Favorite/Best tracked AFV

Favorite/Best wheeled AFV

  • Warrior

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bradley M2/M3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ASCOD

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ACV-S

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dardo

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5
Whispering Death said:
lemontree said:
rOk said:
It only takes one good missile-like with the bradley...you see where I'm trying to go with this?
What ever is fielded can be destroyed. I'm talking of capability for a given task.

The Bradly is armed with two TOW missiles each of which can hit a target 3.75 miles away.

The smaller but much faster firing main gun is better suited for infantry support.

Not to mention the optics on a Bradley vs. a BMP which is the key in vehicle survivability on the modern battlefield.

Therefore I conclude that the Bradley is a far superior IFV to the outdated BMP.

But I still think the CV90 is a better design than the Bradley.

BMP-3 is much better then M2, BMP can both fire ATGM's, shoot 100mm canon and shot 30mm canon+ it have a Arena defence system, it can swim, Also BMP-3's ATGM range is 4km and M2's is 3.75km. M2 is a GIANT target and M2's speed is 66km/h and BMP's is 70km/h also BMP's ROF is 250 rounds/minute and M2's is 200

a pic of BMP-3 with Arena

http://www.gspo.ru/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=22788
 
Snauhi, I'm sure that that ARENA mast wouldn't survive a <12,7 HE round.

Additionally, Whispering Death stated that the TOW range is 3,75 miles which is a bit more that 4km on the BMP.
4km/h difference doesn't mean squat. If it's acceleration, that's another thing.[/b]
 
Whispering Death said:
The Bradly is armed with two TOW missiles each of which can hit a target 3.75 miles away.
The range of the TOW is 3.75km not miles. The effective range of weapons is always given in metric system.
The Kornet E(AT-14) of the BMP-3 has a range of 5km and the AT-10 ATGM is 4km.
Whispering Death said:
The smaller but much faster firing main gun is better suited for infantry support.
The BMP-3s 30mm 2A72 auto gun's ROF is 300+ rounds per minute, which is comparable to the M2A2 Bushmaster's ROF of 200-500 rounds(adjustable) per minute.
Whispering Death said:
Therefore I conclude that the Bradley is a far superior IFV to the outdated BMP.
The BMP-1 is outdated not the BMP-3, just as the M113 is outdated not the M2/3.
Whispering Death said:
But I still think the CV90 is a better design than the Bradley.
I agree.
 
rOk said:
Snauhi, I'm sure that that ARENA mast wouldn't survive a <12,7 HE round.
If an HE round falls on the ARENA mast the IFV will be a smoking shell.
rOk said:
Additionally, Whispering Death stated that the TOW range is 3,75 miles which is a bit more that 4km on the BMP.
Its metres not miles, a simple error.
Beisdes all TOW missiles are wire guided, where as the AT-10 is a laserguided ATGM. You will agree that this does have its advantages over the wire guided system.
In 2000 a TOW fire and forget ATGM was being developed, however it was scrapped in 2002. I wonder why?
 
lemontree, stop making double and tripple posts back to back. If you are the last person to make a post, and you want to add somthing, use the Edit button. Also read the whole theard before you post, so you can post a full reply easily.
 
Lemontree is right, I accidentally wrote miles instead of KM.

But it doesn't really matter because the BMP-3's ATGM is fired throught the barrel of its main gun which doesn't work well at all. Might look just spiffy on paper but in practice I just don't think the BMP-3 works anywhere near as well as the battle tested M2.

The only thing I like about the BMP-3 is its water-fording capabilities.
 
Shadowalker said:
This is for armoured fighting vehicles - whichi includes IFVs and APCs in that.
The difference is in firepower of both these class if vehicles.
An APC is a battle taxi, with no firepower.e.g M113, OT-62/64.
An IFV is a battle taxi with firepower.e.g M2/3, BMP-2/3.
 
Whispering Death said:
But it doesn't really matter because the BMP-3's ATGM is fired throught the barrel of its main gun which doesn't work well at all. Might look just spiffy on paper but in practice I just don't think the BMP-3 works anywhere near as well as the battle tested M2.
I am not aware of the deficiencies of the 100mm barrel launched AT-10, but the AT-14 Kornet is also laser guided and it is not barrel launched but has separate launcher tubes, which have proved their efficacy against Abrams in GW2.
The BMP-3 is an ungraded version of the BMP-2 with change in main gun and improved water fording capability. Leaving national baises aside, it is a good fighting platform with proven capabilities.
 
I understand the difference between IFVs and APCs but for the purposes of this poll they are under the tag AFV. Lemontree watch the double posts, use the edit in top right corner!
 
lemontree said:
Whispering Death said:
But it doesn't really matter because the BMP-3's ATGM is fired throught the barrel of its main gun which doesn't work well at all. Might look just spiffy on paper but in practice I just don't think the BMP-3 works anywhere near as well as the battle tested M2.
I am not aware of the deficiencies of the 100mm barrel launched AT-10, but the AT-14 Kornet is also laser guided and it is not barrel launched but has separate launcher tubes, which have proved their efficacy against Abrams in GW2.
The BMP-3 is an ungraded version of the BMP-2 with change in main gun and improved water fording capability. Leaving national baises aside, it is a good fighting platform with proven capabilities.

The AT-14 Kornet was NOT fired at any US vehicles in Iraq. That is fact. Even if they were, the Abrams is still impervious to it across the front.
 
Whispering Death said:
lemontree said:
Kozzy Mozzy said:
The AT-14 Kornet was NOT fired at any US vehicles in Iraq. That is fact. Even if they were, the Abrams is still impervious to it across the front.
The US army in Iraq disagrees with your opinion. As for the penetration of the Kornet on the front of the Abrams. Check the site below.
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/kornet_anti_tank_missile.asp

Kozzy is still right, they've never been shot at an abrams.

You know that they would penetrate it..
 
Whispering Death/Kozzy Mozzy,
Read this extract from the link provided. There are also reports as indicated in the articles that an M1A1 was lost due to RGP fire in the rear.
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/a-b/battletwo10d.html
In the early evening of 25 March 2003, in an ambush at As Samawah on the west bank of the Euphrates, the 'Bonecrushers' of 3 Squadron (in the 7th Cavalry of the 3rd Infantry Division) lost two Abrams to direct fire from fedayeen fighters. Photographs of the damage to their hulls suggest that they were probably hit by Russian AT-14 Kornet laser-guided missiles fired from fedayeen 4x4 trucks shadowing the American advance.

When the Americans broke into Baghdad, 4 Battalion (in the 64th Armor Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division) lost two Abrams, one of which suffered an engine fire after being struck in the rear by rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) fire. Subsequently, a field modification was introduced to add protection to the Abrams' air intakes vents and exhaust ducts in the rear hull. Later photographs of these disabled tanks showed them to be badly burned. However, it is standard American practice to call in air strikes to obliterate abandoned vehicles to deny the enemy the sensitive equipment they carry.
We are deviating from the thread. We can discuss tanks in another thread.
 
Back
Top