The Great Bradley Debate

[Elf`]

After much angst, and an embarrassing incident as OPFOR for a VU, I have come to the conclusion to bust this one in open forum:

What is the most effective use of Bradleys?

What is the most effective place to deploy troops from? and where to?

What is the most effective way to coordinate Tanks, Brads and inf on:
Offense?

Defense?


Elf

[richard]

I use the brads for occupying the objective . My way of using them in the final phase of the assult is to keep them about 1500 meters behind the tanks. My tanks literally kill all targets hard or soft before i turn the brads loose. My tanks always lead. I think its better for the tanks to absorb as much of the Enemy fire as possible.Wheather the Bradley has a true fire and forget ATM or not i do not know, so until they get them the brad is delegated to a secound class role.

[Grenny]

After much angst, and an embarrassing incident as OPFOR for a VU, I have come to the conclusion to bust this one in open forum:

What is the most effective use of Bradleys?

What is the most effective use of BradleysWhat is the most effective way to coordinate Tanks, Brads and inf on:
Offense?

Defense?


Elf


1:
Opinons vary on that...TOW-carrier or troop-carrier,that is the question!(?)

2:
Idealy: where the troops have cover and the enemy is within their weapon range.

3:
Wait...I'll see if I can find some pix on that...

[GaryOwen]

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/71-123/toc.htm

[Hector]

I think Brads are mostly armoured taxis. And we should use them only for that purpose or against other similar vehicles. They have chances against tanks only if they are not drawing fire from them and in very advangategous terrain. One of the bigger advantages is in offensives in which the enemy has strong points, but that this strong points are sorrounded by trees. One usually send the brads close to the strong point, dismounts the infantry and then send them to the strong point. to localize the target, be it defeat it with hand held at weapons or to use a tank who follows close to finnish the job. Then they must run to next assignment and leave the strong point as quick as possible. We did that at the batlle of ... a German name that now escapes me. We defeated 2 of the top guys, who i will never defeat in a tank. They still got a decent score in personal kills, but we defeated their defense and when we only had to take 2 towns left, they surrendered and left the game. Of coiurse in this case, the terrain was favourble for this kind of operation. It would be very different in a desert or in a stepe. The solo purpose of armoured inf in those cases are the presence of towns and isolated woods, i guess.

I hope this is not misleading.

Gary Owen gave a much accurate information.

saludos
Hector

[Elf`]

Gary, Thank you, I have examined some of that TM before. The point I was trying to make is that Brads in SB ARE different from real life, and must be treated as such.
What I'm looking for is what folks have found to be most useful as far as our limited Brads.

[Hector]

Elf

Also the infantry limitation, after all, this is an armoured sim, and dismounts are not as tough a treat for armour as they are in real life. Last night, my dismount was chasing an M1 parked in the middle of the woods. I tried to put him behind the M1 some 10 meters apart, but the damn crunchy only moved back and fort, never asummed the prone position, and almost saw him waging to the tank saying kill me, kill me. And so did the M1 finally.

[Elf`]

My point is Made........ Nobody even trys to use Brads effectively, or troops. They are used as cannon fodder, and the game suffers.

Bradleys are Infantry Fighting Vehicles. This means they can both Fight with their Infanrty inside, and out, or even separated by a good distance. Th e Brad in this game should be used to bring the infantry up, so they can either move to OP's or form a skirmish line. Once inf is 1 km away from the brads, those brads have freedom of action, independent of their inf squad. Thse brads have a 25 mm cannon that is only good on IFV's at <2000m, and no good on tanks, and a tank killing missile, with a range of 4000m. The brads are therefore moved to far flank, or rear overwatch positions. This IMO, gives the brad the best chance of survival. Brads should NEVER go with tanks on an assault, because in SB, they cant keep up. But Im sure im the only one who feels this way, so FIRE..........

[Bluewings]

I will not discuss Tank tactics but focus on Brad's and Troops instead .

The Brad is a bit more than an "armored taxi" but its armor is relatively weak so going H to H with Tanks is foolish . The way to use them indeed varies , as an exemple , Renegade 's Dragoons like to use them as "Eyes" for The Armor .

Here , something has to be clear : a Brad with the grunts inside going fast speed on "March" does NOT spot any better than a Tank . To double the chances to spot anything the Troops MUST be dismounted . But you 'll have to move the Brads first ahead of the Armor if you wanna use them as scouts .
Which is bad ....

As I said times and times again , the first contact with the Enemy is ALWAYS bloody , so why sending weak vehicules first who will be hit with the full wrath of a yet non-attrited OPFOR ??? :shock:

I believe the correct way to use the Brads in Steel Beasts is to leave them behind the Armor until contact is made , then move them in a stealthy manner to hidden spots where they will turn themselves into "pseudo-Jaguars" and try to ambush a possible Enemy infiltration along small corridors with flanking TOW shots .
Their Infantry will then move freely ahead to support the advancing Tanks . It is well known amongst us it is sometimes a pain in the ass to engage Tanks when you 're under Infantry fire as the clueless TC will do its best to stick on the Troops instead of popping up smoke and engage the incoming Enemy Tanks .

If the Enemy Tank is manned , you still have a chance to take him out with theTroops while the player is battling with the other Tank (you) , but if the Enemy Tank is AI driven at that moment , chances are he will die from one of your sabot .

So , you can see the Troops have to be far ahead of their Brad , and to be honest , they (the Troops) can forget about the Brad as they used it as a taxi only . Their (the Troops) real job is to support your Tanks and assault/flank High value Enemy positions .

The main trick is to always use "March" order with the Troops . Don 't bother using "engage" order as they will stop and engage an Enemy vehicule even if the latest is 3 km away . (??!)
You want close contact with Troops , nothing better than passing by an Enemy Tank , go to its rear and fire a RPG .
When on "March" order , the Troops will only stop and engage if under fire or if getting real close to an Enemy vehicule , which is the attended goal .

So , the Brad is a Taxi to start with , then an Anti-Tank platform later in the game .

Of course , these Tactics are for SB , not for real life . (!!)

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Hector]

My point is Made........ Nobody even trys to use Brads effectively, or troops. They are used as cannon fodder, and the game suffers.
.....

But Im sure im the only one who feels this way, so FIRE..........



ah Elf, sorry to disagree on these 2 statements. There are people who like armoured infantry and like reconaissaince (or however this word is spelled), but who has been frustrated while doing it, due to, as you correctly point out, SBs current limitations regarding these vehicles and the dismounts. I have seen people like Gary Owen and some others whose names i dont recall now, who like you, pointed these deficiencies before and were already pleading to Ssnake and Al to get crewable IFV, i.e. the Bradley.

But yes, most of the games, that is what happens with them. Just used either as cannon fodder, sacrifice recon, or bait. But, I do see some good players who know how to use them. I have seen many games in which infantry supports tanks and also take out enemy tanks very good and well deployed, and that people never claiming they like inf.

I dont feel i did say something different to what Bluewings wrote in his reply, i think we both agree in most points.

No Elf, you are not the lonely creature ( having those feelings) you pretend to be :lol:

saludos
Hector

[Ssnake]

The new damage model should help the Bradleys to survive RPGs and barely penetrating rounds much better, and maybe help them to employ their Bushmaster guns a bit more effectively as well. What has been missing so far was the use of HE ammo against infantry since the IFVs tend to rely on coax against soft targets mostly, and use the autocannons only against semi-hard targets.

This certainly is a weakness of implementation in SB1, one of which the Marder suffers a lot, too.

[Elf`]

Ssnake, Will we have prone crwling infantry? will we have infantry that reacts to SOUND? will we have infantry that has a southern accent?

[Ssnake]

We'll deal with infantry in August. Before then, no comment.
Southern accent?
You could mod it that way, yes. As far as sound is concerned, SB Pro and SB2 will be very mod friendly.

[Poker]

Does this mean we can have music play in the planning stage for a scenario ?
Ride of the Valkyries for Fulda Gap ??

[ShermansWar]

Gary Owen can play the Gary Owen :cvcsalute: .

[Ssnake]

I was primarily referring to radio voices.
As far as music is concerned, that may have to wait until SB2.

[Poker]

I've subsequently rethought me music preference - God frobid we'll have to hear "Le Marsaillaisse" <sp> with every one of BlueWings scenario's ! :shock:
LOL

[FlamDrag]

A few things I would like from infantry:

1) Being more agressive in attacking sighted infantry. They sometimes just run past them or continue running when under fire.

2) Be able to garrison inside buildings, or static defensive positions (ie bunkers).

3) Actually simulate the effects of different weaponry - for example, one or two soldiers in a squad would have a SAW or something.

I know that this is tank sim, but already it's showing promise as a combined arms sim.

[Ludwigmeister]

The most effective use of a Bradley is to put it on display in a museum.

Ludwig.

[Elf`]

I dunno who this Ludwig meister guy is, but I do like his style.....

[Ludwigmeister]

I edited this post because it made NO SENSE. I thought Elf said he DIDN'T like what I had to say, but alas since then I've learned to read.

Ludwig.

[Chaplain]

I thought Elf said he DID like your style, Lud :?

[Elf`]

Hey Lud, I have thick skin, I can take it, but be careful, some here will take your words and make you seem like a jerk. just beware.

[Ludwigmeister]

I thought Elf said he DID like your style, Lud :?

Yeah so the results are in, and recent polls show Ludwig is an idiot.

Ludwig.

[kamov60]

I dislike Red and Blue Bradleys in the same scenario. If the Marder and BMP are not playable, then this will become very common in SB2. How will we tell them apart? Will there be blue or red flags on each vehicle? Markings painted on the turret and hull? Will there be separate cammos for the Red M2 and Blue M2?

[Golf33]

Wheather the Bradley has a true fire and forget ATM or not i do not know, so until they get them the brad is delegated to a secound class role.Bradley's TOW is not fire-and-forget, the gunner has to keep the sight aligned on the target until the missile hits.

The Javelin and AT4 infantry missiles carried by the Bradley dismounts are fire-and-forget.

Regards
33

[DrDevice]

To add to G33's elaboration - AT4's are fire and forget, but only because they are not guided at all.

Kamov: You have to work hard to misidentify vehicle in SB, as they are always correctly ID'd by TC or gunner. The only fratricide incedents are when something gets caught in the line of fire, rather than intentionally being fired upon as an enemy.

There are so few IFF issues now, so hopefully we will get some.

I agree that it will make fights with the same vehicles on a side much more difficult, but as it is, it's too easy.

[Elf`]

I dislike Red and Blue Bradleys in the same scenario. If the Marder and BMP are not playable, then this will become very common in SB2. How will we tell them apart? Will there be blue or red flags on each vehicle? Markings painted on the turret and hull? Will there be separate cammos for the Red M2 and Blue M2?

Kamov, I am terribly sorry about the Brads being used exclusively in TGIF sce's It is an unfortunate byproduct of the bugs in the game that we cannot use Marders unless they are broken to single vehicles in the sce editor. If this is not done for the Marders, all but the platoon leader loses his missiles. So we stick with Bradleys for TGIF. BMP's we dont use cuz,....welll,....theyre slow and inferior to the brad..Period. There are many thing you can do in single player that you cant do in MP because of packet loss in the transmissions. It just takes one packet to one inividual to be lost to start a cascade failure of the logic system in the MP game. Witness the last across the pond. Somebody lost the packet that said" Elf Shot Cobra Point blank", so Cobra went on thru my rear in a dead tank shooting stuff. :roll: :D :oops: :x

[TopKick]

Elf`Witness the last across the pond. Somebody lost the packet that said" Elf Shot Cobra Point blank", so Cobra went on thru my rear in a dead tank shooting stuff.

You got flanked, didn't ya? Admit it! :D

[19D30]

Wow, I came back from vacation to find a strong Bradley thread!

Hopefully, in SB2, the Bradley will be a more signifigant threat than the current SB1 engine alllows. The 25mm M910 APFSDS DU-T round has had well docmented success against MBTs up to and including the T-72 series. One of my AIT Conduct Of Fire Trainer Instructors was a M3A2 gunner during Gulf War 1, and had a framed photo of a T-72 he killed with M910 when his scout section ran into a Iraqi tank platoon at close quarters. They fired on the Iraqis with the intention of suppressing and breaking contact, and he initially thought that he had indexed the range too far and was shooting over the T-72, as he observed rounds impacting behind the tank.

They soon realized that none of the T-72s returned fire or pursued them over the IV line. Once they got some back up from the M1s they went back over the ridge and found several T-72s destroyed, and upon closer examination (and probably some DU particle exposure) he found out why the rounds looked like they were going over...the M910 rounds had completely penetrated the turret through and through. The M242 is no pop-gun, and I imagine that in SB2 the player controlled M2/M3 will be much more than just a sacraficial recon-lamb.

I can't wait to put my Brad in a hide on the reverse slope, with my dismounts deployed on the military crest on the other side, spotting for arty to get the tankers buttoned up so that when they barrel across my LOS with thier backs to me and thier flanks to the M1A1s I called up...heh,heh,heh. The Brad may be a tin can that deserves to be put in a museum, but in the hands of an experienced crew with some imagination we might just get some of you heavies out there to develop a new appreciation.

[Chaplain]

Kamov, I am terribly sorry about the Brads being used exclusively in TGIF sce's It is an unfortunate byproduct of the bugs in the game that we cannot use Marders unless they are broken to single vehicles in the sce editor. If this is not done for the Marders, all but the platoon leader loses his missiles.


Bzzzt! Wrong answer! ;-)

It's not a bug, Elf. It is the decision of the German Army to only have Milans in one Marder per platoon, and the game properly mirrors that.

[Elf`]

Well Hell, why would ya want em anyway? what a ridiculous thing to do!!! Ya'all can have the marder.

[Chaplain]

If I had to choose among the Bradley, the Marder and the M113, my first choice would be the M113 for mechanized infantry. M113A3s, of course, as they are fast enough to keep up with the M1, but M113s none-the-less.

[Elf`]

Well CHap, I respect your opinion, but.............oh shoot,.sorry,..........was that you M113a3 I just hit with my bushmaster?, My bad....

[Poker]

Just gimme a M106 w/ 4.2".
High angle Hell ... death and destruction !

[Chaplain]

I've worked with both, Elf. I know their strengths and weaknesses. IMO the Bradley, like all light tanks, tends to be used too agressively. The likelihood in a real war is that they will just get chewed up by tanks and other anti-armor weapons. M113s, on the other hand, tend to be used the way they were designed to be used.

The Bradley was really purchased to be a fill in because M1s are too expensive to get enough of them. However, if I had to chose between 1 battalion of mech infantry in M113s + 1 company of M1s, versus 1 battalion of mech infantry in Bradleys, I'd take the former in a heartbeat.

[Elf`]

I think that is reasonable....... But, the thread is about how to USE BRADS IN GAME..................Folks, post yer method....

[Kingtiger]

I dunno who this Ludwig meister guy is, but I do like his style.....

hes been around for a while, before your time Elf, a decent guy U can say :-D

[Kingtiger]

I've worked with both, Elf. I know their strengths and weaknesses. IMO the Bradley, like all light tanks, tends to be used too agressively. The likelihood in a real war is that they will just get chewed up by tanks and other anti-armor weapons. M113s, on the other hand, tend to be used the way they were designed to be used.


The same goes for PBV302... I prefer a PBV302 before CV9040 anyday... bcz of the reasons mentioned above

/KT

[Elf`]

Jesus! How do you use them in Sreel Beasts!!!!!!!!!!!Fer Chrissake....................

[Poker]

Ask Juan - he can decimate a company of tanks with 2 platoons of Brads in woods.
I've been the victim of it.

[Poker]

Jesus! How do you use them in Sreel Beasts!!!!!!!!!!!Fer Chrissake....................

You have much to learn, grasshopper ........... besides, we like to keep you guessing !
Ask Jim, he was a Brad man - he should know.

[Chaplain]

:P

One one hand, I find that I use Bradley-infantry platoons just the same as M113-infantry platoons in SB.

On the other hand, if I have one bradley that I can devote me attention to, and control it carefully through the F8 view, (and the infantry squad it carried is either dead or on the opposite side of the battlefield,) it can be very useful in trying to sneak up on a lone tank and kill it with a flank or rear shot.

As for your comment about the Bushmaster against an M113, I need only point out that in a recent MP game, I literally had to ram an enemy M113 with my Bradley because the Bradley gunner would only fire the coax and not the Bushmaster at the M113. :roll: The M113 was in a narrow wood and well hidden, but after I rammed it repeated times (no joke!), someone on the other side decided to try to get away before the Bradley gunner got wise and switched weapons. The M113 pulled out of the woodline and was quickly dispatched by an M1 that was down the valley. So, in effect, I did use the "superior" Bradley to destroy an "inferior" M113, but not the way it should have happened.

[Poker]

AH, Chap, you have touched on one of the little slices of my heaven of which I partake every now and then - Tank hunting in a Jaguar ! There's nothing quite like it. :)
Once in while I'll take a platoon of Jags only in MP and go play them as hunter killers.
Truly a blast !

[colin]

I find the survival rate of the M113 in SB to be fairly high. They tend to keep hull down more and don't have the wander till I die habit that the Brads do. The main problem with the Brads in SB right now is their AI. When handled by a player they can do a fair bit of damage.

The SB Marder does quite nicely in closed in country and the 20mm will take out everything but the MBT's

[Grenny]

Bah! Forget about the Bradley!
Once we get this cat:
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=1413&action=pd

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/img/puma_1.jpg

[Scorpius]

[quote="19D30"]Wow, I came back from vacation to find a strong Bradley thread!
The M242 is no pop-gun, and I imagine that in SB2 the player controlled M2/M3 will be much more than just a sacraficial recon-lamb.
quote]

You got that right...Ahh.. how I remember those crew drills in mopp 4....I kinda miss it.... :wink:

[Hector]

Grenny, given the "high" numbers in the German SBers community, i highly doubt we see that superb SchutzenPanzer soon, and also, given that your Bundeswehr, as far as I know, has not showed interest in SB Pro, nah, i dont think we will be lucky soon. SB3 maybe :( That is one of the reasons you dont see Mexican armour modelled in SB :D only one Mexican i know of plays SB, (there was a more weighing reason to that last issue, but i dont remember now what it is :roll: )

what da Hec!!!

[Red6]

After much angst, and an embarrassing incident as OPFOR for a VU, I have come to the conclusion to bust this one in open forum:

What is the most effective use of Bradleys?

What is the most effective place to deploy troops from? and where to?

What is the most effective way to coordinate Tanks, Brads and inf on:
Offense?

Defense?


Elf

There is no clear-cut answer. Read the FM. It depends if you're in the offense, defense, what the enemy's capabilities are and your mission within this defense or offense. I might want to drop off the infantry before on or past the objective. I may work as a mobile support by fire position or as the primary killing system in a defense in open desert. No clear simple answer exists. It all depends! Even the ratio (Task Org) is completely dependant on mission.

[Red6]

Bah! Forget about the Bradley!
Once we get this cat:
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=1413&action=pd

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/img/puma_1.jpg

The system with a less penetrating lesser range main gun? With the less capable ATGM in range, penetration and behind armor effect? Hey, I'm proud though, you FINALLY discovered that a thermal sight is a good thing! ou even included a stab I assume? How many decades is that behind?

But if all else fails, what kind of DAS system does the BW use? but wait- you have none. Well, you tried to get in bed with the Russians and it went bust. Did you know that the MCD was first used in 1991 and existed before then? What about ERA? The Brad is already on its second generation.

What kind of FBCB2 or BFT does this new Marder have?

The A3 Brad has a FLIR with a pretty good mag, what about the marder?

Sorry guy, the new Marder is ONLY in mine protection an improvement over the Brad. In EVERY other way the system is inferior to an A3 Brad.

Red6

[NEpi]

red, it all depends on the mission.
you can say the PUMA engineer APC made in Israel is inferior to the Brad because it hasn't got ANY ATGM onboard and no stab. (no turret). on the other hand, this APC is more armored than heavy tanks, and can go over terrain you wouldn't believe with remarkable speed. it's engineer PC that can actually go before the tanks and take punishment.

[dejawolf]

the marder doesn't need heavy ERA. it's 33 tons of static armour can handle most of the stuff thrown at it. also, it's not as prone to tip over as the brad.
additionally, it's got space armour over the troop compartment.
good for bomblets, and artillery stuff.

[Red6]

red, it all depends on the mission.
you can say the PUMA engineer APC made in Israel is inferior to the Brad because it hasn't got ANY ATGM onboard and no stab. (no turret). on the other hand, this APC is more armored than heavy tanks, and can go over terrain you wouldn't believe with remarkable speed. it's engineer PC that can actually go before the tanks and take punishment.

Both Marder and Bradley were designed for the same mission. Both were designed to fight in the same terrain against the same enemy using similar tactics. However, the Bradey has better optics, an active protection system, more capable main gun and ATGM, ERA, stab, a foward battle field control system and much more. So what is your point?

Red6

[Ssnake]

Ahh... hand me the popcorn, please! :mrgreen:

[Bluewings]

(running to the Coca-cola machine and rushing back to the seat :mrgreen: )

Cheers . :3starSK:

[TankHunter]

(running to the Coca-cola machine and rushing back to the seat :mrgreen: )

Cheers . :3starSK:

: Getting arse kicked by a Frenchman because I took his seat : :lol:

[Hector]

and all for nothing, everybody knows the best armour in the world is Mexican. up to you to continue the senseless arguing :mrgreen:

[Sean]

Yes, everyone knows that chicle armor stops even a3 DU ammo.

[Hector]

rgr, i have seen actual tests, and the DU ammo bounced back to the sender in the exact trajectory. Gum serves much better than the russian ERA. far mor efective, yet not as elegant. The problem is chewing so much gum to cover a tanque the size of a Leopard.

[NEpi]

hector, the DU rounds bounced back because they were humiliated by this armor.

can you smell it?

[dejawolf]

ah, just had a nice bit of shut eye, and just woke up. hm, now where were we? ahh, yes, the bradley is an expensive overengineered box.
and the transmission is officially the worst in the world. tow-start? and the engineers can't do their grammar properly. they left spelling errors inside the turret warning labels. the TOW launchers elevate far too slowly into firing position (heard this from a real brad crew) the price is humiliatingly high.

i'd much rather take a jaguar 1 and 2 and a marder 1A5, (combined arms) instead of an M2A3.
then you have 2 lightly armoured vehicles. meaning 2 targets. 2 gunners, and 2 commanders scanning for targets at 2 different positions. the jaguar is tiny, and takes out tanks, while itself being almost impossible to hit.

[Poker]

Oh, how I wish the Jag was going to be crewable in SBPrePE !

[GaryOwen]

They left spelling errors inside the turret warning labels.

Just cause ain't nobody speaking the Queen's English in Kentucky, don't mean we don't mean what we say. Hell, y'all cain't even spell armor proper. Ain't need no 'U'. And that business 'bout calling cigarettes 'fags', don't git me started on that.

[dejawolf]

They left spelling errors inside the turret warning labels.

Just cause ain't nobody speaking the Queen's English in Kentucky, don't mean we don't mean what we say. Hell, y'all cain't even spell armor proper. Ain't need no 'U'. And that business 'bout calling cigarettes 'fags', don't git me started on that.

oy see.
actually, it was grammar.

[Red6]

ah, just had a nice bit of shut eye, and just woke up. hm, now where were we? ahh, yes, the bradley is an expensive overengineered box.
and the transmission is officially the worst in the world. tow-start? and the engineers can't do their grammar properly. they left spelling errors inside the turret warning labels. the TOW launchers elevate far too slowly into firing position (heard this from a real brad crew) the price is humiliatingly high.

****The Bradley uses angles, spaced armor, Laminate on the outer armor and Aluminum on the inner armor with spall liners on the inside. Few IFVs are as well armored as a Bradley. The ONLY real advantage of the new Marder is in mine protection where the armor can deal with a 10Kg vs. the standard 6.5kg mine. The ERA on the M2 is very important and has already been used in several conflicts including Somalia (1993) and today in Iraq. Many people have AT weapons and your little bit of armor on a Marder will NOT withstand MOST small handheld AT systems even if hit in its best armored areas. An old small version of a RPG7 will turn a M2 or Marder into Swiss cheese without ERA.

****Starting with the ODS the M2 is capable of handling a MCD and other active protection systems. Again, the M2 has a smoke generator (potential) which I believe is not on the Marder.

****The TOW system is enclosed in a lightly armored box. This weapon system is fully functional from under protection of armor (Not the case on the Marder where a soldier exposes himself). You have 2 shots with bigger warheads that fly out to greater ranges and are less jam prone (Shitora). The gun fires a more penetrating round out to greater maximum effective range and has a more lethal HE round (HEIT). This cannon is stabilized (Shoot on move) with a FCS. The Marders I saw a while ago did NOT even have thermal sights! Deception and concealment is easier against them. Again, the M240 is a superior MMG and I’m almost positive that the Marders I saw had no stabilization. The TOWs can be reloaded from the rear of the hull when the roof hatch is open with minimal exposure of the crew. Again the Marder requires someone to really expose themselves, right?

****The TOW launchers are designed so that small fragmentation and other external influences do NOT disable the ATGMs. Furthermore, the TOW launcher is driven up above the roof top parallel to the sight. The M2 allows you to be hidden with most of the vehicle yet fire the TOW. Yes, this does mean that the TOW launcher has to drive into position, something I never encountered as a problem though.

****The M2 just as the M1 has an automatic transmission where the LEO requires the driver to manually operate the system, which I believe is also the case on the Marder. You’re right, the M2 is a more complex a system that has a lot more engineering in it. Allison, the largest transmission manufacturer in the world is even building the transmission for the new German GTK, Sweedish CVs. Actually, the M2 had its tranny updated (Early mid 90s) since the M2 has grown heavier and the engine more powerful over the years.

i'd much rather take a jaguar 1 and 2 and a marder 1A5, (combined arms) instead of an M2A3.

****Anything that isn’t US is always better for the pundit. It hurts to accept reality at times. Especially when it’s always the same team with the best solution. The M2 is completely integrated into the FBCB2 system with it’s A3 version. You say combined arms and here is a system (M2A3) that is digitally linked into the battlefield where M1, M109A6, AH64D, MLRS…… are all part of. The M2 uses a common fuel JP8 with all other systems and is compatible with weapons and a lot of the hardware (Even interchangeable parts). Alright, whatever- the combined arms fight  You can’t get more combined arms or even Joint (purple) than the way the US is setting things up, and the M2 is part of this. Even JSTARS feeds data into the FBCB2 system that the M2A3 is part of. The M2s speed and range are matched to that of the M1 so that it can keep up in maneuver. Everything is standardized and normed on a M2 for air/sea or land transport. How can you fit better into a combined arms team than a M2? You do realize that even the older ODS has a system on board specifically for rapid use of artillery if a target is spotted? It will give you almost instantaneously a grid for the target so that a M109A6 can fire on it. The M2 is matched to the M1.

then you have 2 lightly armored vehicles. meaning 2 targets. 2 gunners, and 2 commanders scanning for targets at 2 different positions. the jaguar is tiny, and takes out tanks, while itself being almost impossible to hit.

****The M2 is an IFV not a tank killer (Yet it is not defenseless against tanks). The primary target for the M2 is other IFVs/APCs and infantry. Ultimately, the M2 was designed to fight the BMP1 and 2 in Central Europe.

Red6

[dejawolf]

the marder was also ultimately designed to fight BMP-1 and 2 in central europe. the marder was also designed as an IFV, not a tank killer, yet is also not defenseless against tanks. just as the M2, it can dismount a team of grunts to do the job, or mount the milan at the commanders hatch.
the 20mm gun is adequate at penetrating the paper thin armour of the BMP's.

and as said before, the bundeswehr has the jaguar to do the real anti-tank duties, or the leopard 2a5..

as such, the M2A2 is simply too expensive, and overengineered for the task of killing infantry and horse-old IFV's.

it's roof armour is also far too thin to handle top attacks, and protect it's dismounts. the hatch above the troop compartment is nothing more than around 15mm, while the marder has 2 spaced 15-20mm plates, which makes it better protected against top attacks than even the M1 and leopard 2a4 and A5...
in fact, almost the whole vehicle is protected in a shell of spaced armour.

and the low profile turret gives a significant advantage, and is in a high enough position to shoot over it's dismounted soldiers.

in fact, the marder gun is 20cm above the M2A2 gun.

[Red6]

the marder was also ultimately designed to fight BMP-1 and 2 in central europe. the marder was also designed as an IFV, not a tank killer, yet is also not defenseless against tanks. just as the M2, it can dismount a team of grunts to do the job, or mount the milan at the commanders hatch.
the 20mm gun is adequate at penetrating the paper thin armour of the BMP's.

and as said before, the bundeswehr has the jaguar to do the real anti-tank duties, or the leopard 2a5..

as such, the M2A2 is simply too expensive, and overengineered for the task of killing infantry and horse-old IFV's.

it's roof armour is also far too thin to handle top attacks, and protect it's dismounts. the hatch above the troop compartment is nothing more than around 15mm, while the marder has 2 spaced 15-20mm plates, which makes it better protected against top attacks than even the M1 and leopard 2a4 and A5...
in fact, almost the whole vehicle is protected in a shell of spaced armour.

and the low profile turret gives a significant advantage, and is in a high enough position to shoot over it's dismounted soldiers.

in fact, the marder gun is 20cm above the M2A2 gun.

*******
It's bed time.

But the Marder can't reach out as far with it's gun or ATGM, won't do as much damage, takes longer to shoot, can't see as well, is easier to jam with countermeasures, can't fire a second ATGM as quickly, can't fire it's gun on the move effectively, is less protected against ATGMs or HEAT rounds over a larger part of its surface and has no Forward Battlefield Command and Control as to date.

A musket can kill someone too, but I'd rather carry my over engineered M4 with M68 and PEQ2. It just seems to give me a little advantage.

The Jaguar is a old piece of shit. It's on its way out! It is what you would call FOD in Aviation. The M2 though not a tank killer by doctrine is more effective at this mission than the Jaguar. I'd argue that a old Hammerhead is better than the Jaguar, and that ain't saying much because the Hammerhead is old and outdated.

I mentioned "Hardhat" earlier. Also the M1 has 25mm as the weakest spot on the turret roof. The TC actually has quiet more (Also spaced already on the A1 over his head in the hatch) and the driver is under about 3 feet of armor. The M2A3 has upgraded armor in that the hatches and roof have been reinforced with Titanium alloys (Things that make the price jump a little). The hatch on the M2 and roof as a whole is very thick. For the TC probably around 8cm.

Red6

[dejawolf]

comparing a musket to an M4 with M68 and peq2 is like comparing a horseman with a towable howitzer piece to a leopard 2a5.
of the obvious choice between those, i'd go with the M4 under any circumstances.
that doesn't mean i would choose an M2A2 over a marder 1a3 though.

i'd rather have the main gun or coax ripped to pieces by gunfire, rather than have the turret front ripped up. the M2A2 has to expose it's whole turret to be able to fire the main gun, while the marder can fire both it's milan (if it's at all mounted) and main gun from behind a sand berm. if the 20mm is knocked (it's armoured), so be it. still has the coax mounted on the opposite side of the turret to rip up pesky crunchies. the crew and dismounts can drive away safely. if the M2A2 turret is hit, you'll have a gunner, TC or both screaming for a medic, or worse. then it doesn't matter how much hi-tech gadgets you have, or if you can see through smoke.

the marder is perfect for anti-soviet duties. it's got the roof armour to counter heavy soviet artillery. it's got the crew protected, and all that is left to have, is a few nice sand berms to shoot the charging BMP's from.

as far as i can see, the jaguar is as far from a piece of shit as i can imagine. the first thing it has, is size. or the lack of it. it's tiny by military standards.
second, it's light, but still manages to grab up some pretty heavy armour protection.

and it can also fire from a completely protected position behind a sand berm.

i know it's hard to accept that the M2A2 is such a horrible piece of shit, thrown together to counter soviet BMP's, but it is.

actually i was wrong about the marder. it's entire roof has 220mm RHA against HEAT.

[NEpi]

deja, you mean the Marder main goal is to keep infantry safe??
what a strange concept.

[dejawolf]

yes, it s a quite strange concept. even stranger is the concept of heavily armoured israeli APC's armed with a single M2hb.
you'd think the israelis would have gotten wiser with nearly 40 years of defending their country, and thrown lots of sights, guns and useless guided missiles all over the turret, for the ultimate in MOUT warfare.

[Ssnake]

Like I wrote in that other thread - stop the trolling.

[colin]

The Marder also came into service long before the Brad and set the standard for IFV's. The Brad is not a bad vehicle, but it seems to me suffering from mission overtask. Anyone who has bult a "wondervehicle" has failed because of all the compromises required. Imagine if the Soviet threat still existed, by now the Germans would have fielded their new version of the Marder.

The Jag is a evolution of a existing gun TD, and turned out to be a very good design for the price. Going from statements from ex-serviceman, the 901 never really worked as well as the US had hoped, the hammerhead was prone to failure and made the vehicle unstable.

[TankHunter]

the marder was also ultimately designed to fight BMP-1 and 2 in central europe. the marder was also designed as an IFV, not a tank killer, yet is also not defenseless against tanks. just as the M2, it can dismount a team of grunts to do the job, or mount the milan at the commanders hatch.
the 20mm gun is adequate at penetrating the paper thin armour of the BMP's.

and as said before, the bundeswehr has the jaguar to do the real anti-tank duties, or the leopard 2a5..

as such, the M2A2 is simply too expensive, and overengineered for the task of killing infantry and horse-old IFV's.

it's roof armour is also far too thin to handle top attacks, and protect it's dismounts. the hatch above the troop compartment is nothing more than around 15mm, while the marder has 2 spaced 15-20mm plates, which makes it better protected against top attacks than even the M1 and leopard 2a4 and A5...
in fact, almost the whole vehicle is protected in a shell of spaced armour.

and the low profile turret gives a significant advantage, and is in a high enough position to shoot over it's dismounted soldiers.

in fact, the marder gun is 20cm above the M2A2 gun.

Plus the Brad is quite a large target

[Red6]

yes, it s a quite strange concept. even stranger is the concept of heavily armoured israeli APC's armed with a single M2hb.
you'd think the israelis would have gotten wiser with nearly 40 years of defending their country, and thrown lots of sights, guns and useless guided missiles all over the turret, for the ultimate in MOUT warfare.

The US Army designed this type of Turret for the M2 intentionally. Over a decade ago you heard a lot of pundits talking crap. Then came Iraq 1. But that wasn't a good comparison supposedly. Then came Chechnya, and suddenly the Russians have the Kliever turret design.

Suddenly the BMP3 uses aluminum alloy as its base armor.

Let me make this really clear since it's going in one ear and out the other on you. On the Marder you will have to expose yourself in order to fire your one, less ranged, less penetrating, lower behind armor effect lesser jam proof ATGM. Your gun will NOT range as far nor do you have the damage of the Bradley’s 25mm and it will not see as well in smoke or dust and is not stabilized. You are in a vehicle with NO "DAS" system capabilities which the ODS and up have; and practically NO HEAT protection which the M2 had in its first versions already (Older version of ERA). The Marder is a steel design and will spall more again. Not even your roof armor argument really holds true. The only real advantage that the Marder has is in mine protection on the A5 version.

Have you ever seen a M2 or even just been around one? It appears that you get your information from other websites. The M2 "As I have mentioned before" can fire its ATGM from almost a complete defilade because of that design feature that you tried to describe as bad earlier. It drives the TOW up to a position high enough where adequate clearance is given for the TOW even if the M2 has nothing but its optics exposed.

Actually, the Israelis are very smart with building super heavy APCs just as the Russians did later after the got their buts handed to them. In a urban fight such a design like the Israelis have is superb.

Red6

[dejawolf]

yes, i truly admire the israelis design concepts. (i do, no pun. note the word useless) but i got a real problem with the bradley.
i know the bradley can elevate it's TOW missiles to the height of the sight. and i made sure they did in my model as well.
just sorta left out that detail, so that i could boast a bit more about the marders capabilities.
it's nice that the bradley got that rafael ERA up and running. it truly needed that.
though i wonder how the ERA will stick up against a quick burst of 30mm HE rounds and a few 73mm rounds for spice, followed by a few spandrels to cook things up real nice after a hefty artillery barrage. that's what it's designed for, isn't it?

[Red6]

yes, i truly admire the israelis design concepts. (i do, no pun. note the word useless) but i got a real problem with the bradley.
i know the bradley can elevate it's TOW missiles to the height of the sight. and i made sure they did in my model as well.
just sorta left out that detail, so that i could boast a bit more about the marders capabilities.
it's nice that the bradley got that rafael ERA up and running. it truly needed that.
though i wonder how the ERA will stick up against a quick burst of 30mm HE rounds and a few 73mm rounds for spice, followed by a few spandrels to cook things up real nice after a hefty artillery barrage. that's what it's designed for, isn't it?

ERA was available for the Bradley already in the early versions (The company that manufactured it started with a “m”). There are a few pictures out there where you can see the Bradley with basically the US made ERA (Based on Blazer) on the early A1 and A2s. The newer ERA is a newer generation ERA and even increases the sabot protection on the covered areas considerably. The first newer generation ERA was delivered sometime BEFORE 1993 since it was used on the M2A2 in Somalia (The Brads were from Panama)

The Base armor of the M2A2 (late 80s) and up is capable of 30mm turret and hull front and 14.5mm all around, everywhere else. With ERA the covered areas are capable of dealing with MOST (Not all) small and some medium AT weapon systems and has increased sabot protection.

The problem with the comparisons is that the relative values/degree of importance are ignored for certain issues. The ODS and up is capable and has used countermeasure systems to include a MCD, false target generator and laser detector. This is not a petty issue and provides a significant advantage in protection for the M1 and M2 (Both use the same system). You can't just say "Well, the LEO has a nice storage compartment" and pretend like that mitigates this discrepancy and set both somehow magically equal on the battlefield. Internal storage of ammunition on the LEO is not a minor issue! You can’t just say, well the tank is a little shorter so that cancels out the issue with internal storage of ammunition.

The Russians too now have built a super heavy APC with the Kliever turret on it. It was used the second time in Chechnya with success. The Israelis have used the heavy APCs with success as well. What matters are results! Not some ideological or philosophical belief in “How” things should be or the way “You’d like” to see the world. Heavy APCs have found themselves a niche in the Urban fight. The point is to fight the enemy, not make your idea/plan or view work.

Aluminum has until now prevailed as one of the best materials for APC/IFV construction because it’s lighter for equal protection, ridged and needs less superstructure, does not rust and if penetrated spalls less. The FIRST vehicle to use this concept was the M113 which was in that respect a breakthrough in vehicle manufacturing.

I don’t get where you’re coming from?! The M2 has and has had ERA for some time. It’s effective and the Marder has nothing. You say it’s about time for the M2 yet you think the Marder somehow has an advantage in protection or firepower?

[dejawolf]

just realized i've been supporting lightly armoured APC's while at the same time supporting israeli HAPC's.
ERA was first introduced on the M2A2. the new armour panels were designed to accomodate it. M2A2 was up for grabs in 1988,
while the first brad entered service in 1983.

btw, have you seen the commanders AA sight on the M2A2? little plastic thing attached to the gun tube, which easily gets clogged with sand.
another stroke of genius.

base version of M2 bradley is estimated to have around 40mm of armour on the front hull, and 60 on the turret. and now i'm being quite generous.

luckily, that figure tripled for the front hull, and doubled for the front turret, just in time for ODS with the M2A2. now the bushmaster. one helluva gun. already starring in the adequate LAV-25 and some others i'm sure. got a great thermal as well. just sad the complete package doesn't hold up.
the TOW launcher got an elevation rate of 15 degrees a second, and cannot be manually elevated if the engine should cease functioning.

US soldiers got to try out the marder before the bradley was developed. said they liked the vehicle. the yanks could have easily added the bushmaster in a new mounting on the marder, and threwn in the TIS for good measure, and cream it up with ERA at considerably lower costs than developing their own.
and add twin launchers too somewhere, just to make things more interesting. but well, i guess the marder was simply too heavily armoured for the US defence officials. also, you might be familiar with the MBT-70 joint US-german tank. design goal was to make the worlds best tank. instead things split up, germans made the leopard 2, and USA made the M1 abrams. the M1 was a bastard child, with skinny armour, and the venerable M68A1 105mm gun.
then again some US defence official decided this base model wasn't a great tank, and slabbed on some extra layers of armour, and accepted the german rheinmetall gun (which had been in the base model of the leopard 2) and removed the highly efficient stub catcher basket of the rheinmetall gun, strung a coax ammunition feeder over the top of the gun cradle, and named it M256, with a quite annoying price tag to the depriment of US tax payers.
this modification also set the need for a new gunshield design, new bustle ammo storage, along with other changes coming along the line.
basically, a quite heavy turret modification.
this happened in the timespan of 2-5 years. the leopard almost kept it's original turret configuration all the way to the 2a4, before it was time for an upgrade.
adjustments included welding of a stub ejection port on the left side of the turret, and removal of a wind sensor, as well as ballistic computer upgrades.

i heard the M1A2 had some long needed changes in the gunners FCS.

closing argument, the marder doesn't have an advantage in protection and firepower, because it doesn't need it.
it's got adequate firepower and armour for the threaths it was designed to face.

[Ssnake]

Give it a rest, willya?
It's not really funny anymore.

[TankHunter]

Give it a rest, willya?
It's not really funny anymore.

Ah Ssnake, it is fun to see two people beat each other over the head. In a car crash sorta way, ya know what I mean? :twisted: :lol: :wink:

[Ssnake]

Yeah, and before this gets out of hand like the other, I'll stop it right now.