Bradley or Warrior

Sorry Grieg, I do respect you arguments; they are always well thought out and supported, and dare I say the most confident on the forum ... It is merely comments such as "you're joking right" or "Your lack of knowledge about military rifles is equalled by the lack of knowledge about the US military" that i get razzed up about...
p.s. this is not complaining... this is explaining. If you can refer me to anything I may have said that insulted your knowlegability or intelligence then I will happily withdraw it... I can think of many such things said to me, though I prefer not to complain

 

I make a concerted effort not to resort to insults to try and prop up a weak argument. I'm aware that some of my remarks, made in the heat of debate, could be considered condescending, even bordering on insults but I do try not to cross that line. I don't think that stating an opinion regarding a lack of knowledge on a subject (ignorance) especially when that opinion can be supported by refuting the claimed facts is the same as hurling insults. Ignorance is no big deal to me since we all are ignorant of many things. Stupidity is another matter however and I do not call anyone stupid (though some may richly deserve the title )

I also consider your posts to be, for the most part, well thought out and when I disagree with them, worthy of debating.

 

:roll:

So - Warrior or Bradley.

Two different design philosophies -

- Warrior is purely designed to deliver troops and support them when they get there - it has no infantry firing ports as the British believe that the troops on board should play no part until unleashed under the cover of the Warrior's armament. It also assumed that anti-tank duties should be left to other units specifically designed for that task. All of this indicates that the Warrior was designed and is, in fact, specialised.

- Bradley is very similar in most ways but has firing ports for its troop cargo - indicating a slightly different doctrine re same. The standard infantry Bradley was designed with an anti-tank capability. Also models have been built which focus on roles such as anti-tank. All of this indicates that the Bradley is less specialised than the Warrior.

Now - they are both excellent and successful vehicles - my question really relates to what they reveal about the different philosophies of the US and UK armies. The Brits pigeonholing their vehicle with a very specific role; the Yanks allowing theirs some overlap. I can see pros and cons in both -

Warrior - The Warrior is not a tank - let's not have it risking itself by behaving like one - get the troops into battle in one piece. However - you might just meet a tank on your own - what then.

Bradley - You can take on tanks and knock them out - but should that be a priority when avoidance of such direct contact might be a better way of looking after your troop cargo and you are not well armoured enough to take a tank hit.

These little differences in design may lead to large differences in application.

 

As far as main armament is concerned... Some quickly scrounged stats

Bradley: 25 mm M242 Chain Gun
Calibre: 25 mm NATO
Velocity 1,100 m/s
Max Range: 2km
200 rpm
Gun is stabilised (Bradley can fire while moving)

Warrior: 30 mm L21A1 RARDEN cannon
Calibre: 30 mm x 170
Velocity: 1175 m/s
Max Range: 4 km
90 rpm
Gun is not stablilised (Warrior has to stop to fire)

Could anybody shed some light (I imagine Tony Williams will know) upon which weapon achieves superior penetration?... I imagine that it would be the RARDEN cannon, though the fact that the warrior has to stop to fire accurately seems like a big drawback for an APC which is supposed to be a mobile weapon.

 

If the RARDEN has more muzzle velocity, then I assume that it has superior penetration. But, I may be wrong, seeing as the Abrams' A3 round's fired from a gun that still has a bit less velocity than the Leopard 2A6's gun, but, using the A3, the Abrams can penetrate more armor than the Leopard. Maybe it's all in the round. I dunno.

 

Actually, you're pretty much right on the money. A lot of tank tech has gone into armour and ammunition technology as opposed to strength. That sounded right in my head.....

Basically, modern armour can take a lot more but may not be as thick and heavy as WW2 era stuff (come to think of it, It might even be thinner than some....I could be wrong and probably am tho')

Shell also have more penetration power compared to more explosive power (something like that anyway)

Edit: On another hand, the fact that the Bradley can move and fire at the same time could mean it has a slight survivability rate over the Warrior. Moving targets are generally harder to hit.

 

What if we threw the CV90 into the competition as well? How well would you say it compared to the Warrior and the Bradley?

 

This is a very hard comparison. Someone indicated there was a different philosophy in the two designs based on firing ports. Thats not really the case. There was a "fad" at one time to make a true IFV as an improvement over the APC design. The theory at that time was the dismounts should be allowed to fire as well from the cover of the vehicle. This design requirement does have it's place though. Both British and American forces need a vehicle to do route clearance/recon or convoy escort. This vehicle needs to be able to allow the occupants to observe the flanks of the vehicle and if necessary fire from under cover. Two problems developed. The first one was the realization that the dismounts may fire up thier ammo load before being deployed. The second was the primary reason the Brads no longer have firing ports. Through live fire testing, including accidental shootings in training, the survivability of the Brad was under question. Additional armor was added that covered up the firing ports. The designs were similar for good reasons. We share the same needs and production capabilities. We may not agree on armarment but at the heart of it we use them in the same manner.

The difference between M2 and M3 Brads are; The M2 is a Infantry fighting vehicle. The M3 is a Cav fighting vehicle. Our border CAV units during the cold war needed a serious counter recon vehicle that could take on the BMP2 and defend itself against tanks that were expected to accompany the recon elements. Doctrinally they are not supposed to take on tank units. However, our CAV guys were tasked to disrupt and decieve the lead elements of the Russian horde. They needed ATGMs to accomplish this. Besides, any armored vehicle on the battlefield had better be able to defend itself from a tank threat. The M3s didn't carry an Infantry squad but only a few dismounts for OP teams. The extra space was filled up with TOW missles. However, the Brad needs a fire and forget ATGM system. The 25mm has performed well but also has it's limitations. The 25mm sabot round has been used to suppress and damage the older tanks in Iraq's inventory. I've seen T-55/Type-59s turret punctured by the round. If peppered enough it cound destory the tank. The problem is the Brad has to be at the right angle and uncomfortably close to accomplish this. What I mean by uncomfortable is the Brad is within the tank's effective range as well.

I just don't know enough or have enough experience to write about the Warrior. From what I have seen it is an effective tool the British have had a lot of success with. The only complaint I can com up with is the lack of an ATGM. This can be very easily fixed. Although Javelins do not have the range of TOWs and less punch, their addition to the turret of a Warrior could be very comforting to the crews. In addition, Brad crews are using a bunker busting version of the TOW in Iraq to support our troops. In fact this version is the primary version carried by our Brads. Warrior crews have to put a lot of ammo into the same type of target to achieve the same results. This also takes a lot of time.

Every armored vehicle has it's weak points. Someone mentioned IEDs. No, IEDs were not in the design parameters for either vehicle; minefields were. IEDs are using far more explosive charge than any mine designed. Eventually a threat will find a method to disable any armored vehicle. So crew survivability is a strong consideration. Crew protection doesn't just mean the ability to keep projectiles out. It also takes into consideration of what happens when one does get through. I can't speak of the Warrior but the Brad has made marked improvements. I personally know guys that have been in Brads hit by M1s and survived. The Brad or Warrior was not, and can not, be designed to survive tank fire. However, the Brad's crew chances of survival has greatly increased since it was first fielded. This also comes with a prices in increased weight.

I could only give the Brad a slight advantage over the Warrior many on my lack of knowledge on the British vehicle. However, I think both designs are too tall, too loud, and possibly too heavy.