For you F-16 fans

[GGTharos]

All that is fine and good, but what if you have to deal a counter attack? I know for certain that there are missions and contingencies that the USMC was and still is prepared for that would pit an expeditionary force of AAVs and Abrams vs. a much more heavily armed and numerous opponent. In that scenario, its nice to have AT weapons on your personnel carriers. As it is, they'd be a speed bump relying on TOWs, mortors, and LAWs to get the job done. The AAV was intended to carry Marines farther inland than just a beach head.

 

Plus, didn't AAVs do a lot of "holding ground" in GW2?

 

AAV's are supposed to have organic support from Air Assets as well as plenty of space for their infantry to carry nasty anti-tank things like Javelins. Keep in mind that once you put a Bradley in a position where it'll be shooting missiles, it'll be stationary and the infantry will deploy.

 

 

Russian tanks like the T-80 were designed to fire AT missiles to counter the threat of things like M2s armed with AT missiles. The fear wasn't that IFVs would go around hunting tanks, it was just the fear that a good AT missile could out-range a tank's main gun and have a better PK at range.

 

I'm pretty sure that it was the (very real) fear that an M-1 could lay accurate and deadly fire with the main gun at 4km, where the T-80 could not. On the other hand, the barrel launched missile could be shot from a relatively safe range from 6km.

 

You CANNOT respond to a Bradley launching a TOW with another missile. You'll take it in the face before yours gets there.

[hitman]

All that is fine and good, but what if you have to deal a counter attack? I know for certain that there are missions and contingencies that the USMC was and still is prepared for that would pit an expeditionary force of AAVs and Abrams vs. a much more heavily armed and numerous opponent. In that scenario, its nice to have AT weapons on your personnel carriers. As it is, they'd be a speed bump relying on TOWs, mortors, and LAWs to get the job done. The AAV was intended to carry Marines farther inland than just a beach head.

 

Plus, didn't AAVs do a lot of "holding ground" in GW2?

No. The Army held ground. The AAV's landed Marines at ports of interest...especially around oil refineries that were close to water. The Marines MEF and MEU forces are purely amphibious.

Russian tanks like the T-80 were designed to fire AT missiles to counter the threat of things like M2s armed with AT missiles. The fear wasn't that IFVs would go around hunting tanks, it was just the fear that a good AT missile could out-range a tank's main gun and have a better PK at range.

The M3 is at best an armed armored troop transport. Its deadliest ordnance would be the 5-10 guys it could load up with javelins, at the same time keeping peoples heads down with a 30mm chain gun. If it carries 4 TOW's, it cant do much against armor. And I personally wouldnt want to use a TOW against anything. I perfer something that is guided by itself. The wires would break if the vehicle maneuvers too rapidly.

[Cosmonaut]

Bean counters?

 

A bean counter considers only quantities when qualities should be considered.

 

I totally disagree with you :D What you don't like about Naval Aviation is exactly what I do like about it. Naval opps are brutal on airframes so you'll suffer in the performance department compared to similar aircraft types in the air force, but the Marines and navy still have to get the job done. And they are usually the first ones in.

[RedTiger]

Keep in mind that once you put a Bradley in a position where it'll be shooting missiles, it'll be stationary and the infantry will deploy.

 

I'm pretty sure that it was the (very real) fear that an M-1 could lay accurate and deadly fire with the main gun at 4km, where the T-80 could not. On the other hand, the barrel launched missile could be shot from a relatively safe range from 6km.

 

You CANNOT respond to a Bradley launching a TOW with another missile. You'll take it in the face before yours gets there.

 

You're right about the disparity in range, but I think all of that is moot if you can't even hit the IFVs at all! Yeah they'd be stopped to let infantry out, and be shooting javelins in self defence. Now imagine how much it would suck if your MBT gun can't even hit that Bradley while it can zap you with impunity! I wouldn't want to even try anything other than sabot on an Abrams. A Songster would just be a total waste.

[RedTiger]

No. The Army held ground. The AAV's landed Marines at ports of interest...especially around oil refineries that were close to water. The Marines MEF and MEU forces are purely amphibious.

 

Are you referring to GW2? I think so, so point taken.

 

The M3 is at best an armed armored troop transport. Its deadliest ordnance would be the 5-10 guys it could load up with javelins, at the same time keeping peoples heads down with a 30mm chain gun. If it carries 4 TOW's, it cant do much against armor. And I personally wouldnt want to use a TOW against anything. I perfer something that is guided by itself. The wires would break if the vehicle maneuvers too rapidly.

 

I just used TOW as an example since the Javelin wasn't in service during the time when masses of T-80 tanks were a real threat. :)

[RedTiger]

I totally disagree with you :D What you don't like about Naval Aviation is exactly what I do like about it. Naval opps are brutal on airframes so you'll suffer in the performance department compared to similar aircraft types in the air force, but the Marines and navy still have to get the job done. And they are usually the first ones in.

 

Fair enough, I did say it was a preference, didn't I? :harhar:

 

I respect the men and women who do it. The USMC was the only branch of the US military that I ever seriously considered trying to join (that little dream didn't go far, but thats another story. ;) ) When I was a kid, I was obsessed with the PTO in WW2 and all things naval and carrier related.

 

For some reason, it just didn't stick. I ultimately found land-based air power more interesting. If someone told me that in their honest opinion, naval aviators were 10x better pilots than land-based ones, I wouldn't argue. I just don't find it all that interesting.

 

Now, all that MIGHT change in an instant if we get a good modern F-18 sim one of these days. :music_whistling:

Edited November 4, 2008 by RedTiger

[Cosmonaut]

Now, all that MIGHT change in an instant if we get a good modern F-18 sim one of these days. :music_whistling:

 

 

There's hope for you yet :D .

[mvsgas]

Just listen to the lyrics, It is a old one that most of you have probably heard but, I still Love their songs