SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

M901A2 (1/72 What If)

4987 views
15 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May, 2012
M901A2 (1/72 What If)
Posted by Ninja-Viking on Friday, August 31, 2012 11:52 PM

About 20 some odd years ago I did this in 1/87.

So once Revell came out with the M2/M3 Bradley (kit 03143)
I decided to try it withe the Hammerhead from ESCI's M901.
This is what I started with.

Here is where I am when I decide to take a break.

well it's after Midnight so I'll call it quits for now.

  • Member since
    December, 2002
  • From: Fort Knox
Posted by Rob Gronovius on Saturday, September 01, 2012 12:50 PM

You're basically ending up with the TOW version of the Dutch YPR-765. The Bradley turret does everything the TOW turret does plus has a 25mm with 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. Interesting project.

  • Member since
    May, 2012
Posted by Ninja-Viking on Saturday, September 01, 2012 2:02 PM

Hello Rob,

Close but not quite.....

The YPR-765 is based on the M113 APC.

This is based on the Baradley IFV......

My Doctrine being that 113's,

do not have the ability to "keep up"  with M1's.

(better engines and transmissions)

The M901A2 has Gun Ports for all around protection.

Plus it would have a Bradley (or two) for support.

  • Member since
    December, 2002
  • From: Valrico, FL
Posted by HeavyArty on Saturday, September 01, 2012 2:19 PM

Yes, we know the YPR-765 TOW is on an M113 hull and yours is a Bradley hull.

It still doesn't make sense as to why.  The Bradley already has 2 TOW tubes, better optics, better protection, more firepower, better performance, etc., etc., etc....  

Mounting the poor, 1970s technology ITV TOW head on a Bradley hull is a step backwards.  Tying up "a  Bradley (or two) for support" are a waste of assets as well, since the basic Bradley also has the same 2-shot TOW missile capability.

Gino P. Quintiliani - Field Artillery - The KING of BATTLE!!!

Check out my Gallery: http://smg.photobuck...v231/HeavyArty/?

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

  • Member since
    May, 2012
Posted by Ninja-Viking on Saturday, September 01, 2012 3:13 PM

Let break it down to you.....Bradley  NOT offensive Anti Tank platfrom......It is a RECON vehicle.

M901(A2) is an Ambush Tank Hunter......Having a Bradley (or two) for supprt is for carrying "Ground Asseets"  IE an Infantry Squad (11M's)....The "Official Doctrine" for the Bradley is this.....Recon Scout, and  Battle Taxi...hince M2 and M3) 25 mm to handle Light Skin Vehicles, with TOW Missele for "Defence".

M901 is an "Offensive" vehicle...purpose(?) to "Hunt" Enemy Armor.

You say "the poor, 1970s technology ITV TOW head ", but I remind you......

It is "State of the Art"....for it's time (the 70's) it was "ahead" of it's time.

All the Sights and Tech the Bradley has now came from that.

I see that you are Artillery.......

I am an 11BC2  (Anti Tank Specialist) Team Leader.

After all this.....since when does Wasting Assets mean anything to the Army?

Anyway I guess you wouldn't like my Bradley 120mm Mortar Carrier either .

Plus "If" you read my post you will see I did this back in 88.

  • Member since
    December, 2002
  • From: Valrico, FL
Posted by HeavyArty on Saturday, September 01, 2012 3:45 PM

I don't need it broken down for me like an idiot, I got it.  We can debate what a Bradley is or is not all day long.  And since when do we (US Army) actually follow our doctrine anyways?  Suffice it to say, it is much more than a recon vehicle or battle taxi, and the TOW part of it is not just a defensive weapon.

I still don't see the utility of it, even in '88.  The Army's Echo Companies (AT) were pretty much all Bradley's by that time anyways.

And no, I think a Bradley Mortar Carrier would be a pretty good idea.  The M1064A3 can barely keep up with the fight.  So does the Army by the way.  They are looking at replacements for the M113 family and the Bradley GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle) is a strong contender, to include a mortar carrier variant.

Gino P. Quintiliani - Field Artillery - The KING of BATTLE!!!

Check out my Gallery: http://smg.photobuck...v231/HeavyArty/?

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

  • Member since
    May, 2012
Posted by Ninja-Viking on Saturday, September 01, 2012 5:31 PM

This is my Bradley Motor Carrier

i1060.photobucket.com/.../DSC08878.jpg

  • Member since
    December, 2002
  • From: Valrico, FL
Posted by HeavyArty on Saturday, September 01, 2012 8:10 PM

Your Bradley Mortar Carrier looks pretty good.  It is basically how the actual test vehicle is laid out.

Actual test vehicle.

Gino P. Quintiliani - Field Artillery - The KING of BATTLE!!!

Check out my Gallery: http://smg.photobuck...v231/HeavyArty/?

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

  • Member since
    December, 2002
  • From: Fort Knox
Posted by Rob Gronovius on Saturday, September 01, 2012 10:45 PM

Ninja-Viking

Hello Rob,

Close but not quite.....

The YPR-765 is based on the M113 APC.

This is based on the Baradley IFV......

My Doctrine being that 113's,

do not have the ability to "keep up"  with M1's.

(better engines and transmissions)

The M901A2 has Gun Ports for all around protection.

Plus it would have a Bradley (or two) for support.

Yes, I've spent nearly 30 years of my life on US armored vehicles. The current US version of the M113, the M113A3, has more than enough power to keep up with the Abrams. In fact, it is faster than a Bradley.

The firing ports on the Bradley were deleted on all versions except the rear ramp ports on the infantry version. The TOW version you wish to depict would have the firing ports blocked by interior TOW missile storage racks, just like the cavalry version of the Bradley.

If the M901A2 requires a Bradley (or two) for support, and a regular Bradley does everything it does and more, then why would you want the M901A2? That does not make sense. Even the US Army replaced the M901 with the M3A2 Bradley CFV in the anti-tank companies before deciding dedicated anti-tank companies were obsolete.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the old M901. I bet I'm one of maybe a handful of forum members who have actually qualified on the M901 ITV. When the Army removed them in 1993, it had already lived long past its usefulness on the modern battlefield.

Don't even get me started on comparing the time required to erect the M901 turret and engaging a target to erecting the TOW launcher on a Bradley. Night and day.

  • Member since
    May, 2012
Posted by Ninja-Viking on Sunday, September 02, 2012 6:48 AM

Thanks Rob,

The whole Idea behind this ...is this.....

I concieved this over 20 years ago.

You know...back when it was still the "Cold War".

The main difference between this and a Bradley is this.....

the Bradley "Is Not" an Offencive Platform...it "Is" a Recon/Scout and Battle Taxi.

The M901 "Is" an "Offencive" Platform.....meant to go out and "Hunt" Armor,

to hind in "Ambush" then strike.

I built these models back when I used armor models ,

to teach "Armored Vehicle Recognition" (I was an E-4 back then),

once in a while "Higher-Ups" would come and sit in my class.

I hand them Binos. point to a Numbered Stake and ask what vehicle was placed there.

Then they would look over all my models...."they" liked my "concept" vehicles.

But remember...this was back in the 80's.

I thought the purpose was to enjoy myself,

I did title this as a "what if" after all.

  • Member since
    December, 2002
  • From: Valrico, FL
Posted by HeavyArty on Sunday, September 02, 2012 10:07 AM

Ninja-Viking

The main difference between this and a Bradley is this.....

the Bradley "Is Not" an Offencive Platform...it "Is" a Recon/Scout and Battle Taxi.

The M901 "Is" an "Offencive" Platform.....meant to go out and "Hunt" Armor,

to hind in "Ambush" then strike.

These are the major flaws in your logic.  The Bradley is an offensive platform and the M901 is a defensive platform.   The M901 was designed to be fired from hull-down defensive positions or other static positions.  It has no offensive capability like shoot on the move, move w/the targeting head up, etc.  It is strictly a static defense platform.

We got it, this was a what-if and you enjoyed building it.  We are just disagreeing on it's utility.  Just because it is a what-if doesn't mean you can't debate whether it could have or would have been effective at the intended time frame it was done.

Gino P. Quintiliani - Field Artillery - The KING of BATTLE!!!

Check out my Gallery: http://smg.photobuck...v231/HeavyArty/?

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

  • Member since
    December, 2002
  • From: Fort Knox
Posted by Rob Gronovius on Sunday, September 02, 2012 1:24 PM

I do like your kit bash. Modern "what ifs" always intrigue me. I once added the Sgt York turret to an M1 hull calling it the "Sergeant Major York". Basically a major "what if" the York turret actually did work, even though I know the Army decided that the 40mm guns were obsolete and went with missiles for close in air defense. It's a lot of fun to see what you can come up with. I even thought up an assault gun vehicle using a partially built M88A1 and an extra 155mm howitzer gun tube from an M109A1 kit, but never got much of it built. Basically a Jagd-Patton. Not a very useful vehicle but it was a fun concept to attempt.

I do remember the Cold War, I was in when we won it. I served from August 1982 to July 2011. All I said was that you're basically ending up with a vehicle like the YPR and that it is a lesser vehicle than the standard Bradley. You are the one arguing that it would be superior to the Bradley.

The Bradley is an offfensive weapon. It can fire the 25mm while on the move. It has become the "light tank" of the US Army, albeit a very big "light tank." The ITV is purely a defensive weapon or a weapon used in overwatch. It can't shoot on the move nor even move while the turret is deployed. It can't even use it's own TOW optics to scan ahead while moving. That's one of the reasons why the ITV was replaced by Bradleys in scout platoons, Echo companies and cavalry squadrons.

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • From: Sunny So. Cal... The OC
Posted by stikpusher on Sunday, September 02, 2012 2:20 PM

Being a former M901 crewman (11HE9), 1983-1987, I will chime in with my two cents... The M901 was not an offensive weapons system. While it could be and was used offensively, it was not effective in that role. It had no shoot on the move capability and if you are setting up to fire in anything other than a hull down position you have just increased your visibility and height silhouette to do so. In the offense, our only real chance to survive was in overwatch positions. Thus we did a LOT of bounding overwatch. It was designed for the German Fulda Gap battlefield to fire buttoned up from hull down positions under artillery fire in a prepared defensive battle. Your situational awareness was minimal because the system could not be operated fully or fired with any hatches open. The older M113 with the pedestal mount TOW could and did fire with open hatches, thus giving better situational awareness but making them vulnerable to artillery, especially air bursts. I don't know about the interior of a Bradley, but I do know that it had space for  3-5 fewer fully equipped grunts than a M113, due to its design. In the M901, the entire right side of the interior is taken up with the TOW missile rack and the components for the ground mount TOW launcher M220. When combat loaded with all the other stuff that goes there per load plan, you lose half the interior volume right there on a M901. So there goes half your firing ports. Another 20%-30% is lost to the interior portion of the turret.But even with all that, we still had room for the basic 4 man ITV crew and a few extra grunts if need be. We did so on occasion. I suppose with a complete gutting   re design of the interior, the Bradleys could be made somewhat more accommodating inside. In 1984 I did an exchange program with a Bundeswehr unit, 223rd Panzer Grenadier Battalion, 1st Gebirgsjager Division. I was very impressed by their Marder IFV, and thought that using that vehicle as a base, an excellent ITV could be made.

So yes, your vehicle is very much a what if, but very much akin to putting a piston engine in place of the turbines on a UH-1 or UH-60. A step backwards what if.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    December, 2002
  • From: Fort Knox
Posted by Rob Gronovius on Sunday, September 02, 2012 8:20 PM

Likewise, the interior of the M3/A1/A2/A3 CFV has the right side of the fighting compartment taken up by horizontal TOW missile storage. The crew of the CFV is five men; driver, gunner, TC and two cavalry scouts (all 19Ds) in the rear compartment that reload the TOW launcher. The left side of the hull is configured to hold additional 25mm and 7.62mm ammo cans. No seats for anyone else beyond the two scouts.

Here's a shot of the old school M3 I had in my maintenance school. You can see one of the two jump seats for the GIBS (guys in back sleeping). The second jump seat is attached to that same pillar, but it is mounted lower than the left side seat. It also faces rearward towards the troop door. You can see the edge of the troop door opening in the lower right hand corner of the photo as well as the empty TOW racks and the interior of the turret basket. In the center of the photo you can see the flat, semi-circular spot where the forward firing port would be on the original M2 version (side ports were deleted on all variants after the M2). As you can see, with the racks in place, there is absolutely no way to reach that port even if it wasn't blanked off. If I remember correctly, the rack holds 10 TOW missiles.

 

  • Member since
    May, 2012
Posted by Ninja-Viking on Monday, September 03, 2012 7:18 AM

Well "inspite" of Nay Sayers on weather or not this is a viable vehicle ....

The progress contenues

Here it is with a new roof:

i1060.photobucket.com/.../DSC08884.jpg

Here are the parts from ESCI's Hammerhead:

i1060.photobucket.com/.../DSC08880.jpg

Now, the TC hatch on the Hammerhead is molded closed, as shown here:

i1060.photobucket.com/.../DSC08881.jpg

So I have taken the parts from ESCI's M113, Namely the TC hatch, so that I can add it to the Hammerhead mount:

i1060.photobucket.com/.../DSC08882.jpg

I took the Hemmerhead mount, and sanded down the hatch till the M113 TC hatch fit to it:

i1060.photobucket.com/.../DSC08883.jpg

I will add a MG ring and look for an M60/M60D for mounting to it.

If any questions, feel free to reply.

  • Member since
    December, 2002
  • From: Fort Knox
Posted by Rob Gronovius on Monday, September 03, 2012 10:35 AM

I never said it wasn't a viable vehicle, just a lesser vehicle than the Bradley. And as Alfred also pointed out, you basically end up with a vehicle like the Dutch YPR. Sure, it'll have more interior room, be a bigger vehicle with more armor protection than a YPR, but still a lesser vehicle than the standard M3. That's the only point I made, why remove a better multi-purpose turret and replace it with a lesser, single purpose obsolete turret.

As to the M60 (it was a standard M60 not an M60D mounted on the US M901), ExtraTech does a Western Modern Firearms set in PE that includes an M60. At first, I was skeptical about the sandwich approach to PE machine guns, but after trying it, it works pretty well in 1/72 scale.

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS

FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.