Warrior Vs Bradley

[the_shadow 0]

will add a few pics here, these are pics of each version available... (not the prototypes)

CV9030

CV90 ARV (Armoured Recovery Vehicle)

CV90 FOV/FCV (Forward observer vehicle/forward command vehicle)

CV90105 Light tank

CV90120 Tank

CV90 AAV (Anti Aircraft Vehicle)

[the_shadow 0]

CV9040A/B

CV9040C

unfortunately i couldn´t find a good pic of the 25mm version...

AMOS (twin 120mm mortars)

***EDIT***

CV9030FIN (finland)

added a link to the technical data of the finnish CV9030

[Rishon 0]

whoa. Thats pretty much a Mega-versitile Tank/APC/whatever the hell it is.

[the_shadow 0]

whoa.  Thats pretty much a Mega-versitile Tank/APC/whatever the hell it is.

yeah, it got pretty much everything you want

and then there are the prototype with BILL 2 ATGM mounted on the turret ;) (will se if i find a good pic of that)

[walker 0]

Hi all

The key bit of kit there is the AMOS it and weapons systems like it basicly make the Main Battle Tanks like the Abrahms, Chalenger, Leopord 2 and T90 defunct.

Kind Regards Walker

[the_shadow 0]

FOUND A PIC!!! of the CV9056

***edit***

ther is also a Communication warfare projekt around the CV90 (wich means a CV90 CWA version)

***edit2***

corrected a miss interpretation...

[Grizzlie 0]

First of all we need definition of IFV to avoid mistakes.

If i rember well, by CFE treaty BMP-3 is tanks, and swedish Ikv 103 is not ;)

[walker 0]

Hi all

The thing about the AMOS system is that includes Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) and that the rounds can also be smart rounds.

In essence a platoon of AMOS equiped IFV derivatives could probably wipe out an entire Abrahms Regiment in a couple of minutes and the Abrahms would never have even seen its enemy.

Because it is MRSI the actual moment of destruction of Abrahms Regiment would probably last only 5 seconds giving the MBTs no warning of their impending destruction.

The US atempted to build an MRSI system but the system failed because the units were too big to go across a normal road bridge never mind across mobile bridging equipment.

The inteligent coperhead rounds used and the fact that they come in from high angle ensure almost zero survivability for the MBT crew.

A similar air launched missile based smart coperhead war head sytem developed by the US wiped out half a Regiment of Tanks in GWII so it is rumoured.

I think we now know why the US wants to sell its old Abrahms to IRAQ.

Kind Regards Walker

[the_shadow 0]

First of all we need definition of IFV to avoid mistakes.

If i rember well, by CFE treaty BMP-3 is tanks, and swedish Ikv 103 is not ;)

you mean the MBT 103 (we swedes keep calling it a Tank although it had no turret and therefore where technically a tank destroyer ;)

although we had a IKV 103 also if im not mistaking ;) (IKV == SP Infantry gun)

[Grizzlie 0]

I forgot name and took it form FAS -  data looked good for me

Someone said that BMP-1 has "capacity" of 8 - well i wouldn't like to sit there for few hours waiting for battle...

New IFV r bigger and has "capacity" of 6 to allow soldiers "live" inside for 24 hours without leaving veh.

And maybe a little funny thing - during polish tests of wheeled IFV's there were questions for dismounts about their feelings during ride - about vomiting too

[Pathy 0]

I sense a danger of going into a MBT discussion.....

[the_shadow 0]

naaah, keep talking about BMP 1 and 2, Warrior, Jaguar, Bradley, CV90 and stuff like that

[Pathy 0]

OK then, Warrior still rules. it has lovely 2nd generation Chobham armour, and as i said, it has been reported to take more than 7 RPG hits with hardly any damage in Iraq. Its probably tougher than an Abrahms LOL!(which has 1st gen Chobham (1980s compared to the 1990's 2nd gen.) armour).

However, firepower COULD be an issue. Still, if i was in a warzone, i know which IFV i'd rather be in.

[the_shadow 0]

wel, now i think i´ll set the borders for what i see as IFV..

main armament is a autocannon of atleast 25mm calibre or smaller calibre gun (up to say 105mm)

a light vehicle (under 35 tons)

Can transport a number of combatready soldiers into battle, preferably able to fight from inside the vehicle

the vehicle is tracked

the vehicle´s main task is NOT to kill MBT´s.

the vehicle are built to support infantry units to a greater level then a APC (APC is not built to fight at all, just to transport troops to the battlefield)

is that clear enough?

anyone els got any remarks? (as i said, this is what i see as a IFV)

[Grizzlie 0]

So how would u call heaviest Puma?

Over 40 tons

I would rather use cannons up to 30-35 mm (there were some tests of 45-60 mm, but is seems to be too big) because they r more universal - AT and AA, especially with modern ammo.

Prolly u noticed that new IFV's does not have ability of firing by dismounts - i have heard because this fire is only for "morale rising".

Tracked or wheeled - read one of my previous posts about "strategic" and "tactical" manouvreability.

[the_shadow 0]

well, CV90 is pretty new (early 90´s) and it has as i said (in sweden) 40mm Autocannon, 6 passangers, it hascombat hatches in the roof of the cargo compartement allowing 4 soldiers to fight from inside the vehicle it has i wide door to disembark the troops quickley in combat...

the 40mm cannon is powerful in AT roles (fireing APFSDS rounds) and it can protect itself against aerial threats with 3P ammunition (Programmable)

but the downside is as i said it can only bring a limited amount of ammuniton wish make the combat endurance quite low...

[Grizzlie 0]

U r right.

But remember that Sweden is specific

as combat area of course

[the_shadow 0]

U r right.

But remember that Sweden is specific  

as combat area of course

true, we got no desert here ;)

the combat ranges are short... someone calculated that most firefights are in less then 60m with small arms...

[miles teg 1]

What APC is best purely depends on the role its being used for.  For urban combat I think the best APC/IFV's in the world are the Israeli heavy APC's such as the  Achzarit, Puma, Nakpadon, Nagmachon, and NagmaSho't  heavy APCs.  

All of these APC's have had very good performances in urban combat being able to withstand a wide range of RPG's and even some ATGM like the AT-3 SAGGER.    

Also their Zelda uparmored M113's have an excellent combat history. The only thing they have problems with are large improvised landmines....but then again so do most tanks.

The Israelies were probably the first to use spaced armor principles to uparmor their APC's with large armor slabs...which now the US and the British have done to their APC's in order to protect from the infamous RPG-7.

However it will not be long before this type of armor becomes useless as the RPG-7VR warheads begin to become more widely distributed around the world. These will most likely penetrate the side armor panels on most IFV's due to its special tandem warhead. Iran and the Czechs also make a tandem warhead SACLOS version of the old AT-3 Sagger which likewise may pose a serious threat to Western armored forces in the Middle East and to the Russians in Chechyna. The Russians have the advantage however with their latest version of ERA which is supposed to be able to defeat tandem warheads... but whether it can actually do this remains to be seen.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[AKM 0]

Quote[/b] ]What APC is best purely depends on the role its being used for.  For urban combat I think the best APC/IFV's in the world are the Israeli heavy APC's such as the  Achzarit, Puma, Nakpadon, Nagmachon, and NagmaSho't  heavy APCs.  

All of these APC's have had very good performances in urban combat being able to withstand a wide range of RPG's and even some ATGM like the AT-3 SAGGER.    

Earlier on, MSpencer said something about distrusting the Russian school of IFV engineering after their experiances in Chechnya, but the quoted statement from MilesTeg is really case-in-point for that. The BMP-3 is amazingly complex and tends to break down a lot, but the BMP-2 is a viable platform. The Russians have far too many problems in Chechnya and I'm not going to go into them here.

I'd rather be stuck down in a Warrior than a Bradley, namely because an entire Infantry section of eight can be stuck into a Warrior, the warrior has better survivability and a lower profile whereas the Brad has a massive silhoutte and tends to be deployed right up next to the M1A2 Abhrams and what-have-you, therefore making it exceedingly vulnerable the anti-tank missiles and errant tank rounds - although that's hardly any better than taking one with your name on it. Moot point.

Someone mentioned this earlier, and it's pretty valid - a penetrating shot on a Warrior would be messy, but would have a lesser chance of killing the vehicle and everybody inside as there are no TOW missiles stuck down inside the troop compartment to explode and turn the vehicle into small pieces of confetti.

As to firing from vehicles, whoever thought of that forgot about accuracy - but as was mentioned earlier, "Morale Boost" more than anything else. I think the firing ports on the M2A2 Bradley were removed for this reason. Edit: Not to remove the "Morale Boost" but because vehicle crews that were "Turned Out" were made understandably nervous with streams of nearly uncontrolled bullets flying about all over.

[miles teg 1]

I agree about the firing ports... most soldiers do not seem to be able to "walk tracer rounds" onto a target. During nightfire training when I was in the Army, I was always surprised that around 60% of the soldiers would just fire tracers into the air and didn't seem to understand the concept of using the tracers to get the bullets on target. Stick these troops into an IFV with firing ports, and yeah, they'd be firing everywhere but at the target which isn't good. In an urban enviornment that would also result in alot of civilian casualties as the rifle and MG bullets tend to go through house walls fairly easily...sometimes through more then one house.

One innovation that is very interesting is the slat armor seen on the Stryker APC's and on some BTR-80/90 Russian wheeled APCs. So far it seems to have done a good job on the Strykers hit in Iraq by RPG's although one seemed to have been destroyed by an RPG fired from a steep slope at the top unprotected armor of the Stryker. The downside of the Stryker is that it is horribly expensive.

I'm extremely interested in hearing any information about how BTR-80's with slat armor have performed in Chechnya or in fire tests against typical RPG-7 warheads. If it works, the slat-armored BTR-80's would be excellent and very cheap APC's for the new Iraqi Army. They would provide a more or less RPG-resistant APC that could allow Iraqi government troops and police to engage militants in a RPG intensive enviornment.

But sadly US defense contractors are lobbying like mad to sell the Iraqi government exclusively American equipment which is overpriced. In the meantime, most of the old Iraqi equipment is now beyond repair rusting away in maintenance depots. Refurbishing their old armored vehicles could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. But probably too late for that now.

Anyhoo... the Bradleys have so far been able to withstand most RPG hits. However one Bradley had its driver killed when a RPG hit the front (I'm assuming it hit his hatch).

I'm not sure if the turret holds up to RPG fire however. All that 25mm ammo probably lights up pretty good in addition to the TOW missiles stored in the cargo area.

One of the big advantages of the 25mm cannon on the Bradley however is that it fires DU armor piercing rounds capable of penetrating enormous amounts of armor. Reportedly it was able to destroy Iraqi T-72s with the DU ammunition.

At any rate, all these vehicles have their advantages and disadvantages. But if protection is key...I'd still go with something like the Israeli heavy APC's or the Russian BTR-T heavy APC. In guerilla warfare, those types of APCs can survive and dominate in a RPG intensive enviornment.

In conventional warfare however...hmm... I'd rather ride in the little cargo compartment of the Merkava MBT.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

The thing about the AMOS system is that includes Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) and that the rounds can also be smart rounds.

In essence a platoon of AMOS equiped IFV derivatives could probably wipe out an entire Abrahms Regiment in a couple of minutes and the Abrahms would never have even seen its enemy.

Because it is MRSI the actual moment of destruction of Abrahms Regiment would probably last only 5 seconds giving the MBTs no warning of their impending destruction.

Heh, I wish things were that simple. That's why you have counter battery radars.

the_shadow: You served in in an artillery regiment, right? Tell walker how soon after you fired your first shell that a Russian, say SNAR-12 or 13 has your exact position and how soon thereafter you can expect shells dropping on your position.

Case example from Afghanistan where a popular sport is firing mortars at US bases. In general there are shells flying the other way before the first volley actually hits the ground.

Artillery in combination with guided munitions can be very powerful but it's generally good enough for one shot only. Lack of mobility is the ultimate problem with artillery. After it shoots, the enemy knows exactly the firing position.

Somebody said that investing in modern artillery is like investing in a modern bow and arrow. There is a certain element of truth to that.

[Apollo 0]

I'm never been in the millitary no'r do i read many books or information on this topic so i'm not a buff on this ,but i was wandering if speed was still of importance these days ,not only in recon but als in combat.

In ofp i tend to like very fast combat vehicle's because at a certain range it can be hard to kill a fast moving ground target with certtain AT weapons like Rpg's ,the BTR80 for ex. must be one of the fastest APC's in RL ,in Ofp you can by driving at max speed on a fair distance around youre target avoid a lot of fire ,rpg's easily and even tank rounds ,and though it's easier with tows to kill a target that is moving at high speed around you its still not obviously easy ,in the meantime the BTR gunner can use it's firepower on the enemy.I don't know how that compare's to real life ,But i can immagine that speed can still be an advantage on the battlefield especially when dealing with infantry ,though i'm also wondering if the APC gunner would be able to opperate it's gun right at that speed.(I don't know if there's much use anyway these days for fast recon vehicle's ,though with the sattelite and air coverage i immagine pure recon vehicle's arn't used much anymore)

Edit:

There is also a BTR90 (duh will most say) ,well it has quite a nice arnament ,to quote a site:

/

The organic weapon set is located in the rotating turret and stabilised in two planes. It comprises the 30-mm 2A42 automatic gun, 7.62-mm PKT coaxial machine-gun, and 30-mm AG-17 grenade launcher. The launcher of an up-to-date anti-tank guided missile system is installed on the turret to engage heavy armoured tank-type targets. A detachable launching unit allows launching anti-tank missiles from the ground also.

/

It's has got upgraded armor and arnament ,very fast speed ,8 wheel drive and it's so sexy.  

[kaskad 0]

It has also got a triangle shaped buttom, to direct the mine/IED blast to the sides.

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

Counter Battery Radar (COBRA) and counter battery artillery is definately part of the defence against smart artillery munitions but it too is countered by anti radiation misilles a few of these lobbed up over the battlefield before the shoot means the you dare not turn on the radar for fear of a HARM spoiling your day. Of course we then come down to spoof radar units.

I still say the day of the MBT is gone when a platoon of IFV based mortars can wipe out a whole Abrahms Regiment in just a few minutes without the Abrahms even seeing their enemy.

As to the COBRA it inevitably desolves into an artillery dual as both sides seek to catch the other before the other can scoot. The COBRA and its spoofs stop being the target once the counter battery artillery reveals its position. The plane fact is that once one side has won that dual the other sides MBTs are dead meat.

For the record the AMOS can put 14 MRSI smart rounds per unit in the air in one minute and can scoot within 10 seconds of the warning. It can also put 26 rounds a minute of none MRSI smart rounds into the air.

It all comes down to who is fastest on the draw and who can dodge the fastest.

It also comes down to having the COBRA up front with your forward element giving away your armour concentration to the enemies sigint; as your armour must be in the footprint of the COBRA to be protected by it.

Kind Regards walker.