I notice it’s not the MBT’s that are making the difference. Having a large cannon doesn’t seem to make a difference when a Bradley is taking out T-90’s
I mean the entire Fulda Gap theory has been turned on it’s head and although drones are making a big difference, I can’t believe that’s the only reason.
Anyone got any guess’s?
All I have are guesses and assumptions (I do know the history of the Allies overwhelming the Germans with Shermans, due to less costly and complex vehicles, in WW II).
Are we seeing the same thing with Bradleys vs T-90’s?
I assume the Bradleys cost less (leading to more on the battle field), are smaller, faster, quieter and easier to hide.
Are they easier to maintain and operate?
Bradleys are probably primarily engaging with TOW or similar missiles, shoot-n-scoot. More like a WWII tank-destroyer.
Russian tanks are very complex because they use autoloader mechanisms instead of a fourth crew member. IIRC those mechanisms are the single biggest point-of-failure.
No Bro they close in and fight toe to toe, seriously.
The thing is we gave them a Brigade or so of M1’s and a Brigade of Bradleys.
Are Bradleys eassier to maintain at ten/twenty level maintenance. As far as I know the Bradley hasn’t had a viable set of electronic schematics since the 90’s. So thirty and forty level maintenance becomes parts swaping rather than repairs.
They aren’t ffighting at standoff ranges it’s belt buckle to belt buckle. One fight had the bradley very near the T90 and just out racing it’s turret while firing in to the turret ring.
I would say one serious impact should knock the crap out of an autoloader.
Micheal Wittman’s Gunner Balthazar Wolhz didn’t have any front teeth left because the impact of rounds on the turret had smashed his face in to the sights too many times. So if it will knock a Mans teeth out it might likely pop a gear in an autoloader.
Going for Golden BB shts, then. More like a Fairey Swordfish that Bismarck’s flak directors culdn’t match the pace of, albeit the Swordfish were too SLOW to track.
Didn’t see a 25mm chaingun penetrating armor, but precise shots against mechanical weak points explains it.
“Stupid, but ballsy.” - Gib in True Lies
Up close and personal the 25mm rounds have a better chance of penetrating more armor, the turret traverse of the MBT can’t keep up, and even if rounds aren’t immediately penetrating they’re fucking up optics and sensors, rattling the crew, chewing up tracks, igniting exterior fuel tanks, and generally degrading the MBT’s fighting ability. Once they get the rear and start thrashing 25mm rounds into the engine it’s all over.
Plus Soviet designed MBT’s with their autoloader use a carousel magazine under the turret. How much side armor do the hulls have? Can 25mm AP rounds penetrate and get into the magazine from the side?
I will look for the YouTube Video again, but they were close and as the Tank Turret seemed to move the Bradley just kept hammering and moving and adjusting their fire.
I believe the floor plate steel under the Tank would have to be pretty substancial, Land Mines, being land mines that’s no place for this armor, now how much that thins out as it comes off the floor plate is the question. I would however guess it’s pretty thick to support the suspension and drives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrrso5JDR5I
The Tanks are farther, but still closer than I remembered, the PC fight was close, much closer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khXMVPpxdxg
This Guy has the Bradley 50 meters from the Tank, I thought it was closer.