Now why would they do that if it (BMP) was so good? The reason?! You can remove the engine (pack) from an M113 without having to dismantle the vehicle. 
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Because they already are building the M113?cdat said:Now why would they do that if it (BMP) was so good? The reason?! You can remove the engine (pack) from an M113 without having to dismantle the vehicle.
Best tank of all time is Russian T-34.
All ather tanks and armoured wehicles in the world cant mach him in context of time and circumstances in which it was built,and in terms of impact it had on future design of tanks.
It is the most ingeniuous single peace of armoured machinery every released from production line,and most important and dicisive single weapon of the greatest war in history.
Sorry for my bad English.
All ather tanks and armoured wehicles in the world cant mach him in context of time and circumstances in which it was built,and in terms of impact it had on future design of tanks.
It is the most ingeniuous single peace of armoured machinery every released from production line,and most important and dicisive single weapon of the greatest war in history.
Sorry for my bad English.
The design was sound, but what made it so good, if we can determine that it deserved such a title, was the practical means, ie production, implications, crewing, and improvement and upgrading of the original, though the real achievment should go to Chrsitie for it.
Weapons systems aside... once you put ERA on the Chassis, I really don't see any difference from the two.arc3371 said:
M113A3 (with turret):Exel said:
Length: 6.705 m
Width: 3.00 m
Height (Overall): 2.70 m
Power To Weight Ratio: 24 hp/ton
Ground Clearance: 0.4 m
Weight (Combat): 21.700 kg
Weight (Empty): 20,200 kg
Engine: IVECO 8260 V-6 turbocharged, inter-cooled diesel developing 520 bhp at 2,300 rpm
Maximum Road Speed: 70 km / hr
Maximum Road Range: 500 km
Fuel Capacity: Not available
Fording: 1.5 m
Vertical Obstacle 0.85 m
Trench: 2.5 m
Gradient 60 %
Side Slope: 40 %
Armour: Classified
Armour Type: Aluminium / Steel
NBC System: Yes
Night Vision: Yes (passive for commander, gunner & driver)
BMP-3
Troop Capacity 7 passengers
Combat Weight (mt) 18.70
Chassis Length Overall (m) 6.73
Height Overall (m) 2.45
Width Overall (m) 3.15
Ground Pressure (kg/cm 2 ) 0.62
Automotive Performance
Engine Type 500-hp Diesel
Cruising Range (km) 600
Speed (km/h)
Max Road 70
Max Off-Road 45
Average Cross-Country 35
Max Swim 10
Fording Depth (m) Amphibious
Radio R-173, R-173P
power to weight ratio, 23.5hp/ ton
Max. gradient - 32 degrees
Slide slope - 30 degrees
Ditch, m - 2.5
Duke_of_BOOM! said:
AT the risk of being flamed here, wouldn't the Bradley the most comparable vehicle in the US arsenal to the BMP series? Or have there been changes that I have missed . . .?
Yes, you are correct. The In stock configuration M113 is generally considered an APC or "Battle Taxi" it takes infantry to the front but does not fight, whereas the Bradley and the BMP-3 are expected to fight as well.T-hiddemen said:AT the risk of being flamed here, wouldn't the Bradley the most comparable vehicle in the US arsenal to the BMP series? Or have there been changes that I have missed . . .?
The problem is that the M113 is too thin-skinned to be of much use in combat, the addition of ERA mountings and a nice weapons system changes this into a nice, inexpensive, IFV.
Armour Type: Aluminium / Steel. Notice how the BMP specs seem to forget this one? The BMP is made of the same or else the Ground Pressure (kg/cm 2 ) 0.62, wouldn't be so low. Read between the lines, son!
The BMP is made of the same or else the Ground Pressure (kg/cm 2 ) 0.62, wouldn't be so low. Read between the lines, son!
Duke_of_BOOM! said:
Whoever thought that ERA and infantry mix was difinitly an engineer! No common sense. Hey lets put explosives all around the vechile so when the troops dismount or are unbuttoned (open hatch) anything larger then 7.62mm will set off the explosive armor! Smart man! Give him a slap on the back! :wacko:
liebgot said:
Well, of course the T-34. An American design (waits for flame war). Don't worry about your english, most non-Americans I met spoke better english then most Americans I've met.
cdat said:
LOL. No flame war, but it is more than a bit rich to elevate the Christie suspension to such heights.
rgds/EoE
Damned if you do... damned if you don't. Do the infantry get cooked by an RPG inside their APC, or blown up outside it by the countermeasure?cdat said:
Edit:
Last edited:
Yes, but the Russian infantry have complained about this issue already. The Americans haven't.
cdat said:
Is that because the American ERA is more effective, leaving no survivors? :rofl:
I have no experience with ERA... but wouldn't it make sense to have a big off switch for at least the sides and rear zones when the infantry is deployed?cdat said:
Last edited:
I've always wanted to ask this question, and perhaps I have in this thread but I can't be arsed to search 89 pages for an answer.
What would happen to a modern MBT when hit by a 155mm HE shell fired from an artillery piece in a direct fire mode?
What would happen to a modern MBT when hit by a 155mm HE shell fired from an artillery piece by indirect fire?
What would happen to a modern MBT when hit by a 155mm HE shell fired from an artillery piece in a direct fire mode?
What would happen to a modern MBT when hit by a 155mm HE shell fired from an artillery piece by indirect fire?
The ERA danger to infantry is exaggerated. Early and primitive ERA blocks were hazardous for sure, but newer versions take infantry safety into consideration. Of course it can't never be 100% safe, not unlike other active protection systems, but a detonating RPG isn't exactly safe either. If there's going to be an explosions and deadly fragments in any case I think it is better to at least save the vehicle and its crew.
Btw, war is not something I would call "safe" under any circumstances. Getting shot at is always potentially unhealthy.
Btw, war is not something I would call "safe" under any circumstances. Getting shot at is always potentially unhealthy.