to 30mm APDS @ muzzle and 30mm Russian APFSDS can penetrate the frontal armor @ >2km range.The HEAT resistance is ballistic limit resistance to RPG-7[basic].

[smogover]

Once again I am stumped by the huge body of knowledge held in this community. Am curious though..... where did you find that Russian comparison bit dejawolf?

[Hector]

Oh, once more me

I should clarify that the disadvantage in weaponry is marginal. The case that causes this is at short range. The Rh cant beat the front armour of certain IFVs. At medium to long range the Milan is quite efective. The Rh autocanon kills side and rear. No front.

The launcher of the Marder seems to be better than that of the Brad in the sense that it does not have to adopt a strange position to reload. Can some one of the marder experts explain how is this process in the marder? is it a magazine or something similar to that method used on the Jaguars?

[dejawolf]

well, the M2A2 has an ERA package, although i haven't seen it used :(
i think that would've eliminated the RPG problem, at least the rear ramp is protected with 2 firing ports. supressive fire should be enough for RPG dudes to keep their heads down.

smogover: i found those statistics in steven j zalogas new vanguard book about the M2/M3 IFV.

[GoreChild]

Once again I am stumped by the huge body of knowledge held in this community. Am curious though..... where did you find that Russian comparison bit dejawolf?

Is anyone else not surprised that the Russians put their newest BMP over the earliest model Bradley? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Paul_L]

well, the M2A2 has an ERA package, although i haven't seen it used :(
i think that would've eliminated the RPG problem, although it would still be vulnerable to hits through the ramp..

The ERA coverage is the upper half of the front 3/4 of the AFV and should be good against RPG upto 600mm penetration. So it would be great from a hulldown position. Unfortunatly there horribly expensive @ $1/4 million to equip each vehicle and they have only funded enough to equip 6 battalions with no replacements...so each hit makes the APC permenatly vunlnerable. I guess they will only deploy them when the APC is facing an imminent threat it has no chance against?

[dejawolf]

well, the M2A2 has an ERA package, although i haven't seen it used :(
i think that would've eliminated the RPG problem, although it would still be vulnerable to hits through the ramp..

The ERA coverage is the upper half of the front 3/4 of the AFV and should be good against RPG upto 600mm penetration. So it would be great from a hulldown position. Unfortunatly there horribly expensive @ $1/4 million to equip each vehicle and they have only funded enough to equip 6 battalions with no replacements...so each hit makes the APC permenatly vunlnerable. I guess they will only deploy them when the APC is facing an imminent threat it has no chance against?

why is the bradley ERA so expensive?
is russian kontakt-5 ERA cheaper?

[ShermansWar]

To answer Gorechild, thre russian BMP-3 probably is better, with a bigger gun, and being a third generation IFV.They had them longer and worked the bugs out of the system pretty well.Russian ATGMs in general are capable, they also latest generation, from the folks who gave us the ATGM.

[ShermansWar]

considering the fact that a bradley is lucky to get a TOW shot off at all during game, I think the quick second fire missile is generally enough for most engagemen, considering you probably gonna get a 1st round kill or not at all . I thought brad had a better fire control system, and a missile with much longer range and a more powerful warhead.Does the armor advantage of the marder offset these advantages?or are they insignificant, considering a tank beats either, and when APCs fight each other, the one who fires first usually wins.So i'm down to range and lethality.A milan wont always kill a tank, a TOW usually does.they are a different class size missile.

[Ssnake]

Other factors to consider:
The Marder has three hatches for one or two dismounts each to allow fighting mounted - can be crucial in patrol/peacekeeping missions or when passing a forested area quickly. The Bradley essentially doesn't offer this option (the M113 however would...). The Marder can also go the same speed in reverse as forward (may not always be practical, though...).
I seriously doubt this Russian combat value comparison. Putting the BMP-1 on par with the Marder is ridiculous. The BMP-1 must either be farther away than a kilometer to be successful with its Sagger missile, or be closer than 300m to have a chance with its 76mm low pressure gun to actually hit anything. In between the BMP is totally helpless.

Finally, it's a question of tactical concepts associated with each vehicle. If a Marder were to be used like a Bradley, the Bradley would prove superior. A Marder however IS NO Bradley, must be employed differently, and can then be still quite adequate. If I were to pick an IFV today, my choice would be the CV-90, probably with the 40mm autocannon system, provided I were not to engage in urban combat. Otherwise it would be the Achzarit.

[Joe]

...what about amphibious capabilty?

[JayMan]

Intersting to see that they have not been designed to serve the same purpose.
And for the moment we can say :
Armor : Marder
Firepower : Bradley
Maneuvrability : Marder
Profile : Marder

Anything else ? Or against eachother ?

[Grenny]

...the Marder swimms like a box of rocks :wink:

Some points I like to mention:

The Marder TC has his upper body outside the turret when launching the Milan...(do I have to say more ).

...and like LtHenkel mentioned:dismounts (well lead :wink: ) with PzFst-3 are sometimes more deadly then a MilanTrp.
(of course in the rec-platoon you have nothing else, and we dismouted from jeeps instead of APCs)

[dejawolf]

Other factors to consider:
The Marder has three hatches for one or two dismounts each to allow fighting mounted - can be crucial in patrol/peacekeeping missions or when passing a forested area quickly. The Bradley essentially doesn't offer this option (the M113 however would...). The Marder can also go the same speed in reverse as forward (may not always be practical, though...).
I seriously doubt this Russian combat value comparison. Putting the BMP-1 on par with the Marder is ridiculous. The BMP-1 must either be farther away than a kilometer to be successful with its Sagger missile, or be closer than 300m to have a chance with its 76mm low pressure gun to actually hit anything. In between the BMP is totally helpless.

Finally, it's a question of tactical concepts associated with each vehicle. If a Marder were to be used like a Bradley, the Bradley would prove superior. A Marder however IS NO Bradley, must be employed differently, and can then be still quite adequate. If I were to pick an IFV today, my choice would be the CV-90, probably with the 40mm autocannon system, provided I were not to engage in urban combat. Otherwise it would be the Achzarit.

hmm, isn't the big hatch in the back of the M2A2 possible to open fully?
i am quite sure you could fit at least 3 guys in it, although they would block the gun traverse.

[Paul_L]

well, the M2A2 has an ERA package, although i haven't seen it used :(
i think that would've eliminated the RPG problem, although it would still be vulnerable to hits through the ramp..

The ERA coverage is the upper half of the front 3/4 of the AFV and should be good against RPG upto 600mm penetration. So it would be great from a hulldown position. Unfortunatly there horribly expensive @ $1/4 million to equip each vehicle and they have only funded enough to equip 6 battalions with no replacements...so each hit makes the APC permenatly vunlnerable. I guess they will only deploy them when the APC is facing an imminent threat it has no chance against?

why is the bradley ERA so expensive?
is russian kontakt-5 ERA cheaper?


Sorry no idea, I was surprised too...ERA was always billed as a cheap way to uparmor a vehicle...but if you can imagin having to fund two or three replacement tiles per AFV this could get real expensive for 2000-3000 vehicles???

[dejawolf]

well, nothing is too expensive when it comes to protecting 10 men and a 6 million dollar vehicle.
the US army seems to think otherwise

[Kingtiger]

I were to pick an IFV today, my choice would be the CV-90, probably with the 40mm autocannon system, provided I were not to engage in urban combat.

Dont forget that the CV -9040 has hatches for 4 soldiers with 2 machineguns... and a mount at the rear for a MG to protect the rear of the IFV when the squad is dismounted in urban combat.... so its well defended compared to other IFVs when U look in Urban combat...

BTW... ad 9040 in SB2 Ssnake so other can se for them self.. ;-)

[Ssnake]

Other factors to consider:
The Marder has three hatches for one or two dismounts each to allow fighting mounted.
...
hmm, isn't the big hatch in the back of the M2A2 possible to open fully?
i am quite sure you could fit at least 3 guys in it, although they would block the gun traverse.
No, it's worse. The hatch isn't flat, and doesn't slide but turn. Therefore it can't be flat on the top of the Bradley rear hull, but must remain in a position that blocks observation to the rear. The Bradley's bustle rack would be another constant source of danger to the guys sticking their heads out. The hatch is exclusively used to reload the TOW.

[Hector]

Marder has remote controlled MG 3 close to the back of the vehicle that allows it to cover the rear exit for the dismounts. Not really needed in SB, but a good feature in the vehicle.

[ShermansWar]

I was responding to gorechild 'srequest for a compaison to a BMP-3, not a BMP-1, Ssnake.Sorry if that wasnt clear, or do you have the same basic assesment for a BMP -3 that you would for a BMP-1?

[GaryOwen]

Other factors to consider:
The Marder has three hatches for one or two dismounts each to allow fighting mounted.
...
hmm, isn't the big hatch in the back of the M2A2 possible to open fully?
i am quite sure you could fit at least 3 guys in it, although they would block the gun traverse.
No, it's worse. The hatch isn't flat, and doesn't slide but turn. Therefore it can't be flat on the top of the Bradley rear hull, but must remain in a position that blocks observation to the rear. The Bradley's bustle rack would be another constant source of danger to the guys sticking their heads out. The hatch is exclusively used to reload the TOW.

The Bradley's back hatch is a 'cargo hatch' that flips open much like the cargo hatch on an M113. It can be opened and locked in several positions, from just a bit - for loading the TOW, to all the way - although when all the way open it does block the rear view from someone standing in the hatch. On road marches, you can get a couple extra pairs of eyes looking around by waking up your sleeping observers and having them stand in the hatch. The TC and driver would observe front, the gunner observe to the rear, and the boys in the hatch would observe the flanks. There is a safety switch that detects when the hatch is open and cuts off the turret drive, just like the safety switch on the driver's hatch.

[Ssnake]

Marder has remote controlled MG 3 close to the back of the vehicle that allows it to cover the rear exit for the dismounts. Not really needed in SB, but a good feature in the vehicle.
Only Marder 1A1. 1A2 dropped this rather useless feature, 1A3 let go of the firing ports since they were considered tactically undesirable either, so the space was used to add cargo boxes along the hull sides. 1A5 introduced better mine protection, BTW.

[dejawolf]

well, IMHO, the firing port weapons could be useful in woods, if you're intending to break through. step on the gas, and keep those bullets rolling against the atgm guys..

[Ssnake]

If you can't aim you won't hit, and if you can't hit you can't stop 'em. Besides, guided missiles don't work well with trees around. ;)
(and bazookas are best with not so many trees around either).

Frankly, I doubt that the entire concept of a light tank driving around in a nuclearized battlefield firing bullets from inside like a WW1 landship would have ever worked (and I hope we'll never find out).

[NEpi]

although i haven't really tried any of the APCs mentioned (but the Achzarit :) ), i think i'll take the Marder. it is an APC, for God's sake, not a tank buster. to employ TOWs effectively, you must be very far away from your target. by doing that either you fail to use the mounted inf. or you make them run 2-3kms. if you want to kill tanks, use tanks and ATGM teams. don't over-pack an APC. keep the APC low and armour it as well as it can carry.

[Floydii]

In relation to ERA. there is one VERY important note to make about it.

ERA blocks explode, outwards (around the vehicle).
Infantry who ride with the IFV tend to fight near said IFV.
Chunks of exploding ERA have a very adverse effect on the human constitution.

In short ERA could be damned dangerous for deployed infantry in close proximity to an IFV.

In response to the ATGM question (of sorts) I would go for a very fast ATGM with a shorter range (under 2km) than a slower, longer ranged missle such as the TOW. As infantry don't fight at extreme ranges, should their IFV's be expected to do so? Javilins would be a good choice.

[Brad_Edmondson]

. A Marder however IS NO Bradley, must be employed differently, and can then be still quite adequate.

This has been the problem with SB MP games. We play force on force using NATO kit vs. NATO kit so often that the Marder is pressed into service as a tank killer and/or has to face Bradleys. It's the wrong tool for the job for those games and puts the team using them at a disadvantage in scenarios where the scenario designer has gone to pains to make things equal.

The only success I've had with Marders was to hide them in notches along a woodline, wait for something to pass by and then nail it on the flank. That 2km range for the Milan seriously limits your options and makes it the wrong tool for overwatching any large open terrain. It is however a good ambush vehicle and I've seen them take a bruising along the frontal arc from even 25mm hits.

They're too slow to exploit breakthroughs by the tanks in the game though. Good for ambushes and as a battle taxi but little else.