|
Somebody link me to Ensign expendables post about commissars?
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Alright. How does the Bradley compare against the BMP? The designs are similar and as such they're both riddled with short-sighted compromises. In many ways the BMP-1 is a better system than its successors despite being developed decades earlier, since they started trading more and more troop compartment for heavier firepower. The BMP-2 featured a 30 mm autocannon that takes hours to reload, while the BMP-3 has a full-on 100 mm rifled gun but doesn't have the control systems or armor to compete with an actual tank. One of the best things about them is that at least they have the virtue of being relatively light, weighing in at 14 - 20 tons instead of an absurd 28+ tons. This means that while both the BMP series and the Bradley excel only at putting a small handful of lightly equipped men into harms way with a mini-tank that has little sustainability, at least the BMP can do that in a different country. A C-130 would be quite capable of airlifting a BMP, but there's no way in hell that it could carry a Bradley; and so instead all Bradleys get moved on much larger aircraft (which are much more limited in where they can land) or by ship (which are similarly limited). Also, BMPs are actually amphibious and not just theoretically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Alright. How does the Bradley compare against the BMP? The original BMP-1 predates the Bradley by about 15 years. It weighs half of what the Bradley does while carrying two more riflemen and having similar armament (both a gun and ATGM's). The original BMP-1's gun is really pretty lovely, but they kinda fixed that on the BMP-2 (contemporary with the Bradley). TheFluff fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Wasn't the BMP1 the one that had the seat for all the infantry literally being the giant gas tank as well as making escaping a burning BMP hard because the doors were also giant gas tanks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Wasn't the BMP1 the one that had the seat for all the infantry literally being the giant gas tank as well as making escaping a burning BMP hard because the doors were also giant gas tanks? The doors were fuel tanks, but I believe it was standard practice when the vehicle was expected to enter combat to empty them out and fill them with sand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Somebody link me to Ensign expendables post about commissars? This one?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Hahahahhahaha. When was the last time you ever heard about an AAV or EA6-B in the news? Hell, what about an F-16? Also, I've never heard about strykers except when they were brand new and were demonstrated as the Brand New Thing. Point being: media coverage is a bad metric. quote:They're too big to do street patrols, they're too heavy to do rural reconnaissance, they're too soft to lead operations, and they don't carry enough troops or enough weapons to act as a support element. The complaints made in that movie were completely legitimate. I think the only story I've ever heard of a Bradley being at all useful was back in the Gulf War, where at least it could use its TOW missiles against Iraqi tanks. Until it quickly ran out of ready ammunition and had to plink away with its autocannon while retreating as fast (lol) as possible. Reading through a history of VII Corps in the Persian Gulf War, Bradleys took out plenty of tanks with TOWs and even some T-55s with 25mm cannon fire, and were generally successful as the scout element and in keeping pace with the Abrams. Compound this with the ample harm they inflicted on thinner-skinned vehicles and infantry and your claim that they're under-armed seems dubious. The Bradley was never designed to perform street patrols, so I don't see how that's relevant. TheFluff posted:The original BMP-1 predates the Bradley by about 15 years. It weighs half of what the Bradley does while carrying two more riflemen and having similar armament (both a gun and ATGM's). The original BMP-1's gun is really pretty lovely, but they kinda fixed that on the BMP-2 (contemporary with the Bradley). BMP-2s are also so unbearably uncomfortable to be inside that troops sit on top of them instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:When was the last time you ever heard about an AAV or EA6-B in the news? Hell, what about an F-16? Also, I've never heard about strykers except when they were brand new and were demonstrated as the Brand New Thing. Point being: media coverage is a bad metric. Reading through a history of VII Corps in the Persian Gulf War, Bradleys took out plenty of tanks with TOWs and even some T-55s with 25mm cannon fire, and were generally successful as the scout element and in keeping pace with the Abrams. Compound this with the ample harm they inflicted on thinner-skinned vehicles and infantry and your claim that they're under-armed seems dubious. The Bradley was never designed to perform street patrols, so I don't see how that's relevant. I don't really want to get into a discussion about modern combat in a history thread, but I think that your information seems a bit out of date. I mean sure some Bradleys were able to pick apart some Iraqi tanks at 73 Eastings with their autocannons, but they were essentially at point blank range. It isn't practicable to expect a vehicle to blunder its way 25-50 feet away from an oblivious tank before opening fire. Broadly speaking, they did a decent job during the turkey hunt since they had tow missiles that could plink a couple retreating tanks and then the fight would be over since the Iraqis would be gone. I can understand you not hearing about AAVs or EA6Bs, since they're not that hot right now (neither are useful for the kind of combat we're conducting, and actually the last EA6B was retired in June), but if you aren't hearing about F-16s and Strykers then you probably just aren't reading the right journals, since they're both seeing active combat right now in Afghanistan. You're right that the Bradley was never designed to perform street patrols, though, which is precisely why it hasn't been that useful. Basically, the operational history of the Bradley has been two-parted: It did an acceptable job of blowing up retreating Iraqi units during the Gulf War, and it did a very sub-par job of conducting patrols and reconnaissance in Iraq and Afghanistan. The litany of complaints about it was pretty extensive, including everything from its relatively low speed, its outdated optics, and its unwieldy weight (at one point they made an urban survival kit only to discover that it was already a total fatass and couldn't handle anything more and so they didn't distribute the kit), to its slow as gently caress door ramp that makes any rapid exit or assault impossible. It was removed from combat in 2007 when the MRAP replacements started showing up, and as far as I know it hasn't seen action since. Maybe it just needs its NBC mechanized warfare environment/hellscape to truly showcase its capabilities, but there's still better vehicles for that and frankly I doubt that it will ever get a chance to improve its reputation. Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The doors were fuel tanks, but I believe it was standard practice when the vehicle was expected to enter combat to empty them out and fill them with sand. how the gently caress is this supposed to work sand is heavy, and its protection ability comes from being able to absorb and distribute force from bullets and having sand in direct contact with fuel is asking to kill your engine. and how are you even expected to flush out the sand in the first place? precious water or more fuel?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:how the gently caress is this supposed to work The rear tanks are auxiliary, get used up during road travel, then are disconnected from the system and filled with sand. Ostensibly they just replace the drat things with new ones if it survives, and hose the sandy ones out at the motor pool to make them ready for the next BMP that manages to make it back. Obviously the idea of a reusable troop carrier came along late in the design process, ok?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I don't really want to get into a discussion about modern combat in a history thread, but I think that your information seems a bit out of date. I mean sure some Bradleys were able to pick apart some Iraqi tanks at 73 Eastings with their autocannons, but they were essentially at point blank range. It isn't practicable to expect a vehicle to blunder its way 25-50 feet away from an oblivious tank before opening fire. Broadly speaking, they did a decent job during the turkey hunt since they had tow missiles that could plink a couple retreating tanks and then the fight would be over since the Iraqis would be gone. I can understand you not hearing about AAVs or EA6Bs, since they're not that hot right now (neither are useful for the kind of combat we're conducting, and actually the last EA6B was retired in June), but if you aren't hearing about F-16s and Strykers then you probably just aren't reading the right journals, since they're both seeing active combat right now in Afghanistan. You're right that the Bradley was never designed to perform street patrols, though, which is precisely why it hasn't been that useful. Did the americans ever get a chance to debrief and interrogate Iraqi soldiers? Did they realise that Bradleys were thin-skinned and vulnerable to relatively low caliber arms, or were they treating them as full-on tanks and disengaging without a fight?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Are their any good books on serious procurement/design fuckups? The Bradley and that prewar French tank were both hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Did the americans ever get a chance to debrief and interrogate Iraqi soldiers? Did they realise that Bradleys were thin-skinned and vulnerable to relatively low caliber arms, or were they treating them as full-on tanks and disengaging without a fight? I believe one of the Bradleys was knocked out by a T-55's top mounted heavy machine gun, though the Iraqi army performed poorly in general. The weight is a huge problem for the Bradley, though- having a full sized turret with optics and all the weapons it has comes with a cost in weight. Also, while the BMP does have fuel storage in the fighting compartment, if the fighting compartment is penetrated by a hit, the infantry's going to have a bad day regardless. I do remember when the Stryker came out with all its hype for being.. pretty much the same thing as a Sisu Pasi, VAB, or BTR but made by General Dynamics and a lot more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
So all that bullshit and we made what the Bradly should have been in the first place?  :Militaryindustralcomplex: Mother Russia gets more with less again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I happened to notice on my way in to post this that this thread is now 25,000 posts long. That's a whole lot of Wallenstein, yo. He's absolutely in the right, tho?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
The whole bmp fuel door thing gets mentioned every few pages, but firstly diesel is actually a pretty good defence against heat warheads, and isn't explosive like gasoline. The merkava front hull is filled with diesel for this reason. Secondly it's not like you're going to have a good time in any contemporary afv if you get hit in the rear. And lastly what exactly were you doing with your back to the enemy anyway Comrade?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
bewbies posted:lol nimrod Brits actually got a really cool ship naming convention, particularly capital ships. Ours is dull as dishwater which is not at all suitable for a navy of our caliber.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 05:25
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Did the americans ever get a chance to debrief and interrogate Iraqi soldiers? Did they realise that Bradleys were thin-skinned and vulnerable to relatively low caliber arms, or were they treating them as full-on tanks and disengaging without a fight? The battle of 73 Easting wasn't the rout that most of the rest of the war was. An Iraqi Republican Guard division and a elements from a few other armored/infantry divisions in prepared defensive positions fought a sustained defensive action against 2 ACR(Bradleys and Abrams).
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
wiki posted:This was in contrast to the Nimrod's "heat sink" design that dispersed the heat through the fuel system, and which needed the fuel tanks to be at least half-full to work efficiently when the aircraft's system operated at full power. I might not know much about engineering, but that doesn't look like a good idea. More on topic: What about comparing Bradley or BMP with Marder or Warrior?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
The Me 210 and He 117 were procurement disasters, so they would count. Another one that comes to mind (though not a war vehicle per se) is this. Everybody reading this knows that Germany in the runup to World War 2 considered several ways to build a navy. One of these was called Plan Z; basically it was a plan to build a surface fleet of battleships, aircraft carriers, (etc) because challenging Britain again with a mighty surface fleet was obviously a good idea. It was approved and then later cancelled. Anyway, Adm. Raeder gets a phone call in early 1944 from Krupp. They say "the engine is ready." Raeder is all "what engine? I didn't order any engine." Krupp explain that the first engine for the first Z class battleship (think Bismark but bigger) is ready. Raeder apparently forgot, or missed, a engine contract when project Z was cancelled....
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Brits actually got a really cool ship naming convention, particularly capital ships. Ours is dull as dishwater which is not at all suitable for a navy of our caliber. I disagree with this because having a rooting interest in various BBs/CAs/SSNs based on where you live is just good fun. CVN names are admittedly dire, they should have stuck with the WWII CV convention, which remains the best US convention.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I might not know much about engineering, but that doesn't look like a good idea. The Warrior has a hand cranked, non-stabilized autocannon that is fed with 3 round stripper clips. I was amazed when when I first heard about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:The Warrior has a hand cranked, non-stabilized autocannon that is fed with 3 round stripper clips. I was amazed when when I first heard about it. Oh my god, why even have a turret if you're going to half-rear end it this badly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Alright. How does the Bradley compare against the BMP? You can throw a BMP out of a plane and only most of the crew will be mashed into jelly upon landing. Also something something lower profile something ATGM platform something
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
I'd say the JPG is better than either. Not much artifacting if it's encoded properly and takes up a lot less space than a BMP. Seriously, though. I have a question about early gun warfare in non-european areas. What was it like, on a micro-level? If you have a specific region and time period you know about, please tell me about it but I'm mainly interested in the Maori, the Japanese (before and after Tokugawa's rise to power), and whichever Indian states adopted gunpowder. Would there be units of non-gun infantry interspersed with the musketeers (were they using muskets, handcannons, etc? What was your guys' common method of ignition? What did they do in their off-time? Were they professional soldiers, members of a warrior caste, draftees, or people desperate enough to join the army? How were they cared for logistically? Were they expected to pillage to get by or were they remunerated in some way? Was line drill as important to them? When I say 'early gun warfare' I'm talking about states using technology equivalent to 16XX-1840s european equipment, not necessarily what time they were using it. I know that Japanese were still using matchlocks in the 1860s, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
Why did Napoleon go for Moscow rather than St. Petersburg?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Why did Napoleon go for Moscow rather than St. Petersburg? Didn't want to annoy the Swedes, perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:The Warrior has a hand cranked, non-stabilized autocannon that is fed with 3 round stripper clips. I was amazed when when I first heard about it. And the RARDEN also carries AP rounds only. Not that 30mm HE-I shells are anything spectacular esp. at the rate of fire you get with 3 round clips, but it reminds me of how Brits insisted on refusing to equip their 2pdr tank guns with HE shells in WW2 when everyone else was quite satisfied with 37mm HE. Must be one of those weird British traditions, maybe Wellington forbid small caliber shrapnel shells and it then just stuck...
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Endman posted:Didn't want to annoy the Swedes, perhaps? Surely Napoleon could have forged a deal with Bernadotte, his former marshal? If not to the order where Sweden joins Napoleon's campaign in order to take Finland back then at least remaining neutral at first & demanding concessions from Alexander after St. Petersburg is captured. OTOH Britain could have sent a fleet to the Baltic to gently caress things up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Surely Napoleon could have forged a deal with Bernadotte, his former marshal? If not to the order where Sweden joins Napoleon's campaign in order to take Finland back then at least remaining neutral at first & demanding concessions from Alexander after St. Petersburg is captured. It'd make for some great alternate history writing/gaming, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:And the RARDEN also carries AP rounds only. Not that 30mm HE-I shells are anything spectacular esp. at the rate of fire you get with 3 round clips, but it reminds me of how Brits insisted on refusing to equip their 2pdr tank guns with HE shells in WW2 when everyone else was quite satisfied with 37mm HE. Must be one of those weird British traditions, maybe Wellington forbid small caliber shrapnel shells and it then just stuck... It holds more than one clip, surely, right? So the crew can load up a dozen clips or so and actually have something to work with in an engagement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
Wow why would they use such a lovely gun. Probably for no reason, like a bunch of clowns. dumb clowns!! in my opinion as a goon
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
The best bit about the Rarden is that I'm reliably informed it isn't even the worst weapon on the Warrior  Presenting the chaingun: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-323251/Black-Watch-given-worlds-worst-machine-gun.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3366030/Army-machine-gun-fires-without-trigger-being-pulled.html Pay careful attention to the dates on those articles. edit: oh hey that's new, whoever you are you're too kind Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
"Challenger 2 mounting of the weapon cannot be accurately aimed using the main sight below a minimum range of 200 metres, which has led to at least one death from "friendly fire". What the gently caress, Britain. What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
200 metres? Well that could be an issue in built up areas. Or woodlands. Smallish fields. Hilly spots. Anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:It holds more than one clip, surely, right? So the crew can load up a dozen clips or so and actually have something to work with in an engagement. Nope! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Nope! When WWII Japanese MG design laughs at you...
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
No wonder that site about British armed forces procurement gently caress ups exists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Goodbye, Gallipoli; farewell, Isonzo. If only it were a final end to operations there! But no, it's just the end of the latest round of battles, and there's another of those crowd-pleasing Godawful maps. Total dead: shitloads. Total gain: gently caress-all. There's not even anything that can be made funny, although I tried my best with an excellent subtle pun that will hopefully pay off tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:isn't the Bradley actually pretty good? The Bradley does what it was designed to do very, very well. Despite all of its issues in development and fielding wound up being a pretty far-sighted and versatile platform; there's a good reason most modern militaries have something equivalent. It was also a good enough implementation of 70s-era technology with incremental upgrades that developing a successor that was anything other than a marginal improvement has proven very, very difficult. That being said (as I've posited a couple of times) the era of the Big Armored Thing dominating the battlefield is probably in sight and we actually may not ever see a worthwhile replacement fielded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 14:41
|
|
