M919 APFSDST shell for M3 Bradly & ADATS

[ACOMETS 977]

Today I am going to write about Bradley which is a US IFV stating at 8.0. 

Bradley now has no power against MBTs at 8.0 considering they are faster IFVs with faster firing cannons, better ATGMs,   better armor & better pen rate. being Uptiered is a disaster when Bradely has no advantages but thermals which deployment of the launcher tubes and with slow movement ruins it .i am going to talk about apfsds round for the bradley ifv.

M919 is an apfsdst shell made for 25mm bushmaster cannon which makes it available for M3 bradly & ADATS as long as they use 25mm bushmaster auto cannon .

shell itself entered action at year 1995 and the Classified production was in 1989.the apfsds round is sized similar to the apds round.

this round has passed tests long ago & was developed to replace the apds M791 rounds.

https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M242.html#:~:text=The M919 replaces the M791,not defeat the existing threat.

GD_25mm_M919.pdf

TM 43-0001-27, Small Caliber Ammunition.pdf

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by ACOMETS
thanks for adding it .

[Princess_Pinch 5,625]

Open for discussion. 

[Guest]

I don't think the current M3 Bradley needs it, to be honest; it would probably go up to 8.3 if it got it. But, I would not be surprised if a later Bradley, like the M3A2 or M3A3 came along - in which case it would be fair to have APFSDS. Of course, there are M2 Bradleys as well that could be added, and they might need it just because they only have storage for 5 TOW missiles. But overall I don't think it is needed at the moment, but only at a later date when we get more Bradleys.

[Zev_Winters 313]

You should suggest the M3A2 or M3A3 Bradley that actually carried this shell, rather than asking for it on an 8.0 BR ~1980 version of the Bradley.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Zev_Winters said:

You should suggest the M3A2 or M3A3 Bradley that actually carried this shell, rather than asking for it on an 8.0 BR ~1980 version of the Bradley.

I made a suggestion for all the major Bradley variants other than those that have been suggested already, including the M2 and M3, and of course the M6 Linebacker. I wrote it yesterday, it just needs to be approved.

[UNIT_normal 804]

It isn't matter of balance. M3 Bradley wasn't used that round.

[ColdMatches 943]

I think it should be used on M3A2 at 8.3 or so

[ACOMETS 977]

29 minutes ago, UNIT_normal said:

It isn't matter of balance. M3 Bradley wasn't used that round.

it did and you mean? 

the most usage on bushmaster was on bradley

the other bradley will come with titanum roof era packs and protection kits and engine and suspension upgrade . i tried to ask for tow 2 . and also with 3rd gen thermals but that wasnt really the thing. the current rounds wont do nothing to russian mbts.

1 hour ago, CobraKingII said:

I don't think the current M3 Bradley needs it, to be honest; it would probably go up to 8.3 if it got it. But, I would not be surprised if a later Bradley, like the M3A2 or M3A3 came along - in which case it would be fair to have APFSDS. Of course, there are M2 Bradleys as well that could be added, and they might need it just because they only have storage for 5 TOW missiles. But overall I don't think it is needed at the moment, but only at a later date when we get more Bradleys.

 

[ACOMETS 977]

8 minutes ago, ColdMatches said:

I think it should be used on M3A2 at 8.3 or so

the M3A2 will be much better than M3 the game may add it to 8.0 premium .

[UNIT_normal 804]

13 minutes ago, ACOMETS said:

it did and you mean? 

the most usage on bushmaster was on bradley

the other bradley will come with titanum roof era packs and protection kits and engine and suspension upgrade . i tried to ask for tow 2 . and also with 3rd gen thermals but that wasnt really the thing. the current rounds wont do nothing to russian mbts.

M3 Bradley didn't have APFSDS but M3A3 Bradley did.

M3 Bradley cannot use APFSDS because its fire control system doesn't have that capability.

Edited August 4, 2020 by UNIT_normal

[ACOMETS 977]

On 04/08/2020 at 19:30, UNIT_normal said:

M3 Bradley didn't have APFSDS but M3A3 Bradley did.

M3 Bradley cannot use APFSDS because its fire control system doesn't have that capability.

M919 Rounds were built in order to be fired from M242 bushmaster cannon . i dont know what are you talking about so i will check the documents if you give one.

Edited September 9, 2020 by ACOMETS

[Guest]

But they weren't used on the M3 Bradley. They weren't introduced until the Army was only using later models, even if they could have been used on the M3 in theory.

[ACOMETS 977]

Cobra king i was worried about that but i couldnt found anything but the date  of the first creation .i know that those ammo were used in gulf war . nothing about the guns different model just normal M242 . my guess is that the ammo is used as a standard ammo . i will be pleased if somebody give me documents about the ammo and its usage history.

[ACOMETS 977]

55 minutes ago, CobraKingII said:

But they weren't used on the M3 Bradley. They weren't introduced until the Army was only using later models, even if they could have been used on the M3 in theory.

 

and by the way ic couldn't find information about M3 being retired or all being upgraded

Edited August 4, 2020 by ACOMETS

[TearJerker 124]

The M242 in the original M2/M3 Bradley(first gen) could fire it. However, it would be more historically accurate if this round were added to the M2A2/M3A2 ODS models(and A3's), considering the date of introduction and adoption. This is supported further by the fact that the Ballistic Computer of the later models would handle the M919 when fielded, unlike the first gen Bradley, considering the round wasn't even developed yet.

 

You would also have a better reflection of the BFV's model progression, pending the devs adding later models as suggested here by @CobraKingII:

 

TLDR: +1 but in later model BFV's when added.

[lwpuma 5]

in all fairness the bradley ifv is a fire support track to support infantry movements against enemy infanty during engagements it wasnt made to fight mbt's 

[Turra 1,439]

I would not agree that it is a good idea to give these ifv's apfsds. 

However, if we had a differebt production variation of these ifv's at a higher br i do agree that its reasonable to get apfsds for all of these. 

[ExodusV 284]

They should just remove APDS/HEI mostrosity feed composition with that **** poor APDS (you can barely kill anything with it).

Add APDSFS as default, simple as that. Autocannon with 200 RPM is pathetic for tank to tank combat, coupled with first generation TOW you have recipe for a disaster.

TOW-I should be standard. You have to wait for launcher to deploy, an eye for an eye, at 8.7 BMP comes with 1200 mm of penetration (can fire it on the move too)!

[TearJerker 124]

4 hours ago, ILLUMINATUS said:

They should just remove APDS/HEI mostrosity feed composition with that **** poor APDS (you can barely kill anything with it).

Add APDSFS as default, simple as that. Autocannon with 200 RPM is pathetic for tank to tank combat, coupled with first generation TOW you have recipe for a disaster.

TOW-I should be standard. You have to wait for launcher to deploy, an eye for an eye, at 8.7 BMP comes with 1200 mm of penetration (can fire it on the move too)!

 

Can you like... not? Nothing you just said makes any sense in regards to adding a round that literally couldn't* be fired(missiles, too) with the Bradley that is currently in game(first gen).

 

As stated and supported by fact, this round should be added to the game, but it should be added to the later versions of the Bradley that could actually fire it IRL. If you don't like the Bradley's "play style," don't use it.

17 hours ago, lwpuma said:

in all fairness the bradley ifv is a fire support track to support infantry movements against enemy infanty during engagements it wasnt made to fight mbt's 

While I agree that was what it was designed for, it is of note that the later Bradley designs used in Desert Storm had a higher MBT kill count that the M1 Abrams in the same conflict.

[ExodusV 284]

8 hours ago, TearJerker said:

 

Can you like... not? Nothing you just said makes any sense in regards to adding a round that literally couldn't* be fired(missiles, too) with the Bradley that is currently in game(first gen).

 

As stated and supported by fact, this round should be added to the game, but it should be added to the later versions of the Bradley that could actually fire it IRL. If you don't like the Bradley's "play style," don't use it.

While I agree that was what it was designed for, it is of note that the later Bradley designs used in Desert Storm had a higher MBT kill count that the M1 Abrams in the same conflict.

Are you scared of ~ 120 milimeters penetration point blank 0*? M242 is fairly capable of firing APDSFS as stated by it very own producer, unless you can provide sources.

It's a game, arcade at that FCS isn't modeled so it doesn't matter. Ballistic computer would only require new data and all is good to go (that's it) as we don't have it.

When Bradley was introduced BGM-71C was standard issue ATGM and BGM-71D was starting to replace it.

 

This M3 is hardly copy of IRL M3.

[eleks12 1,079]

If we get another Bradley into the game at BR 9.7 or 10.0 Sure. But im kindoff not sure with the ADATS getting Sabot.

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, eleks12 said:

But im kindoff not sure with the ADATS getting Sabot.

Ah, but hopefully we eventually get the M6 Linebacker, which should get APFSDS!

[ExodusV 284]

1 hour ago, eleks12 said:

If we get another Bradley into the game at BR 9.7 or 10.0 Sure. But im kindoff not sure with the ADATS getting Sabot.

Please be real. At >9.3 IFVs/CFVs don't offer anything over MBT. If light tank doesn't have mobility advantage it's good as dead.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, ILLUMINATUS said:

If light tank doesn't have mobility advantage it's good as dead.

CV90120-T and Centauro MGS would like to have a word with you.

 

(Yes, I know the Centauro is a "wheeled tank destroyer" but the lines are kind of blurred. In the case of CV90120 it is actually a light tank.)

Edited October 17, 2020 by Guest

[TearJerker 124]

3 hours ago, ILLUMINATUS said:

Are you scared of ~ 120 milimeters penetration point blank 0*? M242 is fairly capable of firing APDSFS as stated by it very own producer, unless you can provide sources.

It's a game, arcade at that FCS isn't modeled so it doesn't matter. Ballistic computer would only require new data and all is good to go (that's it) as we don't have it.

When Bradley was introduced BGM-71C was standard issue ATGM and BGM-71D was starting to replace it.

 

This M3 is hardly copy of IRL M3.

Look, I don't have the time, nor the will, to go back and forth with you on the subject, considering that both fact and logic are on my side on this.

As already stated, the round could be fired from the M242. HOWEVER, this version of the Bradley's Targeting Computer would be wildly inaccurate with it, as it's calibrated with ONLY the AP and HE rounds that it currently has in game. This is fact. You look it up. I'm not posting my private pictures from inside the Bradley, as I'm not sure what I can and can't publish just to squash a kid saying things he knows nothing about on the internet because not all his IFV toys play the same.

 

Later Bradley versions were setup to use this round. There is a physical switch next to the loading bay of the turret that is for selecting the M919 in the later Bradley. It would make more sense to have the newer versions of the Bradley added and they would certainly have these rounds and TOWs, as they did IRL.

 

20 minutes ago, ILLUMINATUS said:

Please be real.