Wasn't british L85/L86 (Enfield Individual Weapon/Enfield Light Support Weapon) the first bullpup to enter service, piece of crap as it is? They have been experimenting with bullpups since late 40s...
Giat FAMAS G2 Questions in INF
- Thread starter Overon
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Wasn't british L85/L86 (Enfield Individual Weapon/Enfield Light Support Weapon) the first bullpup to enter service, piece of crap as it is? They have been experimenting with bullpups since late 40s...
AFAIK the L85/6s didn't enter service until much later than the FAMAS... which kinda makes one wonder how they managed to screw it up so badly... 
Well the US screwed up the Bradley which is no match for even a BMP1 while the bradley was only entering service in the mid-late 80's and the BMP1 has been around since the mid-late 60's if i recall correctly.
Oh and what did it cost agai? something like 20 something billion in development cost for a shoebox with a gun and massive reliability problems.
Oh and what did it cost agai? something like 20 something billion in development cost for a shoebox with a gun and massive reliability problems.
striderteen
New Member
Hey! Someone else sharing my pet rant...IMHO, the U.S. should just clone the Russky BMP-3 and be done with it. No million-dollar development program, no endless testing and redesign...just the most heavily armed and capable IFV in the world:
- Fully amphibious, with twin jetdrives.
- 100mm 2A70 gun/missile launcher, fires either 3UOF HE-FRAG shells or 3UBK10 anti-tank guided missiles
- Coaxial 2A72 30mm autocannon AND coaxial PKT 7.62mm machine gun
- Two additional PKT machine guns in hull swivel mounts, for additional anti-infantry firepower
- Fully automated fire-control system with ID16 laser rangefinder, ballistic data computer, and thermal night-vision sights
- Seven troops carried on-board, with firing ports.
- Newer 3UOF17 cannon shells have effective range of 7 km, with 30% higher muzzle velocity, 70% greater # of fragments, 10% more dispersion.
- Newer 9M117 Arkan missile can kill an M1A1 with one or two hits at a range of up to 6 km and is laser-guided permitting fire-on-the-move.
- New 30mm HVAP rounds are 25% lighter but have 80% greater armor-piercing ability.
The BMP-3 is much more heavily armed than the Bradley (100mm cannon + laser-guided AT missiles + 30mm autocannon + 3X 7.62mm MG vs. 25mm autocannon + wire-guided AT missiles + 1X 7.62mm MG).
The BMP-3 has a computerized fire-control system, which the Bradley lacks except in the new -A3 version.
The BMP-3 carries more troops than the Bradley. (7 vs 6)
The BMP-3 is more mobile cross country than the Bradley due to its higher power-to weight ratio (450 HP for 18.7 tons vs. 600 HP for 30 tons)
The BMP-3 is fully amphibious, which the Bradley is not (it can ford up to 6 feet, but it cannot swim except with add-on flotation kit)
The BMP-3 can be parachuted into action, which the Bradley cannot. This way it can be deployed with the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, giving them significant and much-needed armor support.
The Bradley's ONLY advantage over this tour-de-force of combat capablity is thicker armor...which is irrelevant as the BMP-3 blasts it with a longer-range, faster-moving, harder-hitting Arkan missile.
In US service, the BMP-3 could replace both the Bradley, the Gavin light tank (which is cancelled, anyway) and the Marines' under-development AAAV amtrack.
- Fully amphibious, with twin jetdrives.
- 100mm 2A70 gun/missile launcher, fires either 3UOF HE-FRAG shells or 3UBK10 anti-tank guided missiles
- Coaxial 2A72 30mm autocannon AND coaxial PKT 7.62mm machine gun
- Two additional PKT machine guns in hull swivel mounts, for additional anti-infantry firepower
- Fully automated fire-control system with ID16 laser rangefinder, ballistic data computer, and thermal night-vision sights
- Seven troops carried on-board, with firing ports.
- Newer 3UOF17 cannon shells have effective range of 7 km, with 30% higher muzzle velocity, 70% greater # of fragments, 10% more dispersion.
- Newer 9M117 Arkan missile can kill an M1A1 with one or two hits at a range of up to 6 km and is laser-guided permitting fire-on-the-move.
- New 30mm HVAP rounds are 25% lighter but have 80% greater armor-piercing ability.
The BMP-3 is much more heavily armed than the Bradley (100mm cannon + laser-guided AT missiles + 30mm autocannon + 3X 7.62mm MG vs. 25mm autocannon + wire-guided AT missiles + 1X 7.62mm MG).
The BMP-3 has a computerized fire-control system, which the Bradley lacks except in the new -A3 version.
The BMP-3 carries more troops than the Bradley. (7 vs 6)
The BMP-3 is more mobile cross country than the Bradley due to its higher power-to weight ratio (450 HP for 18.7 tons vs. 600 HP for 30 tons)
The BMP-3 is fully amphibious, which the Bradley is not (it can ford up to 6 feet, but it cannot swim except with add-on flotation kit)
The BMP-3 can be parachuted into action, which the Bradley cannot. This way it can be deployed with the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, giving them significant and much-needed armor support.
The Bradley's ONLY advantage over this tour-de-force of combat capablity is thicker armor...which is irrelevant as the BMP-3 blasts it with a longer-range, faster-moving, harder-hitting Arkan missile.
In US service, the BMP-3 could replace both the Bradley, the Gavin light tank (which is cancelled, anyway) and the Marines' under-development AAAV amtrack.
Does anyone over here even know what a BMP1 is???
Yep, it can be considered as the first IFV, but that doesn't even nearly make it better than the M2/M3 Bradley series.
The BMP1 has a 73mm low pressure main gun, with poor acuracy at longer ranges(2km+). The AT3 ATGM(which isn't much more accurate againts moving targets) is on the barrel of the main gun, and for loading another someone has to step outside("hey you, enemy, don't shoot, we have to reload.."). The Russians even took off th AT3s after a few years of service.
Apart from that the armor can be penetrated by 12.7mm rounds(don't know if front armor, but side for sure..).
The M2 Bradley on the other hand has armor, that protects it against 30mm rounds of the BMP2. It's M242 25mm Bushmaster main gun penetrates the BMP2s armor with ease using DU AP rounds. It has better night vision equipment and targeting system than both BMP1 and BMP2. Though the M2A2 and later are not fully amphibious as the M2A1 was, they can cross rivers with a bit of preparation.
In one sentence, the M2A2 is among the best IFVs in service - and if anyone starts to compare it to a Leopard 2 or similar: IFVs are not tanks, they were intented to fulfill a very different role.
The BMP3 is an excellent vehicle, but it lacks armor protection. The 100mm main gun is still low pressure, though the ATGMs fired through it are surely an advantage - though I don't believe they have more penetration than a TOW2. HEAT warheads gain penetration with diameter and the TOW2 has 152mm vs 100mm of the BMP3s ATGM; I also don't believe the ATGM can penetrate an M1A1 from the front with one shot, that is nearly impossible for any existing HEAT warhead - a Abrams survived a frontal Maverick(AGM45 or 54 or so) hit during an Army test.
Also the 30mm AC is the same used in the BMP2, and is weaker in terms of armor penetration than the M242 - though I don't know if this changed with the new ammo.
If you compare the latest version of both vehicles, the M2A3 is the vehicle I'd rather sit in. It might now swim through a river, but it sure holds off the 30mm rounds of the BMP3 and the ERA gives it a chance to survive HEAT warheads. The BMP3 on the other hand is in constant danger of getting blown to bits by the M242 before the ATGM hits.
Don't get me wrong, the BMP3 is the more versatile vehicle and it has it's advantages, but in a combat situation the M2A3 has the better end IMO.
Perhaps that Arab country(Kuwait?, Saudi Arabia?) did the right thing - the have both Bradleys and BMP3s..
Oh, and about replacing amphibious assault vehicles with IFVs: show me an IFV that goes through 8m high ocean waves as the AAV7 does..
Snakeye
Yep, it can be considered as the first IFV, but that doesn't even nearly make it better than the M2/M3 Bradley series.
The BMP1 has a 73mm low pressure main gun, with poor acuracy at longer ranges(2km+). The AT3 ATGM(which isn't much more accurate againts moving targets) is on the barrel of the main gun, and for loading another someone has to step outside("hey you, enemy, don't shoot, we have to reload.."). The Russians even took off th AT3s after a few years of service.
Apart from that the armor can be penetrated by 12.7mm rounds(don't know if front armor, but side for sure..).
The M2 Bradley on the other hand has armor, that protects it against 30mm rounds of the BMP2. It's M242 25mm Bushmaster main gun penetrates the BMP2s armor with ease using DU AP rounds. It has better night vision equipment and targeting system than both BMP1 and BMP2. Though the M2A2 and later are not fully amphibious as the M2A1 was, they can cross rivers with a bit of preparation.
In one sentence, the M2A2 is among the best IFVs in service - and if anyone starts to compare it to a Leopard 2 or similar: IFVs are not tanks, they were intented to fulfill a very different role.
The BMP3 is an excellent vehicle, but it lacks armor protection. The 100mm main gun is still low pressure, though the ATGMs fired through it are surely an advantage - though I don't believe they have more penetration than a TOW2. HEAT warheads gain penetration with diameter and the TOW2 has 152mm vs 100mm of the BMP3s ATGM; I also don't believe the ATGM can penetrate an M1A1 from the front with one shot, that is nearly impossible for any existing HEAT warhead - a Abrams survived a frontal Maverick(AGM45 or 54 or so) hit during an Army test.
Also the 30mm AC is the same used in the BMP2, and is weaker in terms of armor penetration than the M242 - though I don't know if this changed with the new ammo.
If you compare the latest version of both vehicles, the M2A3 is the vehicle I'd rather sit in. It might now swim through a river, but it sure holds off the 30mm rounds of the BMP3 and the ERA gives it a chance to survive HEAT warheads. The BMP3 on the other hand is in constant danger of getting blown to bits by the M242 before the ATGM hits.
Don't get me wrong, the BMP3 is the more versatile vehicle and it has it's advantages, but in a combat situation the M2A3 has the better end IMO.
Perhaps that Arab country(Kuwait?, Saudi Arabia?) did the right thing - the have both Bradleys and BMP3s..
Oh, and about replacing amphibious assault vehicles with IFVs: show me an IFV that goes through 8m high ocean waves as the AAV7 does..
Snakeye
Ok some things you forgot to mention:
BMP3=russian=HeavyERA. Russian HeavyERA is superior to any other ERA and actually adds priotection aganst pure kinetic weapons as well. The bmp3 can be equipped with it. Cancels out the armor arguement Since Heavy ERA alone can even stop most MBT rounds.
The BMP3 (and all BMP3's for that matter) has a super low profile, and the bradly has a super high profile.
BMP3=russian=HeavyERA. Russian HeavyERA is superior to any other ERA and actually adds priotection aganst pure kinetic weapons as well. The bmp3 can be equipped with it. Cancels out the armor arguement Since Heavy ERA alone can even stop most MBT rounds.
The BMP3 (and all BMP3's for that matter) has a super low profile, and the bradly has a super high profile.
ERA(Explosive Reactive Armor) has some certain drawbacks - and I didn't mention it for the BMP3 since I though that common sense says the BMP3 has it, hell nearly every modern Russian Tank and IFV has it..
Now for ERA working it has to be hit, which is the first drawback - hit between two ERA packages and they won't help ****.
Second drawback is, that ERA doesn't always work perfectly, it CAN defeat HEAT warheads and APFSDS, but does not necessarily do so, sometimes it only lessens their effectivity.
Third drawback is, that ERA that's effective against APFSDS is less effective against HEAT than normal ERA designed to defeat HEAT warheads - seems logical, doesn't it?
Fourth drawback is, that ERA only works one time per packages(sound awfully logical too).
So to sum it up, ERA can be a life saver, but it can not replace standard armor, and so the armor advantage of the M2 is still there.
Snakeye
Now for ERA working it has to be hit, which is the first drawback - hit between two ERA packages and they won't help ****.
Second drawback is, that ERA doesn't always work perfectly, it CAN defeat HEAT warheads and APFSDS, but does not necessarily do so, sometimes it only lessens their effectivity.
Third drawback is, that ERA that's effective against APFSDS is less effective against HEAT than normal ERA designed to defeat HEAT warheads - seems logical, doesn't it?
Fourth drawback is, that ERA only works one time per packages(sound awfully logical too).
So to sum it up, ERA can be a life saver, but it can not replace standard armor, and so the armor advantage of the M2 is still there.
Snakeye
You forget that tandem warhead HEAT rounds and top attack munitions have no problem dealing with Reactive armor.
T80 and T90 have a 3 layer ERA roof protection additinally to the standard armor - I guess that's good enough against both tandem warhead AND roof attacking missiles.
If you pack enough ERA on the right places you can protect against nearly everything - if it really work in the field is another point..
The only real drawback I forgot is the additional weight of the ERA. It doesn't do much to a T90, but Bradleys are affected by the weight, and I suppose BMP3s even more, since they are lighter.
Snakeye
If you pack enough ERA on the right places you can protect against nearly everything - if it really work in the field is another point..
The only real drawback I forgot is the additional weight of the ERA. It doesn't do much to a T90, but Bradleys are affected by the weight, and I suppose BMP3s even more, since they are lighter.
Snakeye
Nope, this is a highly philosophical discussion about armor, armor protection, armor penetration, infantry fighting vehicles and armored figthing vehicles as well as about the pros ans cons of certain existing systems and their possible effects on each other.
But then, yes tanks were also mentioned..
Snakeye
But then, yes tanks were also mentioned..
Snakeye
striderteen
New Member
Snakeye, you are correct about the BMP-1 -- but I was never talking about the BMP-1. I'm talking about the BMP-3, which is a very different vehicle.
The BMP-3 has a 100 mm high-velocity main gun accurate to 7 km, which fires missiles through the barrel the way our old Sheridan light tank did. It has a state-of-the-art computerized fire control system which permits nearly perfect accuracy even on the move, much like our M1 tanks have.
The BMP-3 uses the 9M117 Arkan missile, which is a laser-guided supersonic weapon with tandem HEAT warheads. It is superior to the TOW in all areas and roughly comparable to a ground-launched version of the Hellfire II. This weapon can kill a light tank with one hit, a modern heavy tank with one or two hits, and a next-generation superheavy tank like the M1A2 with two or three.
The BMP-3 can withstand 30mm autocannon fire.
My overall analysis of Bradley vs. BMP-3 (direct fight):
The Bradley has better armor, true, but that makes NO difference when the BMP-3 can hit and kill it with the Arkans at more than twice TOW range.
Even in an up-close fight, the Bradley looses. Badly. The 25mm autocannon will not penetrate the BMP-3's armor, and the TOW missiles take too long to fire. The Arkans are much faster in any case, meaning the BMP-3 will win any missile duel in which both launch at about the same time. Alternatively, the 100mm gun shells will also destroy the Bradley with a single hit -- it can't withstand tank-caliber cannon fire.
My overall analysis of Bradley vs. BMP-3 (operationally):
The BMP-3's critical advantage is not so much its superior firepower but its superior mobility...in World War II, the Nazi's superior Tiger and Panther tanks were often outflanked and outmaneuvered by U.S. M3 Shermans which had better cross-country mobility.
Likewise, the BMP-3 is much better at rough cross-country (and don't forget that it's amphibious). PLUS it can be parachuted, which the Bradley cannot. HUGE advantage there, it means the BMP-3 can be airlifted all over the place.
Remember "A Bridge Too Far"? Re-do it today, same thing happens. 82nd Airborne is an incredible unit, but they have nothing heavier than a Humvee. Just like the British Paras with jeeps against SS Panzer divisions. But if you give the Airborne boys the BMP-3, they kick heavy tank ass with missiles while blasting bunkers and fixed guns with 100mm, soft targets with 30mm autocannon, infantry with machine guns. Complete package.
I'll be in the BMP-3 blasting your Bradley from seven klicks out with my laser-guided missiles while you figure out the difference between a BMP-1 and a BMP-3 and wonder how the hell I crossed "impassable" terrain to get into my firing position.
(Nothing personal)
The BMP-3 has a 100 mm high-velocity main gun accurate to 7 km, which fires missiles through the barrel the way our old Sheridan light tank did. It has a state-of-the-art computerized fire control system which permits nearly perfect accuracy even on the move, much like our M1 tanks have.
The BMP-3 uses the 9M117 Arkan missile, which is a laser-guided supersonic weapon with tandem HEAT warheads. It is superior to the TOW in all areas and roughly comparable to a ground-launched version of the Hellfire II. This weapon can kill a light tank with one hit, a modern heavy tank with one or two hits, and a next-generation superheavy tank like the M1A2 with two or three.
The BMP-3 can withstand 30mm autocannon fire.
My overall analysis of Bradley vs. BMP-3 (direct fight):
The Bradley has better armor, true, but that makes NO difference when the BMP-3 can hit and kill it with the Arkans at more than twice TOW range.
Even in an up-close fight, the Bradley looses. Badly. The 25mm autocannon will not penetrate the BMP-3's armor, and the TOW missiles take too long to fire. The Arkans are much faster in any case, meaning the BMP-3 will win any missile duel in which both launch at about the same time. Alternatively, the 100mm gun shells will also destroy the Bradley with a single hit -- it can't withstand tank-caliber cannon fire.
My overall analysis of Bradley vs. BMP-3 (operationally):
The BMP-3's critical advantage is not so much its superior firepower but its superior mobility...in World War II, the Nazi's superior Tiger and Panther tanks were often outflanked and outmaneuvered by U.S. M3 Shermans which had better cross-country mobility.
Likewise, the BMP-3 is much better at rough cross-country (and don't forget that it's amphibious). PLUS it can be parachuted, which the Bradley cannot. HUGE advantage there, it means the BMP-3 can be airlifted all over the place.
Remember "A Bridge Too Far"? Re-do it today, same thing happens. 82nd Airborne is an incredible unit, but they have nothing heavier than a Humvee. Just like the British Paras with jeeps against SS Panzer divisions. But if you give the Airborne boys the BMP-3, they kick heavy tank ass with missiles while blasting bunkers and fixed guns with 100mm, soft targets with 30mm autocannon, infantry with machine guns. Complete package.
I'll be in the BMP-3 blasting your Bradley from seven klicks out with my laser-guided missiles while you figure out the difference between a BMP-1 and a BMP-3 and wonder how the hell I crossed "impassable" terrain to get into my firing position.
(Nothing personal)
Guys, you're missing the point somewhat... the mission of Bradley and BMP-3 isn't to fight each other - same as AH64 and Mi-24 aren't meant to fight each other - they are made for supporting infantry, often against enemy infantry. Some tidbits:
Back during WW2, russians tested a captured german 7.92 caliber antitank rifle against a tank's side armor. It pierced the armor over 40 times, yet only like 2 hits were dangerous to tank itself, and one more hit one of the mannequins (sp?) sitting inside in the leg. Likewise, high-velocity 25mm rounds might need a lot of hits to actually destroy an AFV.
In urban settings, supporting infantry involves blowing up concrete walls. This is something that Bradley's 25mm chaingun absolutely stinks at (it chips away concrete, but leaves the metal reinforcement intact), and 100mm high explosive shells do quite nicely.
Same thing applies when fighting infantry - just how effective is that 25mm chaingun going to be against troops? On the other hand, 100mm fragmentation shells, coupled with 3 machine guns, and 7 assault rifles firing out of ports...
Back during WW2, russians tested a captured german 7.92 caliber antitank rifle against a tank's side armor. It pierced the armor over 40 times, yet only like 2 hits were dangerous to tank itself, and one more hit one of the mannequins (sp?) sitting inside in the leg. Likewise, high-velocity 25mm rounds might need a lot of hits to actually destroy an AFV.
In urban settings, supporting infantry involves blowing up concrete walls. This is something that Bradley's 25mm chaingun absolutely stinks at (it chips away concrete, but leaves the metal reinforcement intact), and 100mm high explosive shells do quite nicely.
Same thing applies when fighting infantry - just how effective is that 25mm chaingun going to be against troops? On the other hand, 100mm fragmentation shells, coupled with 3 machine guns, and 7 assault rifles firing out of ports...
Did you even read my post?
Fur mentioned the BMP1, that's why I wrote about it before. He said the BMP1 was superior to the Bradley, and I don't believe that.
I also don't believe the BMP3s ATGM is such an über-missile until you find some facts on it. And the 100mm main gun of the BMP3 is LOW pressure - I have two books that state that, and once again until you prove otherwise I'll tend to believe my books.
Also the BMP3s armor can be penetrated by 25mm DU APFSDS rounds from the Bradley, while the 30mm AC of the BMP3 can not penetrate the M2A3s armor, and both HEAT projectiles from the 100mm gun can possibly be defeated by the ERA the Bradley can carry.
Apart from that I don't own a Bradley, so you'll have problems at blasting me..
Snakeye
PS: it's M4 Sherman not M3..
Fur mentioned the BMP1, that's why I wrote about it before. He said the BMP1 was superior to the Bradley, and I don't believe that.
I also don't believe the BMP3s ATGM is such an über-missile until you find some facts on it. And the 100mm main gun of the BMP3 is LOW pressure - I have two books that state that, and once again until you prove otherwise I'll tend to believe my books.
Also the BMP3s armor can be penetrated by 25mm DU APFSDS rounds from the Bradley, while the 30mm AC of the BMP3 can not penetrate the M2A3s armor, and both HEAT projectiles from the 100mm gun can possibly be defeated by the ERA the Bradley can carry.
Apart from that I don't own a Bradley, so you'll have problems at blasting me..
Snakeye
PS: it's M4 Sherman not M3..
striderteen
New Member
Which is precisely why the US should buy the BMP-3. As that is a bit on the unfeasible side politically, I suggest modifying the good old M113 (-A3 version with beefed-up engine, it's as fast as the Bradley and Abrams).
1. Add 105mm recoilless rifle (fits on the existing HMG mount, actually) and a gun shield.
2. Purchase and attach already-designed applique armor panels.
3. Up-engine to the IVECO 8260 V-6 turbocharged, inter-cooled diesel developing 520 bhp at 2,300 rpm (already used by the Italians in their upgraded -113s)
4. Weld launch rails for Hellfire missiles on top.
Voila, airdroppable amphibious IFV with cannon and laser-guided heavy antitank missiles!
1. Add 105mm recoilless rifle (fits on the existing HMG mount, actually) and a gun shield.
2. Purchase and attach already-designed applique armor panels.
3. Up-engine to the IVECO 8260 V-6 turbocharged, inter-cooled diesel developing 520 bhp at 2,300 rpm (already used by the Italians in their upgraded -113s)
4. Weld launch rails for Hellfire missiles on top.
Voila, airdroppable amphibious IFV with cannon and laser-guided heavy antitank missiles!
Snakeye... look up some info on russian Heavy ERA it is completely different from standard ERA in the way that it is designed to stop both HEAT and kinetc weapons. On top of that it can be multilayered and fits completely over the vehicle.
As far as the armamments:
(note this is still the version that came out in 1961 the US was still dicking around with the bradley design).
replaced by:
(in 1970, still no bradley)
modernised version
and last but not least
(650mm penetration, note introduced in 1977... still no bradley).
Compared to the tow: they are basically equal exept for the fact that he tow that came out in the 1970's had 1000m less maximum range. Even todays modernised TOW 2-b still falls short of the Spandrell by 250 meter.
More:
Also the BMP1 is fully ampfibious while the Bradley has to be prepared before it goes amphibious which took 30 minutes on the original bradley and still takes 15 minutes on the A3 version.
but... at the time: still no bradley.
As far as the armamments:
(note this is still the version that came out in 1961 the US was still dicking around with the bradley design).
replaced by:
(in 1970, still no bradley)
modernised version
and last but not least
(650mm penetration, note introduced in 1977... still no bradley).
Compared to the tow: they are basically equal exept for the fact that he tow that came out in the 1970's had 1000m less maximum range. Even todays modernised TOW 2-b still falls short of the Spandrell by 250 meter.
More:
Also the BMP1 is fully ampfibious while the Bradley has to be prepared before it goes amphibious which took 30 minutes on the original bradley and still takes 15 minutes on the A3 version.
but... at the time: still no bradley
.
I really don't know where you got your information from, but I don't believe it. The following specs on the BMP3 were taken from:
http://idex.janes.com/landforces_data/bmp3details02.shtml
and
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmp-3/
About the 9M117:
And about armor penetration:
Also the fire control system and night vision equippment seem to be not that good, since Kuwaits and UAEs BMP3 are fitted with French thermal imaging systems and FCS.
Also the weight of 30t for the M2 is too much. M2A1 is at about 22t, the latest versions at about 28t. So power to weight is about 21 hp/t for the M2(600hp/28t) and 27 hp/t(500 not 450hp/18t) for the BMP3. Though the BMP3 IS more maneuvrable and faster(about 70kph max speed to about 60kph for the M2) the difference is not comparable to a Tiger vs Sherman.(BTW: German tank crews were able to destroy up to 20 enemy tanks before getting blasted themselves - I suppose masses of Shermans were more important than their mobility.
Also the stated range of the 100mm main gun of 7kms is wrong. And it is a low-velocity/low-pressure gun.
Another interesting fact is the following:
Now this all is not intented to bash on the BMP3; in fact it's among the best IFVs I ever heard of, but it's not the wonder vehicle you claimed it to be.
As far as combat goes, the BMP3 didn't see too much AFAIK. The M2 Bradley series were in DS, and according to: http://knox-www.army.mil/school/tid/dli/accc_rc/equipment/bradley_fighting_v.htm
Whatever, guess that post is long enough..
Gholam:
The role of an IFV is to provide fire support to infantry and give it better anti-armor capabilities - this includes the possibility to fight enemy IFVs; of course BMP3 and M2 were not solely designed to fight each other, but they might have to.
What is that 7.62 caliber thing you talk about? Is that caliber in mm cm inch? Against which tank did they use it?
Apart from that DU is pyrolythic(or so) which means it ignites itself - and against the Russian autoloaders hot fragments are a real danger; most Iraqi tanks lost their turrets when the ammo in the autoloaders blew up after being hit. So I suppose hot fragments against infantry and the tank crew inside might be effective enough.
Effectivity against infantry might be a point against the M242 compared to a 100mm gun, but in fact ACs do quite nice against infantry with HE rounds because of their fire rate - though the 100mm is better, no question..
Last thing for now: why does everyone think gun ports are good?
M2A1 had them, and they were removed because the were pretty useless and weakened the armor of the vehicle. In fact a gun port is just a piece of armor that will be penetrated if hit.
And you forgot to add the 30mm AC to the anti-infantry firepower. Also this is ideally, since 2 MGs just fire to the front, so in fact you have a 100mm gun, a 30mm AC and a 7.62mm MG that can be turned to any possible target. Just forget about the ARs in the gun ports..
Snakeye
http://idex.janes.com/landforces_data/bmp3details02.shtml
and
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmp-3/
About the 9M117:
So not 6 or 7km range but 4 to 5.5.
And about armor penetration:
FAS states about the TOW tow being able to penetrate 800mm+ of steel armor and having a maximum speed of 329(TOW2 and TOW2A)m/s. So less range and speed for the tow, but much better armor penetration
Also the fire control system and night vision equippment seem to be not that good, since Kuwaits and UAEs BMP3 are fitted with French thermal imaging systems and FCS.
The BMP3 features only Image Intesifiers, not thermal imaging, which is a drawback.
Also the weight of 30t for the M2 is too much. M2A1 is at about 22t, the latest versions at about 28t. So power to weight is about 21 hp/t for the M2(600hp/28t) and 27 hp/t(500 not 450hp/18t) for the BMP3. Though the BMP3 IS more maneuvrable and faster(about 70kph max speed to about 60kph for the M2) the difference is not comparable to a Tiger vs Sherman.(BTW: German tank crews were able to destroy up to 20 enemy tanks before getting blasted themselves - I suppose masses of Shermans were more important than their mobility.
Also the stated range of the 100mm main gun of 7kms is wrong. And it is a low-velocity/low-pressure gun.
Another interesting fact is the following:
So to effectively and fast engage targets, the BMP3 has to be close enough.
Now this all is not intented to bash on the BMP3; in fact it's among the best IFVs I ever heard of, but it's not the wonder vehicle you claimed it to be.
As far as combat goes, the BMP3 didn't see too much AFAIK. The M2 Bradley series were in DS, and according to: http://knox-www.army.mil/school/tid/dli/accc_rc/equipment/bradley_fighting_v.htm
Impressive enough?
Whatever, guess that post is long enough..
Gholam:
The role of an IFV is to provide fire support to infantry and give it better anti-armor capabilities - this includes the possibility to fight enemy IFVs; of course BMP3 and M2 were not solely designed to fight each other, but they might have to.
What is that 7.62 caliber thing you talk about? Is that caliber in mm cm inch? Against which tank did they use it?
Apart from that DU is pyrolythic(or so) which means it ignites itself - and against the Russian autoloaders hot fragments are a real danger; most Iraqi tanks lost their turrets when the ammo in the autoloaders blew up after being hit. So I suppose hot fragments against infantry and the tank crew inside might be effective enough.
Effectivity against infantry might be a point against the M242 compared to a 100mm gun, but in fact ACs do quite nice against infantry with HE rounds because of their fire rate - though the 100mm is better, no question..
Last thing for now: why does everyone think gun ports are good?
M2A1 had them, and they were removed because the were pretty useless and weakened the armor of the vehicle. In fact a gun port is just a piece of armor that will be penetrated if hit.
And you forgot to add the 30mm AC to the anti-infantry firepower. Also this is ideally, since 2 MGs just fire to the front, so in fact you have a 100mm gun, a 30mm AC and a 7.62mm MG that can be turned to any possible target. Just forget about the ARs in the gun ports..
Snakeye
Fur:
That doesn't make the BMP1 better than the Bradley. The BMP1 has been in combat earlier, but it still is inferior to the M2. M2 has better NVS, targeting system and armor. Any BMP1 in combat didn't to nearly as good as the M2 did in DS.
If you find any evidence a BMP1 destroyed a M2 post it, until then the BMP1 stays inferior to the Bradley. Same goes for the BMP2 IMO.
The BMP3 is another story though..
And for ERA: read my post; I said it holds off both HEAT and KE, but the better it stops KE the less effective it's at HEAT and vice versa. I also mentioned later it can be multilayered(as used on T80 and T90..) but I don't believe it fit's completely.
Apart from that I won't look up information for you - if you want to prove your word, do it yourself..
Snakeye
PS: 90% hit probability for a AT3C? Against what, a standing skyscraper?
That doesn't make the BMP1 better than the Bradley. The BMP1 has been in combat earlier, but it still is inferior to the M2. M2 has better NVS, targeting system and armor. Any BMP1 in combat didn't to nearly as good as the M2 did in DS.
If you find any evidence a BMP1 destroyed a M2 post it, until then the BMP1 stays inferior to the Bradley. Same goes for the BMP2 IMO.
The BMP3 is another story though..
And for ERA: read my post; I said it holds off both HEAT and KE, but the better it stops KE the less effective it's at HEAT and vice versa. I also mentioned later it can be multilayered(as used on T80 and T90..) but I don't believe it fit's completely.
Apart from that I won't look up information for you - if you want to prove your word, do it yourself..
Snakeye
PS: 90% hit probability for a AT3C? Against what, a standing skyscraper?
Last edited:
I was talking about the BMP1 btw. I also used FAS.org as my source since I don't have my links here at work.
For info on HeavyERA do a search for Fovanov +tanks and you'll see...
For info on HeavyERA do a search for Fovanov +tanks and you'll see...