# m2 bradly infantry fighting vehicle



## ramrod (6 Mar 2005)

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 (7 Mar 2005)

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


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 Mar 2005)

ramrod said:
			
		

> 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 (7 Mar 2005)

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 (7 Mar 2005)

ramrod said:
			
		

> 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 (7 Mar 2005)

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 (7 Mar 2005)

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 (7 Mar 2005)

ramrod said:
			
		

> 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 (8 Mar 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> 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 (8 Mar 2005)

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?



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> 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 (8 Mar 2005)

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 (8 Mar 2005)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> 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 (8 Mar 2005)

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


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (9 Mar 2005)

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 (9 Mar 2005)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (9 Mar 2005)

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 (9 Mar 2005)

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 (9 Mar 2005)

"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 (9 Mar 2005)

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 (10 Mar 2005)

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.


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2005)

I've seen photo's of the LAV-25 TOW in Ausse service.  What is the Australian opinion on this vehicle?


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

I'm not entirely sure what their opinion is. However, the LAV-25 platform is getting a bit long in the tooth.. the USMC is undergoing a 400 million dollar fleet upgrade to modernize the gunnery software and communications gear to bring it up to current standards and replace the older, more difficult to operate computer systems. the upgraded USMC LAV-25s will then be able to fire depleted uranium APFSDS ammo


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2005)

Stop.  You are popping up in several AFV threads and talking outside your lane.  Speaking as someone qualified in the LAV turret, the only barrier I could see to firing that type of ammunition might be if the gunner did not know which dot to use as his aiming mark at a given range.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

sir, while i respect your first-hand experience with the LAV turret, the LAV-25 does differ from our LAV-IIIs. a quick external visual comparison reveals that the USMC M242 25mm chaingun has a barrel cover which conceals the three barrels from view, unlike our own turrets which clearly show off the separate barrels. I'm not sure if that's what makes them unable to fire DU munitions, but certainly some sort of modification was necessary. perhaps you misread my post. I'm not saying that all of a sudden they're gaining the ability to fire APFSDS ammunition, i'm saying that the upgrade gives them the ability to fire the DU variant. due to the heavier projectile weight and different ballistic properties involved, this requires modifications to the gunnery software and to the firing mechanism, which needs a heavier 'kick' to get the round moving.


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2005)

Qualify your information.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

Sorry, i should have done that right off the bat. 

LAV-25 pictures:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/lav-25.htm

the Canadian Delco Defence turret for the LAV-III:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-m242.htm

As to the USMC LAV-25 upgrades, i'll write down the article and edition of Jane's Defence Weekly tomorrow.


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2005)

That is impressive.  Wow.  Look you are right, and your pictures prove it.


			
				LordOsborne said:
			
		

> the USMC M242 25mm chaingun has a barrel cover which conceals the three barrels from view, unlike our own turrets which clearly show off the separate barrels.



Stop posting outside your area of knowledge unless you are looking to experience our warning system first hand.  The reason you can only see one barrel on the US LAV 25 is because there is only one 25 mm barrel.  There is only one barrel on our 25 mm cannon as well.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

Why are you threatening me with a warning? the pictures clearly show that the canadian M242 version has more than one barrel...


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2005)

No.  There is not more that one barrel.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

okay then. my bad, i'm sorry for assuming otherwise. i'll get you that info on the LAV-25 upgrades though.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> No. There is not more that one barrel.



can you tell me why the gun has a wraparound look? just to put my curiosity to rest.. i assumed it was a triple barrel weapon using an electrical drive motor to load and eject the rounds into the barrels.


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2005)

LordOsborne said:
			
		

> can you tell me why the gun has a wraparound look?


?


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Mar 2005)

I think someone left the kiddie corral door open again...... You guys realize you've just spent 3 pages arguing with an AIRSOFTER about the merits of firing ports on AFVs right? not to mention the current argument over how many barrels the LAVIII gun has(wtf?), This thread is like one of those MVAs, I just can't stop looking.....


To keep things on topic.
The barrel looks like that because its fluted. More surface area for better heat dissipitation. You're a "defence analyst"? For who?  Weekly World News?


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

thanks for the pics, MCG. the Casr page seems to show the barrel liner twisting, and that's what i meant.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Mar 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I think someone left the kiddie corral door open again...... You guys realize you've just spent 3 pages arguing with an AIRSOFTER about the merits of firing ports on AFVs right? not to mention the current argument over how many barrels the LAVIII gun has(wtf?), This thread is like one of those MVAs, I just can't stop looking.....
> 
> 
> To keep things on topic.
> The barrel looks like that because its fluted. More surface area for better heat dissipitation. You're a "defence analyst"? For who?   Weekly World News?



  

Lord Osborne, I have some friends in the C Scots, NCO and Officer, and they are going to love you defence analysis....


----------



## Franko (10 Mar 2005)

LordOsborne said:
			
		

> can you tell me why the gun has a wraparound look? just to put my curiosity to rest.. i assumed it was a triple barrel weapon using an electrical drive motor to load and eject the rounds into the barrels.



 :

Alright....I'm going to chime in here.

LordOsborne, you are full of it. 

If you were a defence anylist as you say you are you'd know your topic a wee bit better. 

Did you really think you'd get away with it? M242 gun with 3 barrels   :

......Wait a tick.....

Hmmmmm.....19 years old and a defence anylist 'eh? Let's see some credentials and some papers you've written, how about some arcticles from newspapers.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2005)

But Franko.....he read it on the Internet.  He also has books that he bought in the Mall.  When he tries to tell users what they are using and he has never ever seen a "real one", then I guess we must accept his qualifications Carte Blanche.    ;D  


Back to the M/M3 as a good vehicle to purchase:  I don't think it would be that great an idea.  This vehicle is extremely difficult to maintain mechanically, compared to other vehicles on the market.  

As mentioned, firing ports are a mote point.  The Marder was one of the first vehicles to go heavy in that direction, but with many upgrades, those firing ports slowly disappeared.  The Marders remote fired 7.62 MGs were slowly removed over time also.  The last thing a Mech Inf unit wants, is to be caught fighting from within their "Battle Taxi" by an anti-tank system.  All your eggs in one convenient basket makes a tempting target.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

I'd like to apologize for my headstrong posts earlier. Clearly i overstepped my boundaries with you guys, and i'm sorry for that. To answer your questions about my "background", i'm not actually working as a defence analyst, no. it's more of a hobby title than anything else, really. I am majoring in Military History at UVic, and i'm going to be taking some analysis courses in my final years. As to my sources, yes, i admit to not "Getting out there to see the real thing", and i understand that there is little i can do about it in the meantime. I always accept criticism, though, and if you'll tolerate someone who wants to learn more, i'll play the eager student, so to speak. Once again i apologize for my bravado.

the article i mentioned earlier came from the January 31 2005 edition of Jane's Defence Weekly, by the way. If you have a subscription to it or the online version, you can check it out there.


----------



## combat_medic (10 Mar 2005)

LordOsborne: Since you are a teenager who has not even completed the recruiting process by your own admission, it seems safe to say that you have never once in your entire life been remotely close to having a single moment of first hand experience with any of the vehicles or weapons you're talking about. Other than reading about it on the internet, you have nothing to contribute, and no credentials with which to qualify your statements (other than posting the internet links which you previously read). 

With regards to your choice for a vehicle to "do the job", considering you've never, EVER "done the job", what on earth makes you qualified to make such a statement? 

Unless you are, in fact, some kind of boy genius with a PhD at the tender age of 19, and are legitimately serving as a defence analyst, and have published real works on the military, which you will be asked to produce, you had better remove the title of "defence analyst" from your profile, and stop posting about your non-existant expertise.

You're not a defence analyst, you're not an officer cadet, you're not a soldier. Heck, you aren't even a RECRUIT yet. Stop posting like you have any experience with activities which there's no way you could have possibly participated in.


----------



## Danjanou (10 Mar 2005)

LordOsborne said:
			
		

> I'd like to apologize for my headstrong posts earlier. Clearly i overstepped my boundaries with you guys, and i'm sorry for that. To answer your questions about my "background", i'm not actually working as a defence analyst, no. it's more of a hobby title than anything else, really. I am majoring in Military History at UVic, and i'm going to be taking some analysis courses in my final years. As to my sources, yes, i admit to not "Getting out there to see the real thing", and i understand that there is little i can do about it in the meantime. I always accept criticism, though, and if you'll tolerate someone who wants to learn more, i'll play the eager student, so to speak. Once again i apologize for my bravado.
> 
> the article i mentioned earlier came from the January 31 2005 edition of Jane's Defence Weekly, by the way. If you have a subscription to it or the online version, you can check it out there.



Got that right slick.

Here's a thought. Fill your profile in with the following:

_ â Å“Hi, I'm a university student presently studying military and defence studies which, I have an interest in. I have little/no practical military experience as I have never served in the military to date, although would like/hope to in the future. Any advice on that would be gratly appreciated BTW.

My intent here is to read and learn and only when I have something valid to contribute will do so. Not drag absurd and incorrect comments out of mt a**.â ?_

Oops to late, your credibility here is shot.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

I deserved that.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

I don't get everything from the internet. please do not assume that i sit here and gather information by google-ing it. I get a lot of my information from respected authors, academic journals such as Jane's Defence Weekly and i try to stick to the better sites out there (fas.org, casr dnd 101). Just because i don't have any firsthand experience with the MGS doesn't mean i can't think it has shortcomings. certainly that's not unreasonable. i'll try not to be so brash in the future, but i don't think my earlier post in this thread suddenly becomes 100% incorrect because i haven't seen or operated an MGS


----------



## combat_medic (10 Mar 2005)

So you read and regurgitate OTHER people's opinions and try to pass that off as legitimate knowledge or experience?

I myself have done a great deal of research about medecine, surgery, various ailments, etc., but would NEVER walk into a convention of doctors and talk to them about my opinions of their surgical techniques. That would make me about as much of an armchair surgeon as you're trying to be an armchair general. 

Just because i don't have any firsthand experience with the MGS doesn't mean i can't think it has shortcomings.

Yes, actually it does. You've never used it, you have never used anything similar, you have no experience on which to draw, you have no basis of comparison, and only have read about other people's opinions on the matter. 

I get a lot of my information from respected authors, academic journals such as Jane's Defence Weekly and i try to stick to the better sites out there (fas.org, casr dnd 101).

You know, I've read a lot about the military as well, and DO have experience to draw from, but having never used the MGS, let alone even laid my eyes on one, I'm hardly in a position to tell those with genuine experience about what I think its shortcomings are. 

You have been asked numerous times by the DS of this forum to either remove the title "defence analyst" from your title, or back it up with some genuine credentials. This is the last time you will be asked.


----------



## Danjanou (10 Mar 2005)

And I (and a lot of others here) like a person who stands up and admits he screwed the pooch. 

Shall we start all over from the top?


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

I'd like that very much. thanks for the second chance.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2005)

LordOsborne I will also make a suggestion. Get rid of defence analyst in your tag it will only give you grief.


----------



## Franko (10 Mar 2005)

> thanks for the second chance



No prob.

Regards


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

I thought it was all right to keep it once i explained it was a hobby title more than anything else, but i respect your wishes and i've changed it to something i AM. i'm not sure if my career path will take me to becoming a real analyst, but if i do, i wanted to have that firsthand experience i'm so painfully lacking. 

Now, i fully understand what you mean about regurgitating other people's opinions, but to a certain extent, we all do it. now, when i said "having 18 rounds for the autoloader's magazine is a shortcoming", i thought it was a generally accepted fact. i backed my opinion up with information i read in other places, although i didn't explain myself (and i probably should have, in hindsight.. :-\ ). why is it a shortcoming? well, i drew on examples of combat vehicles in the past who have also had a similar problem. Case in point, the Iosef Stalin 2 "Victory Tank" of the second world war. its large 122mm gun had only 28 rounds to keep it going (Encyclopedia of Armoured Fighting Vehicles 2002 edition, pg. 386) and experience during the war proved that the crew frequently ran out of ammunition during combat. Other era tanks had a much larger ammunition storage capacity (partly because of the smaller size of the ammunition). now, running out of ammunition in combat is obviously a bad thing... Logic would suggest that having less ammunition is probably still a handicap today as it was 60 years ago. that, i think, is "legitimate knowledge".


----------



## Infanteer (10 Mar 2005)

...second chance has been granted and we've done the debate on the Bradley for the airsofter who started this thread.

Case closed.


----------

