US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby orcbuster » Thu 6 Oct 2016 10:54

QUAD wrote:
orcbuster wrote:M2 and m2A1 were much less protected than M2A2 which added steel plate into the frame construction (and also 7 tonnes)


the general design of the vehicle though emphasized crew safety, unlike BMP where any penetrating hit had a high chance of hitting the ammo and causing everything to explode. imo for a transport vehicle 4 fav is justified for m2 and m2a1 speaking of general realism with regard to game


No. Crew safety features are irrelevant in this context. You're not getting 4 AV base bradleys. If that was the case I would have to take size into consideration as well.

If its a kill then it's a kill. What happens to the crew is irrelevant in the context of wargame.
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby HrcAk47 » Thu 6 Oct 2016 10:55

Xeno426 wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:Can you bear the fact that Bradley of the period was F-35 of the day - an expensive and useless stillborn only saved by the fact it no longer had to fight anything capable.

Tell me more about how the F-35 sucks. I'll be here all day.


Protracted development, monetary black hole, "teething pains" lasting forever, and not to mention €xp£n$iv€.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
Yakhont
Colonel
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2012 04:33
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Yakhont » Thu 6 Oct 2016 10:56

QUAD wrote:
the general design of the vehicle though emphasized crew safety, unlike BMP where any penetrating hit had a high chance of hitting the ammo and causing everything to explode.


And why is that?
Image

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Thu 6 Oct 2016 11:02

orcbuster wrote:
QUAD wrote:
orcbuster wrote:M2 and m2A1 were much less protected than M2A2 which added steel plate into the frame construction (and also 7 tonnes)


the general design of the vehicle though emphasized crew safety, unlike BMP where any penetrating hit had a high chance of hitting the ammo and causing everything to explode. imo for a transport vehicle 4 fav is justified for m2 and m2a1 speaking of general realism with regard to game


No. Crew safety features are irrelevant in this context. You're not getting 4 AV base bradleys. If that was the case I would have to take size into consideration as well.

If its a kill then it's a kill. What happens to the crew is irrelevant in the context of wargame.


merkava though. maybe even Humvee with 10 HP.

@Yakhont size of the vehicle, location of the ammo, and I think engine compartment. Whenever I play CM: BS knocked out M2A3 Bradley's typically are able to dismount an entire squad, while knocked out BMP-3s have 1-2 survivors at most usually.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

User avatar
Yakhont
Colonel
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2012 04:33
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Yakhont » Thu 6 Oct 2016 11:04

Xeno426 wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:Can you bear the fact that Bradley of the period was F-35 of the day - an expensive and useless stillborn only saved by the fact it no longer had to fight anything capable.

Tell me more about how the F-35 sucks. I'll be here all day.


The F-35 was a post-Cold War weapon project ego it was a military project cooked up by Lockheed Martin that promised not one but three aircraft that can sing, dance and play the piano at the same time when military budgets would be slashed left right and centre.

To sustain the industrial and capital investments made during the Cold War and their stock price, they came up with the most expensive military project EVER and essentially guaranteed they would be handed cheques by the US government for the next 50 years through R&D, initial deployment and refinement, serving , midlife upgrades etc all the way till decommissioning.

So they lock themselves in then starve their competitors to death because there is not enough money left. So this is not a project for the military it is a project for their own survival.
Image

User avatar
PzAz04Maus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2014 01:42
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby PzAz04Maus » Thu 6 Oct 2016 11:08

orcbuster wrote:M2 and m2A1 were much less protected than M2A2 which added steel plate into the frame construction (and also 7 tonnes)

Small note, not a resounding rebuttal, but reading the first page of chapter 8 in the url below suggests that the sides had steel spaced armor, while they exchanged the M113's 5083 Aluminum blend for an 7039 alloy.

https://books.google.com/books?id=KAk9d2GCFOwC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=M2+bradley+steel+laminate&source=bl&ots=TYob57wwJB&sig=W51p-_pHyiLU0423oj1us-gNBJk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY04-l6MXPAhVo04MKHdtDDso4ChDoAQgdMAA#v=snippet&q=armor%20thickness&f=false

To sustain the industrial and capital investments made during the Cold War and their stock price, they came up with the most expensive military project EVER and essentially guaranteed they would be handed cheques by the US government for the next 50 years through R&D, initial deployment and refinement, serving , midlife upgrades etc all the way till decommissioning.

So they lock themselves in then starve their competitors to death because there is not enough money left. So this is not a project for the military it is a project for their own survival.

They've had over 20 years to wind down the capital and industrial investments: even something like the F-35 isn't going to bring 6% of GDP defense spending back. This could have been done with some modest iteration of proven testbeds and designs that the US swings between the home run technological wizardry projects with so many fewer political headaches to account for. If this was supposed to put food on the table, aiming for something beyond an evolutionary design is a bet on the farm and the table.
Last edited by PzAz04Maus on Thu 6 Oct 2016 11:16, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Yakhont
Colonel
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2012 04:33
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Yakhont » Thu 6 Oct 2016 11:09

QUAD wrote:
@Yakhont size of the vehicle, location of the ammo, and I think engine compartment. Whenever I play CM: BS knocked out M2A3 Bradley's typically are able to dismount an entire squad, while knocked out BMP-3s have 1-2 survivors at most usually.


M2 Bradley is higher and more visible than any BMP.

Layout of crew and engine is really similar; right of driver

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldw ... g_arcs.png
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /bfv-l.gif

Ammo is stored below the turret for both most likely, definitely not in isolated compartment, Fade can confirm.
Image

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Sleksa » Thu 6 Oct 2016 11:10

Kasrkin229 wrote:the US get's shafted in almost every category.


Clearly this is the case when the riflemen '90 run around with a at launcher that some coalitions would kill for, or the smaw teams, or the garbage AA with a 3325 range chap and patriot, or the worst AP superheavy in the game with a bunch of poopy secondary options like the marine abrams, or f&f apaches, the engineering m60 tanks, supercobras with nearly 4km anti-plane range aam's, best stealth planes in the game, a a-10 with more rear armor than the su-25 family & tom cruise himself.

Clearly there's a vast conspiracy here to intentionally humiliate usa by forcing them to have a bad shilleilagh on a goddamn starship.
Image

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby orcbuster » Thu 6 Oct 2016 11:15

Yakhont wrote:
QUAD wrote:
@Yakhont size of the vehicle, location of the ammo, and I think engine compartment. Whenever I play CM: BS knocked out M2A3 Bradley's typically are able to dismount an entire squad, while knocked out BMP-3s have 1-2 survivors at most usually.


M2 Bradley is higher and more visible than any BMP.

Layout of crew and engine is really similar; right of driver

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldw ... g_arcs.png
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /bfv-l.gif

Ammo is stored below the turret for both most likely, definitely not in isolated compartment, Fade can confirm.


It should also be noted that mine survivability is better in the BMP due to passenger seat layout which have them seated facing outwards with the seats not in direct contact with the outer hull. But again. Such technical details are rather irrelevant in the context of wargame.
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby HrcAk47 » Thu 6 Oct 2016 11:16

QUAD wrote:
merkava though. maybe even Humvee with 10 HP.

@Yakhont size of the vehicle, location of the ammo, and I think engine compartment. Whenever I play CM: BS knocked out M2A3 Bradley's typically are able to dismount an entire squad, while knocked out BMP-3s have 1-2 survivors at most usually.


Size is a liability.

Ammo is located rather similarly.

"Other game" does not an argument make.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 28 guests