Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kev2go

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,180 profile views
  1. Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

    Crewable T90S. widespread use of tank. ( biggest user of export T90's India) same fire control and 1G46 sighting system as the T80U, but with a ESSA thermal sight installed.
  2. Tactical FPS

    yet another sandbox/ open world zombie game... how original.
  3. History of US Tanks.

    Guess we cant compare Russian tank because " muh weight disqualifier." I never directly compared them besides stating israelis had different requirements and the Bradley didnt suit their needs. If it's an ifv it's still an ifv. Irregardless of weight. Just like a t72 or t90 is still an mbt class tank like the m1 abrams series of tanks Ssnake made the valid points on the different design philopshies a couple posts earlier. I think you got the wrong idea of what I was saying. I only said bmp is better with regards to lower profile. In no other category did I say the bmp was superior to Bradley like with optics etc. Recon vehicles that would have thermals and the sorts of optics that Bradley would have on a lower profile are better suited to scouting if the goal is to avoid or reduce chances of being seen. Yes I am aware of the different requirements and reduction might have less but it still made it a valid m113 replacement all whilst improving ergonomics. The whole anti mine protection thing only became more apparent in recent wars in the middle east against insurgents using mines and ieds. This wasnt so obvious back in 1970s or even the 80s.You are looking at this with hindsight. And yes its quoted in various places that the some in us army tried to force the bradley as a m113 replacement. And yes ultimately there was a capability gap due to lacking a modern successor to the m113 for so many years. The point is cost. Ampv makes far more cost effective as a pure troop carrier than the m2. It's not about raw carry capacity mate today. I dont know why you are so fixated on that. Requirements have changed and evolved since. Today is a different story. But at the same time the written requirements arent the bible. Nor are they cover all things. All this anti IED and anti mine stuff is based off countering threats in asymmetrical anti insurgent warfare. So much that people forget conventionL war is ever a possibility. The same sort of nonsense happened when some pencil neck assumed all future aerial warfare would be shooting down bombers and and attack mission stricktly lugging nukes. And hence there was no requirement for guns or aerial dogfight combat training vs fighters. Remember how well that worked out? Oh yeA..... But at the same time different nations have different requirements. Just because us does something a certain way doesnt make it a universal fact that thier way is the right way for everyone. From a strictly technical point or view yes. But all the behind the scenes fuckery games played against the requests of proper testing are valid story to tell, and greater completes the full picture. So a more sophisticated way of articulating you were an infantryman chauffeured via rotary winged aircraft from point a to point b instead of a ground vehicle. And a journalist? Wow they dont teach impartiality or to use critical thinking skills anymore? Or are you just paid by us military to parrot what thier various p.r departments wants you to? I'm sorry but this somehow doesnt make your opinion more factual or true. I'm still more inclined to take into greater standing the words of an ex armor officer that also had an assignment at Aberdeen proving grounds Well you can find m1a1s in private museums. Basic M1a1 ( burlinton 2) is no longer in use. You know manners are a 2 way street. You may not care for politeness , but remember to not expect people to reply to you in a polite manner either if you talk to people this way. By that logic Then what is the point of you including images for m1 armor exposed because" hur durr we dont know the exact value". Il make it easy, il tell you why because getting s visual to see how the nera arrays are composed still gives us an understanding of how it works. This is pertinent to this thread. Not all nera arays will be exactly the same as what the m1 has. Oh and by the way there are some figures of Burlington 1 Nera protection from the CIA You're welcome
  4. History of US Tanks.

    i suppose then that makes sense. Puma is another good IFV option to have brought up.
  5. History of US Tanks.

    Heres something to contribute to the M1 Abrams history with regards Burlington 1 ; Diagrams of the NERA from a unclassified CIA report. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91B00390R000300220014-8.pdf But whatever you can probably disregard it because im not a "professional" researcher doing this for a living like Damien.
  6. History of US Tanks.

    because Namer is substantially more armored than the Bradley. Its not just a matter of extension to accomdate more troops Its basically a MBT chasis turned into a Carrier. T15 on the other hand is a quite impressive and it certainly would fall under IFV, but weight gain is more than just extra room for troops. its because of new armor arrays, and ERA compared to the BMP., but obviosuly not definitive due to lack of open source data to make it a fact. Ive otherwise refused to compare BMP's of the cold war time period to the Bradley because Soviet design philosophy was different, as well as their attitude/ mentality towards the life of human beings at the time. and Yes Bradely would have higher tech optics, and FCS, but BMP had the lower profile, so in that regard it would be better for Recon. Yes and something we can agree, on but that doesnt remove the fact that the M2 bradley isnt an M113 replacement but entirely different class of vehicle. The NAMER is a super armored Armored personnel carier but using MBT chasis. Either way us still had a requirement for replacing the M113 , after realizing the M2 bradley couldn't despite working for what it was intended to be. # See armored multi purpose Vehicle. And this is what i said... It took long road of evolution for the M2 to become that vehicle. By the time it did these other competing IFV design were on the market. Again making assumptions here on what you think other people know. Far from the truth. Only a portion of my knowledge is based on the Pentagon wars , and i was referring to the book not the movie, which is taken from the horses mouth so to speak, far more in depth and not dumbed down like the film. Perhaps you shouldn't dismiss everyone as an internet Expert for challenging what you know or expressing different opinions . Your not the only "expert" out there. (FyI not referring to myself but quotes from other people who are in the business) . what your resorting to is called "AD Hominum" now Otherwise it comes off as being egotistical on your part. AS i said if you don't agree with others opinion thats fine, but no reason to make it out like your opinion is gospel, and insulting those who dare say anything otherwise or that try to offer a debate or discussion. I of course meant sharing information that is "open source" not opsec, but i don't see why a Polish ex tanker would happen to know M1A2 armor composition anyways given that US weren't willing to share such information with Swedes who would have been a potential customer .
  7. History of US Tanks.

    and i assume you would at least you have source(s) that provides more accurate estimates than that if you dismiss it?
  8. History of US Tanks.

    UM i very much know the difference between the two. IFV is supposed to fight alongside troops, but IT nonetheless replaced the M113. So taxing troops is part of an IFV's job. Its the backbone of modern mechanized infantry. Just becuase other IFV's dont hold 11 troops doesn't mean the US should have made that compromise if aiming to create the "best" IFV , that Left a capability gap if there is only the antiquated M113 ( which US wished was replaced by the m2) and IFV option. US neglected to have a proper Troops carrier replacement for the M113 all these years instead forcing the M2 Bradley to entirely fill that void. Just look at the Isrealis. they had the right idea for the M113 replacement . the Namer, and it could be turned into an IFV with some modifications. i respectfully disagree with you opinion that the M2 . ITs not the bEST IFV. The M2 has barely any export sales going for it. Israel had droppeda Custom modified bradley in its trials instead adopting Achzarit in the 80s. an if there are people within the US military even to day that dislike it. AS provided with earlier example it is by no means a universal opinion speaks volumes. High tech, sure, It was an ambitous project ( but you can still call it feature creep) but The M2 when it came out had plenty of problems, that would have made it less than ideal for service Only over time has it evolved into a decent vehicle. All the quotes you proved and the images you show are of the Modern M2 Bradley family. IT was quite idiotic to store ammunition and Fuel directly inside the crew compartment. Based on COL Burton's suggestion to store them on the exterior the Bradley became a safer and more survivable vehicle by the time of the Gulf war. Given its thin Aluminum armor it could not even expect to withstand shots from Anti Infantry weapons like RPG's , It took up armoring and ERA of newer models to make it protectable to the threats it would have encounted even in its IFV role. And if yo want to argue about the semantics about Scouting vs Force Recon, then in that case that makes his point even more valid.
  9. History of US Tanks.

    he makes quite a bit of good points with regards to M3 variation of the M2 not ideally suited for scouting. M1 has a lower profile, and he noted better optics. the Turbine engine is less noisy than a Diesel , and Of course as a MBT it has way more firepower and survivability, meaning that if a scouting mission goes wrong itl pack a bigger punch. Bradley is a mediocre vehicle, if you look at its original specification , its production models have far deviated what it was supposed to have beem . The bradey should be made a staple example of what happens if you " feature creep" into a design, and how to avoid it,. Its honestly at best Jack of all trades master of none . IT holds less troops than the vehicle it replaced ( m113 had 11 vs 7 riding in Bradley ) , and its too tall to be ideally suited for Scout role, and later variants due to weight increases were no longer Amphibious, further removing one of the intended requirements which was a feature creep on its own. Ultimately for the greater firepower and protection against infantry based weapons) offered the bravely sacrificed troop carry capacity, all whilst being more expensive and requiring more of them to be purchased for the smaller troop carrying capacity.
  10. History of US Tanks.

    Damien i think you can update the section on M1 abrams. have you seen the Swedish tank trials PDF? sheds some light on the M1A2 Du-less export model ( but also Leopard 2a5 and Leclerc) protection levels .
  11. DCS 2.5 Released

    Yea the a4e looks really good high fidelity sim for something from the community made for free. Although I'm a bit surprised this version of the a4e is a late mod ( given the humpback it has ecm package ) doesn appear to have a an/apr 25 radar warning reciever ( or any at all).
  12. Leopard 2E / 2A6

    Basically it is.
  13. History of US Tanks.

    as a question Is it true that theres only a SIngle BAttlation in the US Army left thats still using M1A1 i ( and its in the Reserve) , whilst the Rest are all M1A2's family? Do any those M1A1's in Army service have Crows?
  14. History of US Tanks.

    Depends who you ask.