Jump to content


Photo

Bradley Apc?


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,814 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 September 2012 - 2238 PM

I was just curious, how many dismounts might a bradley IFV carry if it didn't have a turret (like a supersized M-113)?

#2 Mr King

Mr King

    Gets The Captions Wrong

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted 08 September 2012 - 2332 PM

(like a supersized M-113)?


Like Mega Gavin?

Shhhhh he is legend

#3 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 897 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 08 September 2012 - 2357 PM

I'm pretty sure an APC variant of the Bradley has been pitched in the past. Also mortar carrier, battlefield ambulance, etc.

At least 9 dismonts I'm sure. Probably 10-12.

#4 Mr King

Mr King

    Gets The Captions Wrong

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted 09 September 2012 - 0024 AM

I'm pretty sure an APC variant of the Bradley has been pitched in the past. Also mortar carrier, battlefield ambulance, etc.

At least 9 dismonts I'm sure. Probably 10-12.


Posted Image

#5 Archie Pellagio

Archie Pellagio

    Now flouridating a water source near YOU!

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montpelier, Vermont
  • Interests:Vermonter global conquest rampages!

Posted 09 September 2012 - 0041 AM

Assuming the same hull 2-3 extra would be logical, possibly a fourth.
How many did the Dutch and Turkish 113s lose with the addition of a 25mm two man turret?
A stretched Bradley with an extra road wheel would be interesting.

#6 Richard Lindquist

Richard Lindquist

    Purveyor of flints to General Washington

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lighthouse Point, FL, USA
  • Interests:military hardware, military history

Posted 09 September 2012 - 0609 AM

Before the Bradley, the program was called the MIVC XM723. It has a one man turret with a little cupola behind the driver for the TC. Total load was twelve (driver and 11 man squad). With the two man turret, the crew went to nine (TC gunner, driver, and six dismounts). The Armor guys (under Donn Starry) had to put on a full-court press to beat down the Infantry types and get them to accept the smaller dismount capability. It all went down in 1976.

The Bradley hull and powertrain was inherited directly from the MICV program. You just had a bigger hole for the turret.

#7 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 09 September 2012 - 1002 AM

A Brad w/ CROWS system would be interesting, especially if stretched.

#8 Mr King

Mr King

    Gets The Captions Wrong

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted 09 September 2012 - 1016 AM

A Brad w/ CROWS system would be interesting, especially if stretched.


I am pretty sure I have seen pictures of a Brad with CROWS but I cant find any in my image collection and my googlefu is weak.

Edit*
Guess my googlefu is not as weak as I thought. Dont know if it is specifically a CROWS system but it is a remote operated weapons system.

Posted Image

Here is a Brad mortar track

Posted Image

Edited by Mr King, 09 September 2012 - 1022 AM.


#9 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 09 September 2012 - 1509 PM

Why didn't we build these instead of continuing with a split system between M113 family and M2/3s? I mean just parts and systems commonality make it a no brainer to me. Stick the M113s in reserve or give em to the guard until we have the spare cash for the M2s/3s for the guard units?

Beats the crap out of light infantry that can't get anywhere fast.

#10 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 897 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 09 September 2012 - 1517 PM

But imagine what Sparky would think!

#11 Richard Lindquist

Richard Lindquist

    Purveyor of flints to General Washington

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lighthouse Point, FL, USA
  • Interests:military hardware, military history

Posted 09 September 2012 - 1527 PM

Why didn't we build these instead of continuing with a split system between M113 family and M2/3s? I mean just parts and systems commonality make it a no brainer to me. Stick the M113s in reserve or give em to the guard until we have the spare cash for the M2s/3s for the guard units?

Beats the crap out of light infantry that can't get anywhere fast.



It has always been that way. When we adopt a new truck, we get the cargo version and the special chassis versions remain on the old chassis for years. In our battalion in Vietnam (67-68), we had the multi-fuel A2 versions of the five ton for our dump trucks, our five ton tractors were a mix multi-fuel A2 and diesel A1 versions, our wreckers were A2 versions, and our water distributors and bitumen distributors were the old gas bangers. Our deuce-and-a-halfs were all multi-fuel except the pipeline trucks and the machine shop truck were gas bangers.

When I was in 3rd Armored Division (64-66) we had a mix of M60 and M60A1, but the AVLB were stilll on the M48A2 chassis with the gas engines. Our jeeps were M151 except the recoiless rifle jeeps and the jeep ambulances were M38A1C and M170. We had m113 for the infantry squads, but the 4.2 mortar tracks were the old M84 and we kept the M59 for the command post vehicles until we finally got the M577s. The cargo trucks were all diesel or multifuel while all special purpose 2-1/2 and 5 ton were gas bangers.

First company I was ever assigned to on active duty was the 94th Ordnance Company (Direct Support). We had eight jeeps assigned to the company. One was an M151, six were M38A1 and the last (mine) was an ancient M38. Our shop vans and our fuel truck were on the M35 Reo chassis with stick shifts while all of our cargo trucks were M135 GMC with the slush-o-matic transmissions.

Don't even get me started on the horrendous mix of makes and models of generators and construction equipment and their issue willy-nilly to units with no effort on the part of the supply chain at standardization within a unit.

#12 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 09 September 2012 - 1648 PM

Argh, I had a nice reply built and user error on my part (too many gestures Apple!) destroyed it.


Try this again.
From my hobby with the M35s and M39 series truck I've learned there is a large amount of commonality of parts and setup in both types. The WWII Macks are very similar to the last generation of M900 series 5 tons and everything in between insofar as setup and design. The differences between an M35 and an M39 are a matter of scale (same for the 10 tons). The differences within each of the types is usually age of component design with later components being able to work in earlier designs. For example any of the brake booster packs work in the trucks, newer units being better and more reliable in some ways but otherwise very common save for this or that bracket or fitting.

In fact the LDS and LTD 465s used the block design with differences of oil jets and more cooling functions added to the 5 ton engines. Several of the guys on STeel soldiers have also discovered gasser era components on their trucks (axles for example) because they were just rebuilt and reused on a newer truck that was updated. The differences between the M54 Gasser all the way up to the M809s is very incremental and one could take a gasser, change components out of in and get an M809. Guys have swapped turbos and other things around from 5 tons to 2.5 tons to get their trucks more zippy (including 5 ton motors in deuces). They've even done some interesting bobbed and crew cab mods.

I guess it would seem that the ongoing use of the M113s and Bradleys with no special variants of the bradley is sort of like continuing to use the 5 tons for everything BUT cargo and running M656s for the cargo trucks. All the wreckers, shop vans, semi-tractors and such being on the M39 series.

I've never understood that when we design a new tank that we don't design in parallel a bridge layer, engineer vehicle and other subtypes to go with it and stick with not even a limited run of the special subtypes for it.

In a pinch you can even stick an LDS 465-1a in a Deuce and it will mate up and work, you could put a Deuce engine in a 5 ton too, it would just be gutless due to the 5ton's greater curb weight. Can you stick a bradley engine in a M113? An M1 Engine in an M60 or M48?

Edited by rmgill, 09 September 2012 - 1654 PM.


#13 Mr King

Mr King

    Gets The Captions Wrong

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted 20 September 2012 - 0237 AM



#14 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 20 September 2012 - 0804 AM

"I've never understood that when we design a new tank that we don't design in parallel a bridge layer, engineer vehicle and other subtypes to go with it and stick with not even a limited run of the special subtypes for it."--rmgill
I believe this was proposed for the M1 series, but the parsimonious Congress of the day nixed them for short-term economy (if the old stuff still works, why replace it), even though the long term costs would have been greatly reduced.
I specifically remember a fight over an ARV based on the M1. Instead, the M88 (based on the M60) was upgraded. It seems to be OK, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's still marginal when recovering an M1.

#15 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,272 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 21 September 2012 - 2001 PM

http://www.military-...4_wolverine.htm

http://www.military-...ing/grizzly.htm

A votre service monsieur

#16 Mr King

Mr King

    Gets The Captions Wrong

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted 21 September 2012 - 2111 PM

http://www.military-...4_wolverine.htm

http://www.military-...ing/grizzly.htm

A votre service monsieur


Didnt they build a more simplified version of the Wolverine and equip units with them too?

#17 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 21 September 2012 - 2137 PM

But is it *airdroppable*? What about racks for bikes and SKS's?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jRgjakf59s


Edited by shep854, 21 September 2012 - 2140 PM.


#18 Lieste

Lieste

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Location:Bath, UK

Posted 21 September 2012 - 2143 PM

Not Wolverine, but the Grizzly yes.. Go up a level from the grizzly link and scroll down from CEV section to 'minefield breaching' where you'll find the 'ABV' and down a bit further to the 'Panther II' under 'mineclearing'.

The last in really small quantities...

#19 Mr King

Mr King

    Gets The Captions Wrong

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted 21 September 2012 - 2323 PM

Not Wolverine, but the Grizzly yes.. Go up a level from the grizzly link and scroll down from CEV section to 'minefield breaching' where you'll find the 'ABV' and down a bit further to the 'Panther II' under 'mineclearing'.

The last in really small quantities...


Huh that is really puzzling, because I could swear I read the that they went with a cheaper version of the Wolverine. Thanks for setting me straight.

#20 JohnAbrams21

JohnAbrams21

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 September 2012 - 2343 PM

I know that reworked Bradley Chassis are being looked at for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle(AMPV) to supplement and/or replace the M113s in all their numerous variants. Any new news on this program?

I know the Ground Combat Vehicle(GCV) is slated to eventually replace the regular IFV Bradley's, but I haven't heard anything about this program for a couple of months....






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users