Help support TMP


"About Bradley US Army Armoured fighting vehicle XM813 " Topic


10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board

Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

FUBAR


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Christmas Stocking Stuffer for Armor Fans

These "puzzle tanks" are good quality for the cost.


Featured Workbench Article

Deep Dream: Paint My Mini?

Could artificial intelligence take a photo of an unpainted figure and produce a 'painted' result?


Featured Profile Article

The Gates of Old Jerusalem

The gates of Old Jerusalem offer a wide variety of scenario possibilities.


Current Poll


Featured Movie Review


1,158 hits since 19 Oct 2014
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0119 Oct 2014 10:19 p.m. PST

"Senior Army leaders, Soldiers and developers got a look at the potential future of medium-caliber weapon systems Sept. 10, as the Capabilities and Development Integration Directorate's Mounted Requirements Division and the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center conducted a demonstration of the XM813, a 30-mm weapon system, at the Digital Multi-Purpose Range Complex…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo Murphy Sponsoring Member of TMP20 Oct 2014 5:49 a.m. PST

Interesting enough…I can't tell if it's a manned or unmanned turret, and looks like they removed the tow launchers….

Tgerritsen Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2014 7:44 a.m. PST

Does that mean they aren't mounting the tows any more or just that their goal is to show off the XM813 and thus just didn't mount them?

Landorl20 Oct 2014 9:19 a.m. PST

I think removing the TOW launchers might be a bad mistake. That gave them a strong anti-armor punch.

Only Warlock20 Oct 2014 9:48 a.m. PST

It's a remote turret. TOW removed for display clarity.

monongahela20 Oct 2014 11:21 a.m. PST

Now it really looks like a tank.

doug redshirt20 Oct 2014 11:36 a.m. PST

Remote and I heard that they are probably replacing the TOW with another Anti-tank missile. Cant remember off the top of my head though, think it was one of the top down attack missiles.

zaevor200020 Oct 2014 1:11 p.m. PST

I would say at least go up to 35mm autocannon…if they are going to increase 30mm is not enough of a jump to counteract present and future light AFVs that it is likely to engage. IMHO.

Frank

Personal logo Murphy Sponsoring Member of TMP20 Oct 2014 8:29 p.m. PST

Frank…..that's where you are thinking "correctly" and not thinking "Pentagonese"….

Remember….they will get the contract for the 30mm and in five years realize that they need it to be a 35mm for exactly what you just said.

And thus, another new round of testing, and defense contracts…..

doug redshirt20 Oct 2014 9:44 p.m. PST

They was a good debate on one of the armor forums of the merits of different guns, (from 30mm to 40mm), and upgraded ammo. Basically increase the size of the gun and you decrease ammo supply. How much ready ammo do you need and in what mix? Do you need the gun to take out enemy IFVs or infantry? Glad I don't have to make those choices.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.