I read the wikipedia file on this. Those are some pretty impressive penetration figures by the 40mm here. In complete contrast to the minor armor piercing of the BMP's 30mm also mentioned. I wonder how true those fugures are. By the way Solomon, this light cannon stuff is pretty interesting. I wonder if you would do an article here about such 20,25,30 and 40mm and CTAS cannons and their ammo here. I seem to recall that whole debate we had regarding the utility of tanks in amphib landing and the effectiveness of bradleys and their cannons. The light cannon post would be a nice addition to it.
The ROK military is far more capable than the DPRK military. The US still has forces there only for political purposes, and because it provides airfields one air-hour from Beijing and Shanghai.
In a conventional sense, yet, but from the developments in the DPRK military, they know it as well. They've been adding more and more Commando battalions in the past decade, over 160K.
If DPRK attacks, they are going to be popping out of tunnels, riding in on Zodiacs, parachuting and disembarking from helicopters all under the cover of rocket, missile and arty attacks being fired into ROK and US installations.
You don't understand what these new generations of ROK armors are being built for; they are built for a blitzkrieg to Pyongyang, in which the ROK military intends to surround Pyongyang in three days and have the regime collapse by Day 7 to deter China from intervening because it is assumed that it would take roughly 2 weeks for the PLA to mobilize and the majority of Chinese armors cannot cross river by themselves, so it would be possible to buy time by destroying all bridges from Yalu to Pyongyang by air strikes.
For this reason all new ROK armors, including the K2 MBT, the K21 IFV, and the new Hyundai Rotem 8x8 armored personnel carrier can cross all North Korean rivers unassisted, because they have to reach Pyongyang by Day 3.
As for the North Korean military, the regime's former no. 2 Choi Ryong Hae was kicked out because he told Kim Jong Un the cold hard straight truth that his regime would no longer be able to carry out any kind of war in 10 years if nothing is done to rebuild and modernize North Korean military.
No, I fully understand that is what the ROK Army capabilities are being designed for, but in a defensive war, the ROK armor wouldn't be as effective trying to chase commandos. That's all I am meant.
In an offensive war or a scenario where the DPRK collapses, the fast moving armored formations would be more useful.
There is no defensive war for the ROK. The reason the NK regime is so obsessed with nukes is that it knows it can't fight a conventional war and the only guarantee of regime survival is nukes.
From many of your recent posts Sol, it's clear that US combat forces (Army, Marines) are lacking in modern IFV and light tank vehicles. They have not done enough in the last 10 years in regards to preparing for the many potential scenarios of a conventional blue on red confrontation. The procurement process seems stuck in bloated turkey programs from the F35, to the LCS, maybe even the Ford Carrier. So many other countries seem to be able to produce practical or "good enough" vehicles or equipment. Something needs to change in US military tech development.
The US military has a profound issue with allowing the perfect to stand in the way of the good. The revolving door of the Pentagon and Defense Contractors are far too enamored of elusive promises of gold-plated technology and contractor boondoggles. And it's oversight is provided by an institution even more corrupt, Congress, where legal bribery in the form of election campaign funds and "jobs in your district" keep the dollars coming into bad programs.
We should be able to afford a much larger military based on the money we spend.
I thought the K21 was cheaper than the Bradley. I get that over the course of the program it is a little cheaper, but one program was started in the 80s and one in the 2000s. Im sure if there was a new build Bradley it would cost much more than the K21.
First of all my friend, we are talking about IFVs.
But I will play your game.
Firepower.
The M2A3 has the most sophisticated FCS in the World, with hunter-killer mode, auto tracking capabilities advanced thermal cameras ect. What of the above the M113 MRV has? Let's move to the weapons now. The M242 is one of the most successful IFV weapons ever fielded. It is capable to destroy tanks from the sides. Against personnel the weapon offers more ready to use ammo than any other modern IFV with bigger caliber. Size matters but quantity of ready to use ammo matters more. This gives Bradley the advantage of more engagements with the enemy. The weapons of Bradley do not end with M242. It is equipped with a double TOW launcher. I don't have to tell you more I suppose. Of course the vehicle has a standard M240 coaxial MG.
Speed.
One of the main reasons the US army is dumping the M113 for the Bradley for the roles of Mortar Carrier ect. is speed. No need for me to say more. You should not forget that M113 & Bradley have the same maximum speed. But lets go back to compare M113 MRV with Bradley on speed, are you sure the M113 MRV with the 2 man turret and it's ammo has the same speed as the standard M113?
Range.
M113 and M2Bradley have more or less the same Operational range. The M113 MRV has smaller Operational range range than the standard M113 because it carries the 2 man turret and it's ammo.
Let me add the final factor, Protection.
M113 MRV has protection level STANAG 4569 level 1. M2A3 Bradley as it is, has STANAG 4569 level 5, not counting ERA tiles.
I read the wikipedia file on this. Those are some pretty impressive penetration figures by the 40mm here. In complete contrast to the minor armor piercing of the BMP's 30mm also mentioned. I wonder how true those fugures are. By the way Solomon, this light cannon stuff is pretty interesting. I wonder if you would do an article here about such 20,25,30 and 40mm and CTAS cannons and their ammo here. I seem to recall that whole debate we had regarding the utility of tanks in amphib landing and the effectiveness of bradleys and their cannons. The light cannon post would be a nice addition to it.
ReplyDeletei'll do it but other stuff is coming first.
DeleteNo Problem. But do this before you put a picture of another fitness hottie.lol.
DeleteThe ROK military is far more capable than the DPRK military. The US still has forces there only for political purposes, and because it provides airfields one air-hour from Beijing and Shanghai.
ReplyDeleteIn a conventional sense, yet, but from the developments in the DPRK military, they know it as well. They've been adding more and more Commando battalions in the past decade, over 160K.
DeleteIf DPRK attacks, they are going to be popping out of tunnels, riding in on Zodiacs, parachuting and disembarking from helicopters all under the cover of rocket, missile and arty attacks being fired into ROK and US installations.
Paralus
DeleteYou don't understand what these new generations of ROK armors are being built for; they are built for a blitzkrieg to Pyongyang, in which the ROK military intends to surround Pyongyang in three days and have the regime collapse by Day 7 to deter China from intervening because it is assumed that it would take roughly 2 weeks for the PLA to mobilize and the majority of Chinese armors cannot cross river by themselves, so it would be possible to buy time by destroying all bridges from Yalu to Pyongyang by air strikes.
For this reason all new ROK armors, including the K2 MBT, the K21 IFV, and the new Hyundai Rotem 8x8 armored personnel carrier can cross all North Korean rivers unassisted, because they have to reach Pyongyang by Day 3.
As for the North Korean military, the regime's former no. 2 Choi Ryong Hae was kicked out because he told Kim Jong Un the cold hard straight truth that his regime would no longer be able to carry out any kind of war in 10 years if nothing is done to rebuild and modernize North Korean military.
No, I fully understand that is what the ROK Army capabilities are being designed for, but in a defensive war, the ROK armor wouldn't be as effective trying to chase commandos. That's all I am meant.
DeleteIn an offensive war or a scenario where the DPRK collapses, the fast moving armored formations would be more useful.
Paralus
DeleteThere is no defensive war for the ROK. The reason the NK regime is so obsessed with nukes is that it knows it can't fight a conventional war and the only guarantee of regime survival is nukes.
Slowman, got any sources on the reason for the NK #2 dismissal?
DeleteFrom many of your recent posts Sol, it's clear that US combat forces (Army, Marines) are lacking in modern IFV and light tank vehicles. They have not done enough in the last 10 years in regards to preparing for the many potential scenarios of a conventional blue on red confrontation. The procurement process seems stuck in bloated turkey programs from the F35, to the LCS, maybe even the Ford Carrier. So many other countries seem to be able to produce practical or "good enough" vehicles or equipment. Something needs to change in US military tech development.
ReplyDeletewell, D'uh. just kidding
DeleteThe US military has a profound issue with allowing the perfect to stand in the way of the good. The revolving door of the Pentagon and Defense Contractors are far too enamored of elusive promises of gold-plated technology and contractor boondoggles. And it's oversight is provided by an institution even more corrupt, Congress, where legal bribery in the form of election campaign funds and "jobs in your district" keep the dollars coming into bad programs.
We should be able to afford a much larger military based on the money we spend.
The US military has a modern IFV the M2A3 Bradley. It is more than capable to deal with the current and future treats the US is going to face.
DeleteGunner
DeleteAre you sure?
The Bradley is good enough.
DeleteThe K21 is much larger than the Bradley's and more expensive.
I thought the K21 was cheaper than the Bradley. I get that over the course of the program it is a little cheaper, but one program was started in the 80s and one in the 2000s. Im sure if there was a new build Bradley it would cost much more than the K21.
DeleteThis is a good size comparison between the K21 and the Bradley.
ReplyDeletehttp://i.imgur.com/2lqj4pv.jpg
Wow, the Bradley looks puny
DeleteBased on Wikipedia statistics:
DeleteK21
Weight 25 t (25 long tons; 28 short tons)
Length 6.9 m (23 ft)
Width 3.4 m (11 ft)
Height 2.6 m (8.5 ft)
Crew 3 crew + 9 passengers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K21
Bradley M2A2
Weight 27.6 tonnes (30.4 short tons)
Length 6.55 m
Width 3.6 m
Height 2.98 m
Crew 3
Passengers 6 (7 in M2A2 ODS/M2A3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley
I will go cross-check with Jane's for the accuracy of the figures.
DeleteM2A3 Bradley is the Benchmark of modern IFV.
ReplyDeleteAccording to what?
DeleteDare to compare the Bradley with the M113 MRV?
Range, speed, fire power ...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTo compere it with what? Are you sure?
DeleteFirst of all my friend, we are talking about IFVs.
But I will play your game.
Firepower.
The M2A3 has the most sophisticated FCS in the World, with hunter-killer mode, auto tracking capabilities advanced thermal cameras ect. What of the above the M113 MRV has?
Let's move to the weapons now. The M242 is one of the most successful IFV weapons ever fielded. It is capable to destroy tanks from the sides. Against personnel the weapon offers more ready to use ammo than any other modern IFV with bigger caliber. Size matters but quantity of ready to use ammo matters more. This gives Bradley the advantage of more engagements with the enemy. The weapons of Bradley do not end with M242. It is equipped with a double TOW launcher. I don't have to tell you more I suppose. Of course the vehicle has a standard M240 coaxial MG.
Speed.
One of the main reasons the US army is dumping the M113 for the Bradley for the roles of Mortar Carrier ect. is speed. No need for me to say more. You should not forget that M113 & Bradley have the same maximum speed. But lets go back to compare M113 MRV with Bradley on speed, are you sure the M113 MRV with the 2 man turret and it's ammo has the same speed as the standard M113?
Range.
M113 and M2Bradley have more or less the same Operational range. The M113 MRV has smaller Operational range range than the standard M113 because it carries the 2 man turret and it's ammo.
Let me add the final factor, Protection.
M113 MRV has protection level STANAG 4569 level 1. M2A3 Bradley as it is, has STANAG 4569 level 5, not counting ERA tiles.