It has been proven to defeat M829, but not M829A2 or A3. Both of those are resistant to this anti-sabot ERA that you're speaking of.

As I was saying, I'll be damned if a BMP-3 shakes off a Javelin or AT-4 hit.

I'd like to point out that, though I appreciate your input, this isn't exactly a field of discussion that I need lectures in. The crossed sabers in my avatar are there for a reason.

I like the German transport except it has a little wimpy gun on it. The badly is good, it has speed and weapons but lacks armor. Overall I think the BMP is best since its the strongest and it has a high caliber gun on it.

Apparently you do if you think an AT4 has the ability to penetrate modern ERA. The fact that the Javelin, a missile designed for no other purpose than killing heavy tanks, is somehow equal to a one shot disposable rocket whose parameters included targets ranging from light vehicles to light fortifications is evidence enough. 2nd generation ERA has baseline abilities to repel any shape charge warhead with less than 600mm of penetration. anti armor AT4 rounds have about 450mm of practical armor penetration. In other words, the AT4 is now the modern equivilent to the LAW. Good enough for most jobs, but not enough for all of them.

Theres not an armored vehicle in production that can shake off a Javelin strike but if they still make armored vehicles that an AT4 can slag, it probably has 'made in Mexico' stamped somewhere on it.

The BMP has a better silhouette, a better armament package, better cross country performance, carries more troops, is more mobile and has a more powerful engine. The armor differences are negligible as anything powerful enough to kill a BMP-3 is equally powerful enough to kill a Bradley. The difference lying in that when a BMP gets hit, its lack of aluminum means the crew wont die from poisonous smoke inhalation.

Just out of curiosity, would an APILAS be able to penetrate a tank equipped with modern ERA? Those things are supposedly capable of penetrating 720 mm RHA, and they are the heaviest AT-weapons available at company level (although technically the mines are a tad heavier), so it'd be interesting to know if they too are merely a psychological weapon...

Tanks/APC's have a new fear on the battlefield instead of Javelins, AT4s RPG's, etc they have to watch out for Spike Missiles now. They are so badass the missile is launched at a a somewhat high angle, it flys up and then doves down right on top on an enemy tank. The reason why this is so dangerous is because their tops of tanks usually aren't armored as heavy as the sides!

Isn't that quite similar how to the Javelin works? Unfortunately our military has a puny 100 of those Eurospike launchers for AT purposes (the navy has a couple of dozen more), that plus an amount of TOW2s is nowhere near enough to take care of all enemy armour.

IMHO it is unthinkable to have recon/scout vehicles that are not amphibious without preperation.

If you meet up with a superior enemy force and have to turn and escape Im not sure the enemy will be accomodating while you ahve to spend 20 minutes erecting floatation gear to get across a lake or river.

Considering that the speed of an amphibious PC is only a few miles per hour, I'd say you're a sitting duck in the water or out of it. The point of being able to cross those rivers isn't to escape, it is to allow you to get into position.

Hell, if you're spotted, then you're already doing something way wrong. Cav scouts will scope out a position much like a sniper doing a recon would. Shooting is your last resort. Remaining hidden is your primary objective. That, and before you are in position you already have an exfil route planned. Rivers are obviously avoided.


And I'm guessing you just selectively misread my post then? Or did you not pick up on how when I said "even an AT4" means that I think much less of the AT4's abilities than I do the Javelin's.

The BMP-3 is a better APC than the M2A2, I'm sure. Hell, maybe the A3. But what I know is the M3A3, and, with my training and experience with the CFV, gladly engage a BMP-3 if the situation demands it.

Do not discount the fact that the US Army is a professional force, well trained and very well equipped. I have no doubt in my mind that an American Bradley crew would outperform a Russian BMP crew.

I was referring to the vehicle abilities themselves. Im sure everyone here agrees that the vehicle is only as good as the crew that mans it.

I understand your argument but I still support amphibious scout/recon vehicles. IMHO 20 minutes to make amphibious is too much time.

Amphibious capabilities is a nice feature to have, but once you enter water you are a sitting duck. In the case of a BMP-1 or -3, I'm sure they can't even fire the cannon in water due to the recoil effects.