ace16807

I'm just curious, but how effective do you think the M2/M3s are at their respective roles? Do they serve a purpose in Iraq, or would it be better suited that be replaced by another vehicle? In my opinion, I think the armor it provides for troop transport is a plus, and the fire support it can offer can be useful in urban warfare, but then again, I haven't heard anything about it, so that is just a baseless opinion.

zraver

unless the insurgents start using heavy ATGM's that require ERA the Stryker is a better unit when the infantry are expected to be dismounted. A mine cripples a Bradley but rarely a Stryker which does not use continuous track laying. The M2's big and probably only advantage is the 25mm and TOW for direct fire support.

Besides being more mine resistant, the Stryker is also faster, quieter, has better comm gear and carries more dismounts all critical things in an urban guerrilla situation.

TopHatter

This is totally an uninformed opinion, but I have to say, from a civilian perception POV, there is something more "harsh" or "oppressive" about a tracked and obviously turreted vehicle.

It just looks like a tank, and all that that connotates.

Officer of Engineers

If it looks like a tank, it will be used as a tank, even if it will die faster than a tank.

__________________
Chimo

TopHatter

Oh too true. But I was commenting vis a vis effectiveness in a COIN/peacekeeping role amongst a civilian population.

The civilians, or at least this civilian, will be more negatively concerned, perception-wise, by tracked and turreted vehicles than by wheeled vehicles.

Whereas a combat engineer will merely perceive a tracked vehicle as a plum target for anti-tank mines

Stan187

You know I keep hearing that, but has anyone actually done any studies to very it? I keep hearing how people feel intimidated by soldiers in body armor and helmets more than soldiers in berets, and how people will be more intimidated by Bradleys than Strykers. Unless someone shows something more substantial than a hunch, I'm not going to blindly buy that. A Bradley that defends the civilian population and carefully picks its targets to avoid civvie casualties, methinks, will be much less menacing to noncombatans than a Stryker that peppers every moving things in sight if it gets ambushed. Similarly, a careful soldier with body armor and a helmet is logically going to be perceived as more friendly than a soldier in a beret who has an all too touchy trigger finger. I think proper conduct would matter much more than the initial awe of a tracked vehicle with guns. Not to mention that to a civilian, a big armored vehicle is a big armored vehicle, tracked or not.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

Wraith601

That's something that's difficult to prove, but supposedly the British successes in Basra (compared to the restiveness of Anbar) was due in part to the Brits switching to Land Rovers and removing their Kevlar and helmets shortly after the "invasion" phase ended while the US continued patrolling aggressively in full gear and heavy armor. I've heard similar stories out of the Balkans where US troops patrolled in Bradleys and M113s while others preferred jeeps and foot sweeps.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

Skull6

OOE, you are correct. We in the "heavy armor" community had a habit of referring to M2s as "baby tanks" when they first came out. & yes, even though it was originally designed to be an Infantry support vehicle, I think it's "nom de plume" today says it all--"Infantry FIGHTING Vehicle."

Doomed from the start, imo.

__________________
If you know the enemy and yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. - Sun Tzu

Stan187

That's neither here nor there. As you said, hard to prove when they were in a different area. We can consider it less restive as a result of their tactics, or less restive in and of itself. The Marines in particular still conducted their own foot patrols, which is why some of them were displeased with it being absolutely required to wear all of the new body armor panels, and side panels as well.

I just see no clear way, still, to show that what troops wear or what they ride is what primarily breeds resentment of them. You hit the nail on the head, they were patrolling aggressively. Does that not matter more than what they drove up in?

Wraith601

Agreed. You can't really conduct a door to door poll of Iraqis to see if they preferred US troos to ride in Bradleys of Strykers.

Pioneer

I would like to see a face off comparison trials of the U.S Bradley IFV and the Swedish CV-90 IFV.
I think the CV-90 to be a far better thought out and engineered and Infantry user friendly design.
I have always thought the Bradley to be a very large and heavy vehicle, for the number of troops it carries!

Regards
Pioneer

mweber24

Being designed for the battlefields of Europe in WW3 and not for patrol or counter-insurgency plays a pretty big role in the Bradley's combat effectiveness. If you need to fight a defensive war against lots of armor and artillery, I would take a Bradley any day over a Stryker, but for peace-keeping/counter-insurgency, the Stryker is overall much more useful operationally. I suspect that it could use more firepower however (is a Mk19 enough? Maybe...)

Armor protection is important, but still has to be fuel efficient (long operational range), maneuver well in an urban environment and highways, and have a high operational availability, and good communications.

I always thought the LAV 25 used by the Marine Corps was pretty darn good for current uses. Lighter than a Stryker, good autocannon, and it can swim! I am not sure why the Army just did not buy a bunch of those, but maybe the Stryker has some key new capabilities (it is a bit newer...)

__________________
The SWO

JA Boomer

I thought the Stryker was loosely based on the LAV-III, being a generation or two ahead of the LAV-25. That being said, I was always puzzled why the US Army did not order an Infantry Fighting Vehicle variant with the 25mm Bushmaster mount. Perhaps they felt this was unnecessary due to the presence of the M2 Bradley.

Albany Rifles

Having commanded a Bradley company I would have to heartily disagree with many of the comments I have read so far.


1. Armor guys may have thought of Bradley as light tanks but I assure you we Infantrymen never thought of them as such and resisited any and all attempts by armor task force S3s to use us as such.

2. While the M2 may be heavier than some people think it needs to be remember that the current model is based on the lessons learned from the Gulf War...this resulted in increased armor, etc. It is an excellent support vehicle and, unlike earlier doctrinal thought ,there is little or no attempt for the dismounts to fight from the vehicle (got rid of the damend firing port weapons). They get out on the ground and are supported by the fire power of the vehicle. And the vehicle has proven it can take a hit and keep going. Read Thunder Run if you want to read how M2s & M3s took hits by RPGs and kept in the fight.

3. The Stryker is better in COIN role but it does not do as well in the main battle role. This has a lot to do with its arms as much as anything. Still a nice combat vehicle.

4. As with a lot of questions, comments...CV-90 looks good and has the advantage of being a later design. But how much combat experience does it have? And once again, American weapons have to be able to fight in many different parts of the globe. I honestly do not know how a CV-90 would fair in Iraq.

For its age, etc., I believe the Bradley delivers quite a good bang for the buck.

__________________
“When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.” — Oscar Wilde

braindead

CV-90 is AFAIK in A-stan (Norway I think) . Also the Dutch bought it , maybe they will send it there too. And Denmark . Swedish CV-90 served well in Liberia , at least swedes were happy with it by all accounts that I´ve read .
It´s also candidate for UK CVR-T replacement .

And it uses many COTS components , including Bradley´s roadwheels , Scania truck engine , Bushmaster cannon and so on .

__________________
....