Favorite/Best tracked AFV - Page 4




View Poll Results :Favorite/Best wheeled AFV
Warrior 0 0%
Bradley M2/M3 9 28.13%
ASCOD 1 3.13%
ACV-S 0 0%
BMP-3 6 18.75%
CV90 10 31.25%
Dardo 0 0%
Puma 2 6.25%
Other 4 12.50%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
February 22nd, 2005  
Shadowalker
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontree
Actually its wrong to enter the BMP3 in the APC vote, since it is an IFV.
This is for armoured fighting vehicles - whichi includes IFVs and APCs in that.
February 22nd, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
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.
February 23rd, 2005  
lemontree
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowalker
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.
--
February 23rd, 2005  
lemontree
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
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.
February 23rd, 2005  
Shadowalker
 
 
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!
February 24th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
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.
February 24th, 2005  
lemontree
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy
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/...nk_missile.asp
February 24th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy
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/...nk_missile.asp
Kozzy is still right, they've never been shot at an abrams.
February 24th, 2005  
Snauhi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy
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/...nk_missile.asp
Kozzy is still right, they've never been shot at an abrams.
You know that they would penetrate it..
February 24th, 2005  
lemontree
 
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/micr...tletwo10d.html
Quote:
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.