"Boy did I get it wrong!" Topic
12 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.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board Back to the Flames of War Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War One World War Two on the Land Modern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleYou wanted more photos of the Santa Claws Gang? Here is Santa and two of his companions.
Featured Profile ArticleThe first of a series of reports from sargonII, who is currently traveling in the Middle East.
Featured Book Review
|
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 16 Jul 2020 6:07 p.m. PST |
The new TY stats for Bradleys are out (3rd pic below) and boy did I overestimate both variants' armor values on my unofficial cards! Not even close. The armor values of the basic "vanilla" M2/M3 are no better than an M113's (so in game terms it's just an M113 with a better gun and AT missiles), and the front armor of the official A2 variant is -1 lower than the vanilla version's on my card. Who woulda thunk?
Other things I got wrong are the moving ROF of the Bushmaster, both ROF of the 7.62 mm MG and the AT of the TOW, which is a TOW 2. Still gonna get me some regardless. |
smithsco | 16 Jul 2020 7:01 p.m. PST |
That armor seems a little odd since the M2 is rated for protection against14.5-30mm rounds. M113 is only rated up to 7.62. |
Thresher01 | 16 Jul 2020 9:13 p.m. PST |
Hmmm, not sure whether you did, or the TY folks. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 16 Jul 2020 9:35 p.m. PST |
Looks like they're comparatively in line with British Warriors stats:
The one special edge they possess over M113's is Applique Armor, but that only increases the armor's effectiveness (to 13 all around) against HEAT weapons. The difference in AT between a 30mm gun and a 7.62mm MG in TY is 8 (10 for the former and 2 for the latter). That's a huge difference. Maybe the M113 Battle Taxi is overrated at F 3 / S 2 / T 1. Below are stats for the BMP, FV432 and Marder:
|
Legion 4 | 17 Jul 2020 7:38 a.m. PST |
Nice looking … But are the M2/M3s still amphibious with the additional armor ? Commanded an M113 Mech. Co., with Sep Mech Hvy Bde of 18th Airborne XXX, 18 months,'87-'89. You M113 Card looks pretty good but I'll admit, I don't play TM Yankee. The M2 IFV was a clear improvement over the M113 APC. Especially when they removed the FPW and added more armor. Our real criticism beside the FPW was a bad idea from the get go. Was with the Bushmaster turret and TOW sponson, it reduced the dismountable troops to 6. From a Mech Squad which was reduced from 11 with the M113 to 9 for the M2. With normal attrition even when not in combat your squad numbers could be reduced even more. With the M113 with the TC & driver left onboard. You had 9 dismounts, in 2 Fire Tms. One of 5, one or 4. The M2 with the 3 left on the Track, with two 3 man Fire Tms. Your 6 man dismounts could be reduced to 4 or 5 total. Again, the firepower addition was great. But it caused the Mech Squad to be reduced to 9. With the driver, gunner and TC remaining with the Track. 6(or less) dismounts seems a little small to get the job done with your dismounts. The Bushmaster and TOW are a lot of firepower. But the track can't go everywhere. And in many cases the track has to be left behind. When going thru closed terrain, e.g. jungles, swamps, etc. Then as we did with the M113, the Tracks would link up with the dismounts later. Ideally the Tracks would provide fire support to the dismounts. But again based on the terrain that may not always be possible. |
scouts19508a | 17 Jul 2020 12:13 p.m. PST |
M2/3 armor was not much better than a M113, if I remember it had some thin Kevlar attached to the inside walls to help with splinters and such. M2A2/3A2 had the additional armor that was proof against 30mm. Both were amphibious but it took about a hour or so to get it ready. Not sure why the rate of fire is different the Bradley had good stabilization and you didn't really fire moving all that fast. When I left FRG in 86 most units were changing over to M2/3 or had already done so. In 90 91, back to the FRG, I was a NETD Bradley Instructor doing transition to A2's. Jim |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 17 Jul 2020 12:30 p.m. PST |
Thanks Jim. Looks like TY got it right. The vanilla Bradley isn't all that better in armor compared to the 113. |
Legion 4 | 18 Jul 2020 9:01 a.m. PST |
Yes from what I understand the additional armor did make the M2/3 more survivable than the M113. It wouldn't take much ! We felt the M113 was pretty "fragile" and took some lessons learned from Vietnam. When on the DMZ in the ROK, '84-'85. Added sandbags on the interior deck, in front, on top, etc. It took some time to get the M113 ready to cross rivers, etc. About an hour + IIRC. In the ROK we'd have an M88 on the far side of the river with a tow cable attached to the front of the m113 and another M88 with a cable attached to the rear on the near side. Just in case. Sadly our sister Bn had one M113 sink while crossing. The 3 onboard drowned … Good intel scouts, I was in West Germany for REFORGER 88 with my M113 Co., with the 197th Mech Hvy Bde. I was RIF'd in '90 … |
Thresher01 | 19 Jul 2020 2:53 p.m. PST |
I don't believe the Bradleys are still amphibious, especially with additional armor bolted on. Seems to me the M-113 is over-rated with a 3 frontal armor, compared to some of the other vehicle cards shown above. |
Legion 4 | 20 Jul 2020 10:15 a.m. PST |
I had read/heard the same about the added armor making the M2s no longer amphibious. IIRC the Army Stryker and Army/USMC LAV had the same situation. Note: the US 82d has some Ex-USMC LAVs as 4 LAVs can fit in a C-17 where only 3 Strykers can. But bottom line all 3 vehicles were made as light as they could be for rapid transport. But the thinner armor made them a bit too vulnerable to RPGs, IEDs, etc. As far as the M113 … We used to "joke", the best armor on the M113 was in the front … that is where the engine is !😄😂🤣😎 I don't know if that was taken in account for the stats on the AFV cards for TY. Again I don't play TY … But I did I played a 1 to 1 version of it, '79-'90 worldwide … 😁 |
Rudysnelson | 20 Jul 2020 1:26 p.m. PST |
Our tactics for the M113 was a lot different in the Armored Cavalry than Legion4 used in the Infantry. We respected the engine armor and always deployed the track facing the enemy's line of approach. Except for the infantry squad, our tracks carried only fireteams our less. So the .50 caliber was not always manned nor was the driver in his seat. When the complement was deployed outside it took everyone to deploy the dragoon or TOW or mortar. The scouts were also on their cycles getting info on crossings and bridges. The infantry was the most effective on defense when they were given a vital point to defend. On offense, the provided flank security until needed to clear a rough area or town. M113 were expected to provide protection from mortar and artillery rounds and not direct fire. |
Legion 4 | 21 Jul 2020 8:46 a.m. PST |
We respected the engine armor and always deployed the track facing the enemy's line of approach. Pretty much we in the Infantry did the same. Along with sandbagging the front and other areas, etc., as I said. But yes the Cav's mission is different that the Infantry's. So we'd use M113s a bit differently. |
|