Jump to content
Damian90

History of US Tanks.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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.

No, US didn't need to have an IFV carrying as much troops as M113. And there are reasons for this. To have a quiet well protected vehicle with turret that have heavy armament and capable to carry so many dismounts + crew, it means vehicle would have very large internal volume and would be insanely heavy. Jesis look at Namer or T-15! Namer carry only 3 man crew + 9 dismounts and weights above 60 metric tons, T-15 carry 3 man crew + 8 dismounts and also weights most likely way above 50 metric tons. Do you imagine how heavy an M2 would be if it would carry 3 man crew + 11 dismounts?!

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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.  

Namer is larger and heavier vehicle than M2, and it carries only 2 dismounts more than M2A3, it's 9 vs 7 total, altough in practical terms, M2A3 carry 6, while Namer probably would carry 8 if we count soldiers equipment and other stuff that is needed to be stored inside.

 

And these vehicles were designed for different requirements and doctrine. It's like comparing apples with oranges.

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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.

It is best IFV in it's weight category, which is around 30+ metric tons.

 

Of course amateurs will compare a 30+ tons vehicle with 60+ tons vehicle, because fuck logic right?

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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.

Oh wow, and other vehicle designs do not evolve eh? They are perfect from the start? Jesus Christ, come on.

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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.

Oh I get it, you base your knowledge about M2 development on this idiotic film "Pentagon Wars" that is nothing more than a lie? ;)

The reality is that all IFV's designed in that era, BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3, Warrior, Marder, CV90 store ammunition and fuel inside. By the way US Army actually tested M2 variant with external isolated ammunition and fuel storage in the 80's, but there were other more important priorities, and budget is not from rubber. And the idea returned with Bradley NG chassis.

Oh and by the way, just like Ssnake said, at that time no IFV was well armored... well actually there was, I will remind you that M2A2 which was uparmored variant and yes ERA for it was developed in the 80's, so M2A2 was actually that Bradley protected vs 30mm APDS and perhaps also APFSDS and with ERA vs RPG's, ATGM's and tank HEAT rounds.

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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. 

No, there are simply different recon tactics and different vehicles will fill the role. By the way you realize that Warsaw Pact also intended to use BMP's and their variants for force recon?

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

and  i assume you would at least you have  source(s) that provides more accurate estimates than that if you dismiss it?

No, for several reasons. First is that I ended any discussion with people in the internet about this subject. I might or might not know some things, and if I know something, I will definately not share this with you or anyone else. Especially considering that I know that NATO counterintelligence agencies started to be interested in such people that share such informations here and there. And I definately do not want a small talk with sad gentlemen from my countries counterintelligence agency, because I told too much to some random guy in the internet. Not matters if what I said was truth or not. I speak only about non OPSEC stuff.

Besides these discussions in the internet among armchair "experts" just make me laugh these days.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Damian90 said:

No, US didn't need to have an IFV carrying as much troops as M113. And there are reasons for this. To have a quiet well protected vehicle with turret that have heavy armament and capable to carry so many dismounts + crew, it means vehicle would have very large internal volume and would be insanely heavy. Jesis look at Namer or T-15! Namer carry only 3 man crew + 9 dismounts and weights above 60 metric tons, T-15 carry 3 man crew + 8 dismounts and also weights most likely way above 50 metric tons. Do you imagine how heavy an M2 would be if it would carry 3 man crew + 11 dismounts?!

 

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.

 

 

Quote

 

Namer is larger and heavier vehicle than M2, and it carries only 2 dismounts more than M2A3, it's 9 vs 7 total, altough in practical terms, M2A3 carry 6, while Namer probably would carry 8 if we count soldiers equipment and other stuff that is needed to be stored inside.

 

And these vehicles were designed for different requirements and doctrine. It's like comparing apples with oranges.

 

 

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.

 

 

US_Army_AMPV_compared_to_the_M113.png

 

Quote

 

Oh wow, and other vehicle designs do not evolve eh? They are perfect from the start? Jesus Christ, come on.

 

 

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.

Quote

Oh I get it, you base your knowledge about M2 development on this idiotic film "Pentagon Wars" that is nothing more than a lie? ;)

 

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. 

 

 

 

Quote

 



lk with sad gentlemen from my countries counterintelligence agency, because I told too much to some random guy in the internet. Not matters if what I said was truth or not. I speak only about non OPSEC stuff.

Besides these discussions in the internet among armchair "experts" just make me laugh these days.

 

 

 

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 ;).

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

At the time no IFV could, especially not in the weight class of the Bradley. Back then the Aluminum hull was a sensible (if expensive) choice that offered the best compromise between weight and protection level. Aluminum, after all, offers a much higher resistance in impact situations than the equivalent mass of steel could offer. If we're talking of "today", there's basically two schools of design - the ultra-heavy concepts like Achzarit and Namer that are basically MBT hulls redesigned for infantry transport, or the most modern designs that combine nano steels and composite armor to protect frontally up to 30mm caliber and RPGs.

The question is for which battlefield do we want to tailor the vehicles, and what's the strategic mobility option. The big losses of infantry riding in vehicles in the last two decades came from mine/IED threat. Battle buses like the MRAPs were the short-term response. But they are unwieldy, relatively weakly armed, and basically only offer protection against small arms and IEDs, nothing else. As long as that is the threat and you don't expect a lot of off-road tactical and operational maneuver, they're good enough. Change any of these parameters however, and they are out.

 

Armies need to prepare for a wide range of scenarios. For the US Army, strategic mobility is an important element. But I think it's time to acknowledge that Hercules transportability is a pipe dream that cannot be reconciliated with the desire for adequate protection. The next best concept would be a German Puma that actually works. If you abandon all desire for air lifting IFVs into theater you can of course go all out and come up with a Namer plus remotely operated 40mm turret or something. But then you're very quickly breaching the next important barrier, MLC50. Even if you forfeit airlift as a requirement, you still want to use roads and bridges. The Namer is an option specifically for Israel because none of these factors are of importance to them; to pretty much everybody else, they are.

Personally I think that the Puma is a pretty decent concept that doesn't go overboard with feature creep or demands for "absolute ballistic protection". It maintains the airlift option, at least under the assumption that the A400M actually is available, which however is right between the Hercules and the Galaxy in the US's airlift spectrum, so not exactly ideal for the US right now. But as good as the Herc is, it will never be able to transport modern IFVs that offer "good" (though not perfect) protection. As soon as you make IFVs as heavy as MBTs, your ability to get them into theater (and to move them, once there) is equally limited.

i suppose then that makes sense.  Puma is another good IFV option to have brought up.

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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.

So? Namer is larger yes, have more armor yes, is heavier yes, what's the point comparing a 60+ tons heavy vehicle with 30+ tons heavy vehicle?

 

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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.

And again, so? T-15 is larger, heavier, have larger engine than Bradley, look at it's engine compartment lenght, it alone is larger than in Bradley.

 

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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.

Really? A BMP would be better for recon? So in your mind recon is more efficent when you have problems detecting enemy and the enemy can detect you easier because he have thermal sights for example. Not to mention other factors like ergonomics of the workplace, if you would be inside such a recon variant of a BMP and inside a for example M7 Bradley which is a proper modern recon variant, you would appreciate the M7 more.

 

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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.

Yeah, AMPV is direct replacement for M113, the IFV M2 was never intended as a direct replace for M113.

By the way you know what AMPV APC variant will as per US Army requirements, carry only 6 dismounts? So what it is again inferior to M113 or perhaps you will finally realize that US Army might have different experiences and requirements than some armchair experts?

You see more dismounts not necessary mean a better decision, there are other factors that you need to take in to account, like ergonomics, seats design even, if you replace simple benches with safe seats that protect soldier from effects of mine blasts etc. You will have less room for less soldiers, with benches you might have 11 spots for 11 troops, with safe seats this is reduced to 6. But that was a requirement and a priority.

 

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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.

Really? So you think CV90 didn't needed evolution? And I honestly still think CV90 is not that great, considering it's limited firepower.

 

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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. 

 

For me a proper book about M2's development is Hunnicutt book, everything else is not worth time and money.

 

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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 ;).

1. I am not an ex tanker. I am an ex AirCav soldier. But I work as military journalist now.

As for my knowledge, let's say I have friends in US, we share information, we talk about stuff, some other stuff I take from various sources. What I know is not necessary thing I want or I should share. Oh and believe me, there are people in Poland that actually seen for example M1A1 armor arrays.

Of course you can say what you want, I really do not care, especially considering what I know, I do not need to get in to nonsense dialog.

And yes yes, about me, I know I am an example of an absolute evil for some people, I am not nice etc. yes I know that for a long time.
 

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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.

And the point of posting these drawings is? By the way I posted them here long time ago, but still want to know what is the point? Did M1 had NERA? Yes, do we know it's exact protection? No, and if someone know this, such person will definately not share it. So again what is the point?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Damian90 said:

So? Namer is larger yes, have more armor yes, is heavier yes, what's the point comparing a 60+ tons heavy vehicle with 30+ tons heavy vehicle?

 

 

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.

Quote

 

Really? A BMP would be better for recon? So in your mind recon is more efficent when you have problems detecting enemy and the enemy can detect you easier because he have thermal sights for example. Not to mention other factors like ergonomics of the workplace, if you would be inside such a recon variant of a BMP and inside a for example M7 Bradley which is a proper modern recon variant, you would appreciate the M7 more.

 

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.

 

Quote

 

Yeah, AMPV is direct replacement for M113, the IFV M2 was never intended as a direct replace for M113.

By the way you know what AMPV APC variant will as per US Army requirements, carry only 6 dismounts? So what it is again inferior to M113 or perhaps you will finally realize that US Army might have different experiences and requirements than some armchair experts?

 

 

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.

 

 

Quote

 

For me a proper book about M2's development is Hunnicutt book, everything else is not worth time and money.

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.

Quote

 

1. I am not an ex tanker. I am an ex AirCav soldier. But I work as military journalist now.

 

 

 

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

Quote



As for my knowledge, let's say I have friends in US, we share information, we talk about stuff, some other stuff I take from various sources. What I know is not necessary thing I want or I should share. Oh and believe me, there are people in Poland that actually seen for example M1A1 armor arrays.

 

Well you can find m1a1s in private museums.  Basic M1a1 ( burlinton 2) is no longer in use.

Quote

 

 



 I really do not care, especially considering what I know, I do not need to get in to nonsense 

 

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.

 

 

Quote

 

And the point of posting these drawings is?

By the way I posted them here long time ago, but still want to know what is the point? Did M1 had NERA? Yes, do we know it's exact protection? No, and if someone know this, such person will definately not share it. So again what is the point?

 

 

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

 

CM8kmPS.jpg

 

 

You're welcome

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×