"Bradley Stats for Team Yankee?" Topic

So, has any enterprising individual already stated out the Bradley IFV for use with Team Yankee?

Thinking about giving the rules a try, at least based upon the cards, stats, and info released thus far, so might want to press the Brads into service.

Don't have any M113s yet, but do have M1s, Bradleys, and T-72s in 1/144th to give it a shot.

Hmmmm, don't have a clue how they derive armor stats, so just taking a wild guess for the following values:

Front – 8, later 10, finally 12

Side – 4, later 5, finally 6 (or 5/6/8?)

Top – 1? (assuming 2 is primarily reserved for tanks

First armor values would be for the mid-1980s. Others are as the Bradley gets better add on armor, later in its life. Perhaps the side armor values should be a bit higher, given their thicker skirt plating – not really sure, and haven't compared the values to those of other rules systems as of tonight).

Gets hit by the enemy on a 4+, just like all the other American vehicles.

Took the stats from the AH-64 for the Imp. Tow missiles

25mm Chaingun guess:

32" range (assuming that corresponds to about 2,500m, which is supposedly the effective range for the T-72's 125mm gun, so just used that)

ROF = 3 / 3

A/T Pen. = 8?, but could be as high as 10, perhaps, with high-end AP ammo (Soviet 30mm is 10, and the Warthog's GAU is listed as 11, so 8 or perhaps 9 seems reasonable to me).

FP = 5+ (seems to be pretty standard for this type of weapon)

7.62mm as for the M-1 tank.

Speeds of: 10", 14", 20", and 28", since according to Wiki, it's about 7 MPH slower than the M113. Could be wrong though, since I didn't look at the HP/Wt. ratios. 3+ to Cross, since that seems to be standard for the APCs/IFVs.

Guesses for other stats:

Courage = 4+
Morale = 4+
Remount = 3+ (better than M113, but less than M1)

Skill = 4+
Assault = 4+, or 5+?
Counterattack = 4+, or 5+?

Not sure how the six above attributes are derived, so just went with the fairly standard values and my best guesses.

I'm assuming the Bradley probably has a Thermal Imager.

Not sure if the turret is stabilized, or not. Didn't see any mention of that.

Perhaps the 25mm gun can be used against helos? I assume the TOW can as well. I also suspect the AT-5 Spandrel can too, for the Soviets, but there is no mention of that, though they do permit the BMP-2's 30mm gun to engage them.

Thoughts?

Be surprised if the stats haven't been posted on the TY forum – they seem to have been for just about every other AFV!

Looks like the gun is stabilized, based upon the stats from another rules system.

I thought the main point in the Bradley was that it was able to match the mobility of an M1, while an M113 could not.

So there must be more to it than the mph/kph stats or power/weight given on wiki. Or the Bradley program was bogus and a massive waste of tax dollars.

I think that Mako is being too generous in the armor specs. The Bradley is generally described as initially being able to defeat 14.5mm rounds to the front arc only. A subsequent upgrade improved this to all around 14.5mm protection.

This would suggest an initial value of 4/2 or 4/3 and later upgrade to maybe 5/4. Later upgrades to improve crew survivability against shaped charges might boost that a little but as seen in Iraq Bradleys still suffered losses such that the crew might have survived and the vehicle repairable. Yet the vehicles were functionally combat ineffective.

I just don't believe it plausible that a vehicle starting life just able to defeat 14.5mm rounds from a single direction could suddenly be able to COMPLETELY defeat 30mm high velocity autocannons with a mere armor upgrade. That's a huge leap in mass requiring extensive redesign of suspension, power pack, and even space allocation.

Remember, the army refused to test the Bradley against weapons such as RPGs because they knew they would be easily penetrated anyway and saw such tests as a waste. Armored vehicles are designed to defeat certain threats and no more. Brads were designed to protect against small arms and HMGs with later upgrades merely improving protection against autocannons with no claim of being able to defeat Eastern guns like the 30mm AC. That would suggest a maximum value of 6/4. I think it's pushing the envelope to use anything as high as 8 for front armor while 10 would be implausible.

Yes someones definitely had a bash at the M60 series, including some very strange variants that can fire missiles, teleport and warp time, apparently….

Yea, you could be right about the armor.

I was thinking perhaps 6 / 3-4 / 1 (saving the 2 armor top ratings for tanks).

Wiki says that the Bradley armor is proof against 30mm Soviet/Russian cannon, which is why I considered as much as an 8 – 10 rating for the front, for it. That may be for the latest, uparmored models, with the add on armor.

Then again, perhaps the 30mm gun's penetration value is too high.

"I just don't believe it plausible that a vehicle starting life just able to defeat 14.5mm rounds from a single direction could suddenly be able to COMPLETELY defeat 30mm high velocity autocannons with a mere armor upgrade. That's a huge leap in mass requiring extensive redesign of suspension, power pack, and even space allocation."

In fact the Bradley went from 50K lbs to 60k lbs over time.

link

Good site for many useful stats but lacks armor thickness.

Hmmm, think I'll go with 6/4/1 armor, since it's double that of the M113, which seems about right to me, for a mid-1980s start.

I think that corresponds pretty well to other rules for it, the Marder, and Warrior, too, IIRC.

I heard over the last couple Gulf Wars that the Bradley could shrug off RPG hits pretty easily. That it had some sort of composite spaced armor. Is that a later mark of the Bradley?

The source I'm thinking of is Thunder Run.

I've seen it listed as Chobham armor in some rules, so wouldn't be surprised by that, since it is ceramic, effective, and lighter than a lot of other armor options.

Yea, as suspected, the latest version is the one that protects against 30mm cannon fire from the front:

link

link

The earliest ones were proof against 14.5mm MG from the front.

The latest variants even have ERA.

Anyone know what the BF, or TY armor Pen rating is for a Soviet/Russian 14.5mm MG?

Seems like the Bradley's front armor will be 1 or 2 points higher than that is, on the A1 variant, and then increasing protection with the A2 and A3 models (the latter proof against the 30mm cannon from the front, so at least a 10 rating, if not more, theoretically.

M1 Abrams is approaching 70 tons. Brads are just under 30 tons.

The 120mm gun and ammo certainly weight a lot and the Bradley has more empty space to carry troops. But even the Abrams has been rendered combat ineffective by RPGs. I can't imagine that a vehicle at half the weight of an Abrams can resist damage as well as it can.

@Mako…I've read variations on the 30mm protection thing too. Various sources say "30mm proof" all the way down to "30mm resistant over 500m". Sounds like water-"resistant" watches! :-) If one accepts that it has some level of improved protection against 30mm guns I'd do the following: Start with the BMP-2's AT value and set the Bradley's front armor value so that at over 16" penetration drops from 5 or 4 out of 6 to 4 or 3 out of 6 for various models over time.

I'd certainly not rate the side armor over 4. I've yet to find a source indicating it can stop anything heavier than 14.5 mm from the side.

This is one reason our rules (Rush of Battle) include a protection value and vehicle hit points and weapons have an AT value and vehicle damage level. We can fine tune weapon vs protection beyond mere penetration or bounce.

We also have a Vehicle FUBAR Roll when HP are reduced to less than half. It abstracts critical hits and battle damage management and further refines the contrast between weapons without complications. Some weapons can cause a FUBAR roll against a given vehicle stand in one blow. Others need to chew it up a bit or get really lucky.

@Tgunner… one British source mentioned something similar about various AFVs easily deflecting RPGs. After a while troops figured out that the tangos were firing within the weapon's arming range. They were bouncing because they had not yet armed. Makes sense when you consider how close things get in urban combat and the low level of training the insurgents had. Warriors were also "shrugging off" RPG hits. Even hummers were partially penetrated by warheads that failed to arm. 8-O

A 12.7mm MG has an armor pen. rating of 4, in TY.

Given the pen. of the 14.5mm at 500 yds., by comparison with the 12.7mm, it seems like the 14.5mm MG should be a 6, since it has 50% more penetration than the smaller round at that range.

So, if we go with 6 for that, the it seems the Bradley's frontal armor should be at least equal to that, if not perhaps a little higher, e.g. a 7, 8, or more, in order to negate any chance for the MG rounds to penetrate.

Of course, TY probably takes into account damage to track links, periscopes, turret jamming, etc., so I guess they could come up with a different value to account for that as well, with their random 1D6 modifier to the armor and penetration ratings, when determining damage/bailout, etc..

Still, seems like the frontal armor on the A1 Bradley should be at least a 6, and maybe a 7 or 8 for the A2, and a 10+ for the A3.

Perhaps half the frontal armor ratings for the side armor, I suspect.

They have the US 20mm Vulcan on the Apache at AT6.

So maybe AT5 for the 14.5mm HMG? Can't see it being superior to the 20mm.

BMP-2 30mm is AT10.

ZSU 23mm is AT6 but probably has inferior armor piercing capability.

So maybe front armor 5 for early model Bradley to stop 14.5mm cold and maybe 6 and then 7 to counter 30mm to some degree with upgrades.

@Tgunner… one British source mentioned something similar about various AFVs easily deflecting RPGs. After a while troops figured out that the tangos were firing within the weapon's arming range. They were bouncing because they had not yet armed. Makes sense when you consider how close things get in urban combat and the low level of training the insurgents had. Warriors were also "shrugging off" RPG hits. Even hummers were partially penetrated by warheads that failed to arm. 8-O

Or that the jihadis forgot to pull the safing pin. I've seen pics of an RPG7 warhead stuck half-in a Humvee door with the safing pin clearly across the front of the warhead!

Several things to mention in reference to the Bradley.

1) Top speed on ROADS was roughly similar between the M113 and Bradley. Where the Bradley/M1 totally outclassed the M113/M60, was their cross country ability.
I went through BASIC in the M113 and also the first half of my time in Germany we were in M113 family. When I was in C Trp,2/6 Cav at Knox, and after we transitioned to Bradley in Germany, the difference in mobility over broken terrain is quite dramatic. I drove BOTH vehicles quite a bit across the same terrain, and the Bradley went much faster. Likewise with the M1 vs the M60. Cross country mobility was a game changer especially matched to…

2) Full stabilization- This allowed the M1/Bradley to have almost the same accuracy on the move as they had stationary and again this is due to their magnificent suspensions cross country.

Both of these together meant that the M1/Bradley teams are flying across the landscape chewing up targets.

Very much a mismatch against an enemy that has to be stationary or come to a short halt to effectively engage targets ;)

Frank

The 14.5mm KPV fires the same round as the WW2 ATRs so AT5 in FOW. The early Bradley weighs about as much as a Sherman but is larger so should have about armour 5 or 6 on the front, 3 or 4 on the side.

Thanks for all the replies, and info.

Yea, in my searches I came across a very detailed, IG document, IIRC, which compared the Bradley with the M113 in a lot of different categories.

Sadly, no intel on armor – seems like they removed that page from the doc.

Anyway, they tested the Brad and M113 in various terrain types, and in most of the cases, the accel and speed was within about 5% or so of being identical. Speed on roads was pretty much the same too.

Interestingly, the Brad is a bit larger, so they found it to be a bit slower on dirt tracks, and when having to maneuver through trees and brush.

Thanks for the value on the 14.5mm.

So, I think I'll stick with the 6/4/1 combo for the 1980s version.

They go with 8/5/1 for the 1990s – early 2000s, and 10/6/1 for the mid-2000s to today, since the latest has ERA blocks, in addition to the armor upgrade.

Advanced stabilization it is, for the gun, and I will probably stick to the 32" range for it, since I presume the fire control is superior to Russian light cannon equipment.

Not sure when it got DU ammo, but I'm going to go with 9 for it. Perhaps 8 for standard ammo, if the DU came after the end of the Cold War.

Need to revise that a bit, to a 3/3/1 for the 1980s Bradley, after doing a bit more research, and looking into how the TY/BF folks appear to rate their armor.

Found a few references that the early Brads only provided protection against 14.5mm fire, all around. Really surprised it doesn't offer at least protection from the front, vs. 20mm/23mm cannons (perhaps it does, but that's not listed in the open source data).

The M2A2 and M2A3 reportedly provide all around protection against 30mm fire, due to additional bolt on armor upgrades.

After doing a bit of research, and comparing of armor protection values, the following rough guide seems to apply for TY (at least from my standpoint):

Minimum Armor Ratings as Proof vs. Various Weapons

7.62mm = 1 point armor rating
12.7mm = 2
14.5mm = 3
20mm = 4
25mm = 6
30mm = 8

The above still permits some chance of destruction, and/or causing a bailout, when hit by these weapons, even after adding the 1D6 armor save roll to their values.

@Mako: Looks like a good conversion chart!

Thanks.

I think it seems reasonable, at least for the time being, until they release other vehicles, and their stats.

Close enough for government work, I'd say.

I was a bit shocked to see how little protection the Brad had, 20 years after the intro of the M113, and especially given how the latest variants seem to be so much more uparmored.

Not sure if that is really true, or some are just putting out misinformation to confuse the enemy. I do recall major hearings about the Bradley's poor armor protection, back in the day though, so perhaps complaints about it finally did some good.

The later versions are 5-7 tons heavier than the initial M2/M3s, and it's basically all added steel.

M113s are only 13 tons (and virtually unprotected), so adding 7 tons of armor and a 7 ton turret makes a Bradley.

New values posted:

TMP link

Not sure anyone is still interested in this, but if you want to use M1s properly, you're going to need Bradleys, since they didn't pair up with M113s, except in fiction.

I did a bit more digging, and comparing to the Challenger 2000 stats baseline. IIRC, I believe they used info from Jane's, and other well respected references for coming up with their armor values.

That being said, some of the armor protection values vs. HEAT weapons do seem pretty high at first glance, but then, many of the weapons had significantly improved penetration values during the late Cold War period, that were shockingly high as well, so, I'll let you be the judge.

Obviously, you can de-rate the armor values, as you see fit.

So, for your basic, 1980s, M2 and/or M3 Bradley, I propose the following stats:

Front – 6
Side – 4 vs. kinetic weapons, and 10 vs. HEAT weapons (4 / 10)
Top – 2

Supposedly, the early Bradley is proof against 14.5mm fire, from all directions.

Gets hit by the enemy on a 4+, just like all the other American vehicles.

Took the stats from the AH-64 for the Imp. Tow missiles – 8" – 48" range, ROF 1 / --- while halted, Pen. = 21, FP = 3+, HEAT, Guided (add in Anti-Helo capable as well, per US Army doctrine).

25mm Chaingun guess:

32" range (assuming that corresponds to about 2,000m – 2,500m, which is supposedly the effective range for this weapon, and also the former is for the T-72's 125mm gun, so just used that). Presumably better optics, stabilization, and fire control than the BMP-2's 30mm cannon.

ROF = 3 / 3
A/T Pen. = 8
FP = 5+ (seems to be pretty standard for this type of weapon)

7.62mm as for the M-1 tank.

Stabilized turret, thermal imaging, and Anti-Helo capability for both the 25mm cannon, and Imp. Tow missiles.

Amphibious.

Speeds of: 10", 16", 24", and 32", so the same as the M113. 3+ to Cross, since that seems to be standard for most APCs/IFVs.

Educated guesses for other stats (from the M113, and US Mech Inf):

Courage = 4+
Morale = 4+
Remount = 4+

Skill = 4+
Assault = 3+ (with the Bushmaster cannon, coax. MG, and Imp. Tow missiles, it's a formidable combat vehicle, able to take on even main battle tanks, so I think it deserves the better rating here for it, and its crew)
Counterattack = 4+

Use the same values above for the US Army Mech Inf. sections too, due to the support from the vehicle, and their heavy weapons.

Here's some info on the discussion for the Bradley's dismounts, for the mid-1980s, and beyond:

TMP link

For a US Army platoon of 4 x vehicles, I'd recommend either 4 Mech. Inf. sections, like for the M113, plus 1 x HQ section.

For the above, with 3 x Squads, you can go with 6 x Mech Sections per the M113, and drop the HQ section.

I hope you find the above useful.

I'm looking forward to getting them into battle on the tabletop, soon.

And remember with a 6 vehicle Scout Plt's using M3 Bradley's they could operate as either:

This would be for an ACR, Div Cav, or Bn. Scout Plt.

Two – 3 vehicle sections.

or

Three 2 vehicle sections.

This all depends on terrain, time and enemy situation.

From the following web site link

M2A2/A3 Bradley Glacis: 130mm Front turret: 100-110mm
and just for comparison
T-34/85 Glacis: 92mm Turret: 90mm

25mm gun penetration from same site

25mm APFSDS 56mm at 1km

25mm M919 DU APFSDS 30mm+ at 60 degrees at 2km

25mm M791 APDS 33mm at 60 degrees at 1km; 28mm at 60 degrees at 2km

Excellent info.

Thanks for sharing the armor stats and comparisons.

if you want to use M1s properly, you're going to need Bradleys, since they didn't pair up with M113s, except in fiction.

When I read this a had a bit of a memory flash. I seem to remember seeing a unit in GDW's Phase Line Smash that used the M113, so I looked it up. And yup, there they are.

link

It was the 197th which was used as the round-out brigade for the 24th Mech.

link

The wiki on this doesn't say if the brigade actually used the M113 as infantry carriers so I did a more general search, and I found this:

PDF link

It's a monograph about the 197th's experience in Desert Storm. If you flip to page 6 the author (the XO, A Company, 2/18 Infantry) mentions that TF 2-18th Infantry's CO took the battalion's scout platoon and D Team ahead of the battalion to do some scouting. He mentions at that time that the team had two platoons equipped with the M113 and a tank platoon with M1A1s from the tank battalion (2nd Battalion, 69th Armored). This scout detachment later clashes with the Republican Guard's 3rd Parachute Regiment (?) and a pretty fierce firefight. The TF commander ordered his troops back and called on 4-41 Arty to drop several DPICM concentrations on the enemy then. The detachment then returned and deployed dismounts to dig the paras out while the tanks and carriers laid back and poured on suppression fire. He also gives a short, but lurid account, about how effective DPICM is against dismounts… not pretty.

This might be the only instance that a M1/M113 combination saw action, and it's pretty short, but there it is.

@Tgunner… one British source mentioned something similar about various AFVs easily deflecting RPGs.

That makes sense. I can remember being the lead on my ambush dismount team telling the guys to fire only after I fired. We waited a bit, the enemy showed up, I aimed for the perfect shot, squeezed the trigger… and notta! I forgot to take my M16 off safe! And I had been in for two years and was a combat vet! You do silly things when you're nervous, even professionals.

Mako11,

M-1's and M-113's were paired up. When I was in 2ACR the tankers had M-1's and us scouts had M-113's. The M-1's transition was mid 85 and M-3 transition was early 87.

Jim