M2 Bradley stats

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
User avatar
Hiromoon
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7098
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 3:02 am
Location: TFCT Michael Fleming Folland
Contact:

Postby Hiromoon » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:43 am

*shrugs* And yet, the TOW's going to be fielded well into 2025, Pietia. I might have mistaken the pair, but the CKEM isn't replacing the TOW in the timeframe the game takes place in.
ImageImage
Thanks Veon and ScipioAmericanus!
www.zupandevelopment.com
User avatar
Gibbs
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Postby Gibbs » Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:46 am

Jellicoe wrote:We know that the M2/M3 25mm can penetrate an Abrams under very special conditions, not the norm!!

The M2/M3 is not the main tank killer in the US Army inventory, and will never be - that's what the M1 and heilcopters are for.
Dead right Jellicoe, hence the +2, that way you need to roll a six to actually damage the M1...
Jellicoe wrote:I think we have during the course of this discussion identified that the TOW is very much an ancilliary system for the vehicle. It is unlikely that the Bradely in would be redesigned to accomadate a completely new missile system. There is a huge TOW inventory which would be wasted. And it will in some form be replaced by FCS vehicles.
From what I have been reading online, the CKEM has been designed to be used with existing TOW launchers. That means an upgrade is relatively simple for Bradleys...
Hiromoon wrote:*shrugs* And yet, the TOW's going to be fielded well into 2025, Pietia. I might have mistaken the pair, but the CKEM isn't replacing the TOW in the timeframe the game takes place in.
From what i've found there has been a lot of speculation about what the CKEM will and won't be replacing they certainly are looking at replacing TOWs with CKEM and have been as far back as 2001 (see http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyMaga ... HYL-6J9L6F).

From what I'm seeing and reading CKEM's can use TOW launchers and are in the final phases of approval. It's difficult to speculate just how many CKEMs will be available 10-15 years from now but from what I've been reading both will be around.

It's kind of ironic I think that this forum has almost turned into a parallel of the army's demand for technology (give my Bradleys CKEM) to what is actually possible with current technology (the first phase in of CKEM is to arm HMMWVs then we'll look at strykers and bradleys). But it would still be nice to have CKEMs on Bradleys....although replacing all TOW systems with CKEM would demand that the Super Cobra have them as well....
"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting S'mores or raining down on Charlie." Principal Skinner
"You're Type 99 looked lonely so I painted it for you, now he's with Jesus...
and all the other Type 99s."
Pietia
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: Poland

Postby Pietia » Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:25 am

Hiromoon wrote:*shrugs* And yet, the TOW's going to be fielded well into 2025, Pietia. I might have mistaken the pair, but the CKEM isn't replacing the TOW in the timeframe the game takes place in.
It is like the Air Force, which intends to keep B-52 in service 'till 2040 (and constantly upgrades those monsters) - they are good enough for bombing third-world countries with antiquated air defenses into stone age, so why use anything more expensive? There are huge stockpiles of TOWs, they are able to do their jobs against less capable opposition, after a little upgrade they may be even better. Both B-52 and TOW are good enough against less capable opponents, and I guess that the US DOD is basing its plans on the assumption that the political situation will not change drastically in the next few years. Right now the CKEM is needed only to "stay in the loop" as no opponent has armor that can't be easily defeated with the weapons in the current arsenal.

If, however, the situation will change (like in the BF:Evo fluff for example) you can be quite sure, that at least the expeditionary units will receive the newest equipment. E.g. the USMC in Evo are using Shadows - yet a huge fleet of HMMWV will probably be still in service by that time. If an expeditionary unit goes to fight against the PLA or EFTF it will probably get new toys - including CKEM integrated with whatever anti-tank platform it uses, be it Bradley, Striker-AT or anything else. It is going to be integrated with HMMWVs first simply because they are used by the lighter units, which are more likely to need those capabilities (and due to the lack of heavy armor need them more - funds are limited after all). The upgraded TOWs will still be used - by the National Guards for example.
User avatar
Gibbs
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Postby Gibbs » Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:36 am

As I pointed out too Pietia, CKEM can be used by TOW launchers anyway. Your points are valid and I think it's certainly worth considering the CKEMs as something to equip Bradleys with.

Although the key reason to give them to HMMVWs first is not because its cheaper but because of transportation times. It is much easier to deploy 12 HMMVWs with CKEM than it is to deploy 12 Abrams. For years now the DOD has looking at the need to create a rapid response mobile force that can deal with anything and be anywhere in the world as quickly as possible. The logical conclusion to this was to use light vehicles with heavier weaponry. Thus the idea of using CKEMs on HMMVWs first, these units can be deployed anywhere worldwide quickly *AND* provide the infantry that they accompany with a much needed anti-armour ability that they would otherwise not have or have to wait to have. Basically it's about out-manoevering and outgunning the enemy until heavy assets can be brought into the fight.
Last edited by Gibbs on Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting S'mores or raining down on Charlie." Principal Skinner
"You're Type 99 looked lonely so I painted it for you, now he's with Jesus...
and all the other Type 99s."
Jellicoe
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: London

Postby Jellicoe » Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:56 am

Gibbs wrote: Dead right Jellicoe, hence the +2, that way you need to roll a six to actually damage the M1...
As I said these were isolated incidences under special circumstances. Although "incidences" is used there is only documentation on 1. These were 25mm AP-DU rounds hitting the turret rear and engine compartment, merely disabling not destroying the tank. Unless you want to factor in some very special circumstance rules I think it would be wrong to skew the damage dice in such a way that M1s could be taken out by a 25mm on a "regular", albeit lucky hit.

As for CKEM in TOW launchers ok I'll defer to you on that. I would suggest that CKEM is being given to light units first to give them a slightly greater punch to strike first. This is something Bradley's would not be in such a need of. Sure if you want to be speculative then use it on the Bradley. I lack the fantasy for that :wink: I don't know enough about its firing procedures to say if it would in anyway improve or replace the guidelines set for the TOW on the Bradley.
User avatar
Gibbs
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Postby Gibbs » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:07 am

Yes, as you said they very rarely penertrate Abrams armour. However, the chances of actually taking out an Abrams is very difficult (remember it will has a 2+ armour save [3-4+ with modification for rounds, I suggest 3+]). This means that you have a 1 in 6 chance of actually hitting it followed by a 1 in 3 chance of actually doing any damage to it (1 in 18 chance). You can then compound this with the fact that it ignores the first four armour saves and you've reduced your chances of actually taking it out with a 25mm dramatically (1 in 90). If a Bradley actually makes a shot that takes an Abrams out then at that stage, realistically the abrams was probably in a bad way to begin with (having taken four rounds of whatever).

The 25mm should be able to score an eight so it can pose a threat to light vehicles because the stats for light vehicles simply don't stack with getting hit by a 25mm round...it should be able to take one out in a shot, in my opinion.

Checkout this link http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm

Note that it says that the Bushmaster is capable of defeating most armoured vehicles it meets including some MBTs.

I would also like to emphasise the fact that choosing which weapon system to use on targets also comes into play here. So while you may want to use the bushmaster on lightly armoured vehicles...you'd almost certainly use your TOW/CKEM on a MBT. No gunner in their right mind would try to use a 25mm round if they had an anti-tank missile to use (wired or otherwise)...it's about the player choosing which weapon to use against which target. You are more likely to score a kill with a 25mm against light armour (especially considering the number of shots you can make) so use it, you are more likely to score a kill against an MBT with a TOW/CKEM so use it.

Jellicoe, you've raised a lot of valid points, but when you think about the fact that the Bradley has a anti-tank capability that is more effective against MBTs already, why would you choose the bushmaster?
Surely you would choose the bushmaster though over the stronger weapon though against lightly armoured vehicles? (although I am more than aware that some players would just go for using a TOW/CKEM because it's a guaranteed kill).

The bushmaster as it stands now is of little more use than an anti-infantry weapon...which it wasn't meant to be.

This link may prove useful for armour comparisons.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... r-comp.gif
"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting S'mores or raining down on Charlie." Principal Skinner
"You're Type 99 looked lonely so I painted it for you, now he's with Jesus...
and all the other Type 99s."
Jellicoe
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: London

Postby Jellicoe » Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:57 pm

Gibbs wrote:Jellicoe, you've raised a lot of valid points, but when you think about the fact that the Bradley has a anti-tank capability that is more effective against MBTs already, why would you choose the bushmaster?
Surely you would choose the bushmaster though over the stronger weapon though against lightly armoured vehicles? (although I am more than aware that some players would just go for using a TOW/CKEM because it's a guaranteed kill).
Your idea is certainly worth considering. During the course of all this I have lost sight of the whole Bradley stats. Rather than working on individual weapons maybe you could just use the template to propose a whole vehicle. It seems to me people are getting rather hung up on little details rather than seeing the whole picture - same as currently in the other thread on the IW vs. ISW.


Into choice you need to factor in tactical conditions. TOW launch requires the vehicle to be stationary and remain so during the firing procedure. This means that the weapon will be deployed primarily during static situations, e.g. sieges of a town etc.. or in defensive battles, like so:
Image
In the game I think we settled on the fact the the M2/M3 could only employ TOW when stationary, using both actions to set up and fire the missile. Suddenly this does rather limit the AT capability and flexibility of the vehicle. It can kill tanks, but makes itself vulnerable and necessitates the use of terrain as cover. And it is limited to 2 shots before a one round reload phase. The 25mm on the other hand can be used while on the move. These are different tactical conditions.

As I understand IFV design philosophy the main armament is supped to be able to defeat corresponding opponents and support the infantry section during the dismount and assault phase. In a cavalry role the M3 will presumably be operating with M1 support again focusing on the lighter enemy targets. Hence the 25mm is primarily designed to take on BMP-1, -2, etc. The benchmark should thus be if the Bushmaster can on regular occasion knock out a Warrior or WZ-551. I'd work with that in mind.

When I first put together the stats I was thinking of a vehicle which could allow US forces to operate without M1s and costing about 2/3s pointwise. I do realise this might seem an unlikely scenario. I for one find this rather interesting and useful. However, again rather than worrying about the details really people should play with the stats and see if the whole vehicle has a right feel about it. A purely theoretical approach seems counter-productive to me. It will be funny though when the official Bradley comes out maybe next year or so with completely different stats.

Anybody know why the M6 Linebacker was phased out, as I understood it it was considered a successful variant, am I wrong?
User avatar
Hiromoon
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7098
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 3:02 am
Location: TFCT Michael Fleming Folland
Contact:

Postby Hiromoon » Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:25 pm

Anybody know why the M6 Linebacker was phased out, as I understood it it was considered a successful variant, am I wrong?
No clue really, but here's some information on that:
In February 2005, United Defense (now BAE Systems Land & Armaments) was awarded a contract from the US Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) to remove the Stinger missile systems from 88 Bradley Linebackers and convert the vehicles to standard M2A2 ODS infantry fighting vehicles. This was completed in 2006.

Funding for the development of the Stinger Block II missile, with an imaging infrared seeker based on a focal plane array, was cancelled in 2002.
ImageImage
Thanks Veon and ScipioAmericanus!
www.zupandevelopment.com
Jellicoe
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: London

Postby Jellicoe » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:44 pm

Hiromoon wrote:
Anybody know why the M6 Linebacker was phased out, as I understood it it was considered a successful variant, am I wrong?
No clue really, but here's some information on that:
In February 2005, United Defense (now BAE Systems Land & Armaments) was awarded a contract from the US Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) to remove the Stinger missile systems from 88 Bradley Linebackers and convert the vehicles to standard M2A2 ODS infantry fighting vehicles. This was completed in 2006.

Funding for the development of the Stinger Block II missile, with an imaging infrared seeker based on a focal plane array, was cancelled in 2002.
I guess there was simply no requirement for a tracked short range AD vehicle. The air defence units using them in Iraq were simply used as normal dismount infantry patroling etc.
User avatar
Gibbs
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Postby Gibbs » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:18 pm

Jellicoe wrote: Your idea is certainly worth considering. During the course of all this I have lost sight of the whole Bradley stats. Rather than working on individual weapons maybe you could just use the template to propose a whole vehicle. It seems to me people are getting rather hung up on little details rather than seeing the whole picture - same as currently in the other thread on the IW vs. ISW.


Into choice you need to factor in tactical conditions. TOW launch requires the vehicle to be stationary and remain so during the firing procedure. This means that the weapon will be deployed primarily during static situations, e.g. sieges of a town etc.. or in defensive battles, like so:

In the game I think we settled on the fact the the M2/M3 could only employ TOW when stationary, using both actions to set up and fire the missile. Suddenly this does rather limit the AT capability and flexibility of the vehicle. It can kill tanks, but makes itself vulnerable and necessitates the use of terrain as cover. And it is limited to 2 shots before a one round reload phase. The 25mm on the other hand can be used while on the move. These are different tactical conditions.
Couldn't agree more...TOWs are there simply for AT when necessitated, Bradleys are not tank hunters by nature.
Jellicoe wrote:As I understand IFV design philosophy the main armament is supped to be able to defeat corresponding opponents and support the infantry section during the dismount and assault phase. In a cavalry role the M3 will presumably be operating with M1 support again focusing on the lighter enemy targets. Hence the 25mm is primarily designed to take on BMP-1, -2, etc. The benchmark should thus be if the Bushmaster can on regular occasion knock out a Warrior or WZ-551. I'd work with that in mind.

When I first put together the stats I was thinking of a vehicle which could allow US forces to operate without M1s and costing about 2/3s pointwise. I do realise this might seem an unlikely scenario. I for one find this rather interesting and useful. However, again rather than worrying about the details really people should play with the stats and see if the whole vehicle has a right feel about it. A purely theoretical approach seems counter-productive to me. It will be funny though when the official Bradley comes out maybe next year or so with completely different stats.
You are rght, theoretical dicussion is useless, we need to playtest. Howver, my initial feeling before play testing was simply that the bushmaster was too weak being a faster firing .50cal or 14.5mm round when it's actually a 25mmHE or AP round capable of penertrating armour that the 14.5mm (.50Cal) can't. But let's go away and play test a bit and see how we go...

You are right, I would be most amused if the official stats were completely different and made us all look stupid for having these discussions (it would be even funnier if they didn't release a Bradley).
:wink:
"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting S'mores or raining down on Charlie." Principal Skinner
"You're Type 99 looked lonely so I painted it for you, now he's with Jesus...
and all the other Type 99s."
User avatar
Hiromoon
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7098
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 3:02 am
Location: TFCT Michael Fleming Folland
Contact:

Postby Hiromoon » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:32 pm

Well, we're not the only country that uses the Bradley, so even if they didn't release one... well...

Basically, if they're going to follow the FCS model, we're going to get a lot of vehicles that look fairly similar.

Recon
Image

NLOS Mortar
Image

NLOS Cannon
Image

Medivac
Image

Infantry Combat Vehicle
Image

Calvary Combat Vechile
Image

Main Combat Vehicle
Image
ImageImage
Thanks Veon and ScipioAmericanus!
www.zupandevelopment.com
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:50 pm

Haven't these appeared in the Forge World catalogue? :D
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
User avatar
Gibbs
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Postby Gibbs » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:57 pm

DM wrote:Haven't these appeared in the Forge World catalogue? :D
:lol:

Damnit DM you beat me to it! I was just about to say I'm pretty sure that whoever are making these are GW sculptors that had previously worked on the Rhino and the Chimera! :lol:

Are those CKEMs on the main fighting vehicle :shock:
"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting S'mores or raining down on Charlie." Principal Skinner
"You're Type 99 looked lonely so I painted it for you, now he's with Jesus...
and all the other Type 99s."
Pietia
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: Poland

Postby Pietia » Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:38 pm

DM wrote:Haven't these appeared in the Forge World catalogue? :D
No spikes, skulls or chains - can't be GW... They look like they were taken from one of the C&C Generals mods or something like this ;-)
Mr Evil
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6993
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:28 am
Location: To Close to Wales for comfort
Contact:

Postby Mr Evil » Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:53 pm

pray tell hiro where did these images surface from ?
<iframe src="http://gamercard.xbox.com/cygnarsghost.card" scrolling="no" frameBorder="0" height="140" width="204"></iframe>
Image

http://splargoth.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Hiromoon
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7098
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 3:02 am
Location: TFCT Michael Fleming Folland
Contact:

Postby Hiromoon » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:40 am

Why, the US Army of course.

http://www.army.mil/fcs/

I mixed up the names a bit, and I think these might be old images...or even new images and the sight hasn't been updated to reflect them..but here you go.
ImageImage
Thanks Veon and ScipioAmericanus!
www.zupandevelopment.com
User avatar
Sgt. Brassones
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1124
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:56 am
Location: Buena Park, California, USA, Earth, Milky Way, Known Universe

Postby Sgt. Brassones » Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:32 am

I would expect to see those in the Old Crow catalogue. They'd make perfect adversaries for Hammer's Slammers.
Live as brave men; and if fortune is adverse, front its blows with brave hearts.

Cicero
User avatar
Gibbs
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Postby Gibbs » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:24 am

Hi,

I know we're all probably playtesting the bradley stats trying to workout what's good and how it functions... just a couple of quick observations.

Firstly the kill score... its fine if you keep a TOW launcher on the M2 but with a CKEM missile you now have an APC that can sit behind cover and takeout a type 99 with one shot while the type 99 is behind cover and unable to destroy it with one shot...a TOW launcher keeps them balanced and gives the Type 99 the edge in that it can survive more hits.

Secondly the bushmaster. 3D6+1 is okay but it just doesn't cope well against some light vehicles (it needs a 4-5 to hit a technical I can't remeber which but I think its a 5)... to me that's an issue, it should be able to kill a technical almost instantly. However, it should not be able to do as much damage to a tank. I was therefore thinking and suggest trialling a similar rule to that of the M109 Barret. So the weapon will have the following stats:

25mm Bushmaster

2D6+1

This weapon causes a -2 penalty to armour rolls and grants a +2 (for a total of +3) against anything size 3 or less. If a model of size 2 or greater is in its firezone it may nominate to roll its damage dice against that model rather than allocate normally. It may not be fired as a reaction.

You'll notice that with these stats its better at killing lighter vehicles *and* is unable to cause dents to heavier vehicles. It also stops players from using the bushmaster to try and kill MBTs. What do you think?
"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting S'mores or raining down on Charlie." Principal Skinner
"You're Type 99 looked lonely so I painted it for you, now he's with Jesus...
and all the other Type 99s."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests