The Armored Vehicle Thread

Despite what you might have heard, the Bradley actually has a pretty good track record.

This is true but it doesn't change it from being one of the most aggressively inefficient IFV designs in service.

It can do the jobs we give it well enough but there is no reason for it to exist as it currently does and so many aspects of it's designs are self contradicting.

It’s always been a perfectly serviceable design, it’s just beginning to show its age. Like many other pieces of military hardware its reputation is very different than its reality.

The thing people tend to forget is just how flexible and useful it is. Most people just see “25mm cannon” and assume it’s a piece of shit.

Garcon: There is nothing actually inefficient about the design it works quite well, has pretty good firepower, ok passenger space, and has some multi-role capability. No aspects of its design are self-contradicting either it works like an IFV and is one of the better-protected models in active use. It does exactly what it was built to do. Just like other vehicle designs from that era though it is reaching the point where we need to come up with a new one. The Abrams is heading in the same direction, the humvee is already on the way out with a replacement already coming. We are even finally replacing the M-113.

That kind of reminds me of the tests that the Swedes did with the CV90 series a while back. They found out that a 40mm gun allowed it to score kills more efficiently than a 30mm or a 35mm, which more than made up for the smaller number of rounds carried.

I'm sure that there's a point of diminishing return somewhere, but if the Russians could get a 57mm to work, then 50mm sounds reasonable rnough.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Sep 15th 2019 at 3:39:56 AM

I would take any "success" of the Russian 57mm on IFV's with a large pile of salt. Last I checked it is not a gun they actually deploy on any of their combat fielded equipment. The vast majority of their IFV type vehicles is 30mm. Some are 14.5mm for lighter armament and a couple of them mount low-velocity 100mm rifled guns firing either HE frag or gun fired missiles.

Anything with a 57mm seems to almost exclusively be offered for export customers and to date they have only just this year started considering converting some IFV's to 57mm and even then it is far more likely to be heavy units because of turret intrusion.

It's a 57mm AA gun they use on some of their ships.

Supposedly in trials it's performed better than the Tunguska's guns in anti-air role because of the extremely high shell velocity and further range.

They've developed APFSDS rounds for it and they're apparently devastating to ground targets and the HE shells also do a number on soft ground targets as well.

They've been using BMP hulls for it though I'm unsure if this upgunned BMP will be capable of carrying troops still with all the extra space the new gun takes up.

Supposedly they've got a BTR-80 that can carry it too but I've never seen it.

The gun they use for their ships is a bit different from the one intended for vehicle mounts. The turret they showed off this year has some notable turret intrusion. The ground mount variant has seen some testing thanks to ATMOS IFV. IFV fired AP rounds have been surprisingly dangerous even in 25mm caliber. That 30mm, 40mm, and 50mm, family of cartridges have some impressive punch in AP rounds is not exactly a surprise. The SAPHEI and pre-programmable ammo make things a lot more interesting.

The 57mm used on BMP hulls and stuff is a modernization effort for the AZP-S-60 AA gun.

The S-60 even today isn't a slouch, still fairly potent against aerial threats particularly helicopters and it packs enough wallop to take on most targets short of tanks or the more armored IFV's.

If it ever gets 3P ammunition, things are going to suck.

I'm sorry, I just want to go back a bit and chuckle about the Bradley having a good Track Record.

But yeah, while I'm not in the Army and certainly don't deal with armor, I've never heard anything particularly bad about the Bradley beyond its development being a bit wonky. They did pretty well for themselves against Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm.

And let's be honest, it's not exactly rare for American weapons systems to have troubled development cycles. I think my favorite is the time the Iowa class battleships were very nearly built without a main battery because nobody actually checked to ensure the guns and turrets that were being developed would actually fit in the ship, due to a spectacular failure in project management. Fortunately, the mis-step was caught early enough for a rushed effort to fix it.

Edited by AFP on Sep 14th 2019 at 12:59:22 PM

I’m a little skeptical of the claims of 57mm ammo taking on tanks single-handedly. Maybe if it struck through a rear quarter panel or something, but I can’t imagine it does that with any degree of reliability.

It’s great against aircraft, though. One assumes after everything that’s happened in Syria they’ll try to give it a small drone capability too.

Its not going to go through the front or turret, but I would imagine thats just big enough to go through the side hull. Armor is rather heavy, so it all tends to be incredibly frontal focused, and while there is still enough of it to stop most smaller rounds.... 57mm is starting to be a big gun....

Any one know the claimed penetration value on it?

They haven’t really publicized any figures yet, just the usual “destroys western tanks in a single shot” stuff.

40mm APFSDS can penetrate the side armor of a tank, albeit pretty unreliably, so I’d imagine 57mm can do a little better than that.

I haven't seen any hard numbers but given the size of the shells and the ridiculous velocity of that thing I'd be pretty surprised if it had any serious trouble from the side with APFSDS rounds. At least not from shorter distances.

One thing I'd be more worried about is the range on it though. There's no way any light vehicle or IFV is going to do well against a 57mm round and it's gonna have a pretty big range advantage over other autocannons.

Edited by LeGarcon on Sep 15th 2019 at 7:36:06 AM

The vintage 57mm S-60 can do 96mm RHA from 1,000 metres with an APCBC load.

If I had to guess I’d say it could probably do 150-160mm RHA. Not exactly a silver bullet but pretty good.

The effective firing range they’ve advertised also isn’t significantly greater than 35mm and 40mm autocannons.

I’m not sure there’s much reason to go above 40mm for an APC, but clearly the Russians think they have a winner. It’ll certainly hit like a truck up close.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 15th 2019 at 6:00:38 AM

Also, assuming Russian IF Vs carry anti-tank missiles like at least some American ones do, it's not like it's a dealbreaker if the gun can't kill a tank. None of the Bradley victories against Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm involved the guns, IIRC.

But yeah, for everything short of a tank, which is still an awful lot of stuff, a 57mm anti-aircraft gun will absolutely ruin their day, especially if carrying a dedicated anti-vehicular round. Didn't they use 20mm VADS mounts as anti-vehicular weapons in Desert Storm?

EDIT: Something else to consider, a lot of the softer vehicles are carrying add-on armor nowadays. The bigger gun might just be a response to hypothetical Bradleys wearing up-armor kits.

Edited by AFP on Sep 15th 2019 at 7:13:50 AM

I've heard of a few. They weren't catastrophic kills outside of maybe a PT-76 type tank^note Which you can accomplish with a Browning .50 cal anyways when it comes to PT-76. but a few export model T-55's were mobility or mission killed by 25mm AP.

EDIT:

I've also heard of one instance of a couple of Mk 19 armed Humvees on recon taking out a T-55 Halo style. One round jammed the turret and the Humvees just circled around plopping it with 40mm grenades until it went pop.

Edited by MajorTom on Sep 15th 2019 at 7:56:02 AM

Yeah, if I recall there were a couple tank kills with the Bushmaster. 25mm AP is nothing to sneeze at, it’ll trash tracks and exterior parts.

The 25mm M791 (Tungsten Core) APDS-T will penetrate about 30mm of RHA +/- with a 60-degree slope at 1.3 km. That is actually pretty good performance for that caliber of round. Hitting a tank through the rear and a few rare thin spots near the wheel bed just below the hull, a very very small target, they could penetrate into a few spaces on a tank. The DU variant can do roughly double that penetration at the same range.

For comparison, the Mk-19's firing HEDP projectiles will pen about 50mm at a direct hit.

And don’t forget that the cannon on the Bradley fires up to 300rpm and they can carry over a thousand rounds. A burst from that can really ruin someone’s day.

Though if you absolutely need to kill a tank, I think your still probaly better off using the tow.

Not saying your wrong and the bushmaster cant put in work, but when it's you or that tank its probaly a better idea to trust the thing that was installed specificly to kill tanks.

Speaking of, how's the project to replace the TOW missiles on the Bradley with Javelins going?

Yeah, 25mm is absolutely not a tank-killer. It’ll do work in a pinch, but there’s a reason TOWs are mounted. The majority of tank kills by Bradleys were with the TOWs.

The Bushmaster is absolutely devastating against dismounts, light vehicles and structures though. Combined with the Bradley’s optics and mobility it can put down a lot of hurt.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 15th 2019 at 5:16:40 AM

Garcon: Javelin isn't a replacement it is an optional mount just like the Dragon was. That one went through around 2012-2013 with a small selection of upgrades.