m2 bradly infantry fighting vehicle

[ramrod]

the m2 ifv might be old and out of service but with what the CF does now on mounted patrols it might be a good idea.it's a good sub for the tua vehicles,lav lll,and if the $(-)!t hits the fan the infantry inside can defend the thing from the six gun ports (two on each side and two on the ramp) talk about fire power!

 

[Infanteer]

Why would we get rid of our LAV's, we just bought them?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

the m2 ifv might be old and out of service but with what the CF does now on mounted patrols it might be a good idea.it's a good sub for the tua vehicles,lav lll,and if the $(-)!t hits the fan the infantry inside can defend the thing from the six gun ports (two on each side and two on the ramp) talk about fire power!

M2 Bradley - is that the one that is much larger than a tank but not at all armoured or armed like a tank?

 

[ramrod]

first of all i didn't say we should get rid of the lav lll (this thing only carries 6 people) and yes it looks like a tank but is only 1/3 (i could be wrong) bigger than a m-113 wich it was developed from.when it comes to defending itself it can do it better then the lavlll.

 

[Da_man]

first of all i didn't say we should get rid of the lav lll (this thing only carries 6 people) and yes it looks like a tank but is only 1/3 (i could be wrong) bigger than a m-113 wich it was developed from.when it comes to defending itself it can do it better then the lavlll.

What can you mount on a bradley that you cant on a LAV?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Ramrod,

I like both the M2 and M3 Bradleys but I think that you might be wanting the Bradley for the wrong reasons.  In comparing the LAV III and the Bradley there are several differences but I believe that in the end we have the right vehicle for what we do.  I'll give a quick comparison of the LAV III and Bradley is terms of mobility, firepower, protection and infantry carrying capability.  In my opinion, the differences between the two vehicles pretty much "wash out."

The first big difference is that the Bradley is tracked and the LAV III is wheeled.  Wheels vs tracks has been pretty much beaten to death on other threads.  I would say, however, that for the mounted patrolling role that you mention having wheels is an advantage.

On the firepower issue the big difference is that the Bradley has TOW.  If we really want TOW, however, we can fit it on the LAV III turret and the Coyote.  Otherwise the firepower is the same with a 25mm Bushmaster chain gun and 7.62mm coaxial machinegun.  I have conducted numerous live fire execises with LAV IIIs as part of the old Combat Teams and believe me, a LAV III company can kick out an impressive level of firepower (although I was always partial to my 105mm).  The firing ports on the Bradley strike me as a novelty and I believe that the add-on armour on the latest variants has obscured these (expect for the rear facing ones).  

Comparing protection is difficult since armour protection is classified.  The Bradley probably has an edge in add-on armour but it is certainly not in the same league as a modern MBT.  Both the LAV III and Bradely can stop small arms and shell fragments and both must avoid anti-tank weapons.  Both vehicle have high silouettes.

Carrying capacity is pretty much the same, although the layout of the Bradley did not impress me.  In almost all respects the two vehicles are similar (except for the tracks/wheels).  My bottom line is that for the types of missions that we (the Canadian Army) conduct the LAV III is the right vehicle.  This is not to say that I would turn my nose up at a Bradley, but I would sooner see the money spent on getting M1A2s or armoured CSS vehicles than replacing the LAV IIIs or supplementing them with M2/M3 Bradleys (which, by the way, are still in service in the US).

Cheers,

2B

 

[ramrod]

i wasn't saying replace the lavlll but use both in conjuction and the varient i'm talking about is the i.f.v. witch is not used any more.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

i wasn't saying replace the lavlll but use both in conjuction and the varient i'm talking about is the i.f.v. witch is not used any more.

Name a single instance in which our Army has operated in the last 50 years in which it would have been an advantage for the infantry involved to have fought while mounted and under armour.

 

[Infanteer]

Name a single instance in which our Army has operated in the last 50 years in which it would have been an advantage for the infantry involved to have fought while mounted and under armour.

The Ice Storm?

 

[ramrod]

put it this way would you waant to run out of a lav with a hail of gun fire coming at you or blast away in better cover?

The Ice Storm?

i'm saying use it in conjunction with the lav lll for support (2 m2's to 6 lav lll's).

 

[COBRA-6]

In an ideal world Canada would have both LAV-III medium infantry battalions and M2A3/Warrior/CV90 armoured infantry battalions, but I think until then we should spend our $ on higher-priority items like proper transport helos, new hercs, and other such items... oh and a proper tank or two would be nice as well...

Plus I just can't see the Cdn Government sending us into a situation where we would truely need such armoured vehs, so I can't see them spending money on them sadly... I would love to see the Cdn Army with a couple of light bde's, a couple of med bde's, and an armoured bde... put it on the list!

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Plus I just can't see the Cdn Government sending us into a situation where we would truely need such armoured vehs,

Bingo.

Of course, it raises the whole chicking and the egg question - which comes first, a political commitment to combat capability, or a financial one?

 

[Love793]

Last I checked the M2/3 Bradleys are still in service.  Just saw one on the news.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Ramrod,

Is your desire for the M2 based on the firing ports?  I'm not in the infantry, but having the section stay mounted to fight is not employing them to their advantage.  Yes, it is a risk to get out the fight but there is also a risk of staying inside waiting for an RPG to hit.  Both the Bradley and LAV III can kick out a lot of firepower with the chaingun, coax and ack-ack.  The section is at its best when dismounted as they can acquire and engage targets that the vehicle cannot see.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Horse_Soldier]

Ramrod,

Is your desire for the M2 based on the firing ports?   I'm not in the infantry, but having the section stay mounted to fight is not employing them to their advantage.   Yes, it is a risk to get out the fight but there is also a risk of staying inside waiting for an RPG to hit.   Both the Bradley and LAV III can kick out a lot of firepower with the chaingun, coax and ack-ack.   The section is at its best when dismounted as they can acquire and engage targets that the vehicle cannot see.

Cheers,

2B

Gawd - there are firing ports on the Grizzly - useless, useless, useless.  Can't see properly, can't aim properly, can't fire properly.  Their only use was for chucking out cigarette butts while on admin moves.

 

[Bomber]

Dismounting the entire section brings their weapons to bear on a target, would this not be a little more effective than every guy covering a firing port and 70 percent of your small arms fire power not having an idea of what the target is cause they are looking the Wong way?  I figure a 25mm, a coax C6, 2 c9's, and 8 or so C7's with some M203's, well dispersed, is more effective than 25mm, coax, and t C7's out of firing ports.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Bomber/Horse Soldier,

Yup.  I think that firing ports were a 60s and 70s novelty item (like the 8 Track).  Besides, for stability operations you need to have face to face contact with the populace in order to establish a feeling of trust.

Cheers,

2B

 

[onecat]

"Of course, it raises the whole chicking and the egg question - which comes first, a political commitment to combat capability, or a financial one?"

Their part of the same question really, because you won't ant real finanical support until you get the political commitment.. and you won't get that untik their will spend the money.  Will this ever happen...  I doubt it.  Canadians keeping giving their support to parties like the liberals who, as all know DO NOT support either.  Yes they di dpromise to inject money into the CF in the budget, but its all at the end of 5 year plan, which will most likely be after a new election, and once a election is held the money will most likely be moved some place else.

 

[a_majoor]

A few questions which are not clear:

1. What reason do you want the M2 family for? There are valid reasons, but which ones apply for us?

2. If you believe that a buttoned up APC/IFV offers saftey to the passengers and crew, then you are thinking of the 45 tonne ACHZARIT

3. If you are looking for more on board firepower, then there isn't much difference between an M-2 and a LAV. CV-90 family vehicles have bigger guns, and if you want to go top of the line, a Merkava can carry a section wedged in the back, and fight with an on board 120mm cannon.

The idea that you can pick and choose the level of combat is lacking in common sense IMO; the situation could deteriorate due to internal factors (think of the Balkens), or an outside agency could choose to intervene (Chinese in Korea; Jihadis in Somalia). There could be a sudden escalation, so a vehicle which has a combination of situation awareness; protection and firepower, as well as a combination of tactical and operational mobility fits the bill. LAVs with a "Cage" or ceramic tiles is a reasonable compromise.

 

[LordOsborne]

It was mentioned earlier that in a pinch the I-TOW or TOW-2 can be fitted to the LAV-III turret. Sadly, unlike the majority of European light armoured vehicles, the Delco Defence turret of the LAV-III is not capable of mounting the TOW missile launching system. Attempts have been made to this effect but the general concensus was not positive. LAV-TUA is the solution.. hopefully in a matter of years we might see LAV-Hellfire replacing LAV-TUA systems. this would greatly enhance the Army's land-based AT capabilities.