Impressive build. I traded several years ago for the deluxe Orochi kit; what did kinetic improve on it? I like the metal tracks and barrel the Orochi kit came with, but haven't had the desire to work on a Brad.

Great job there Gino!!! 

Only thing I'd add would be a small base with some sand on it. 

Funny I've never built a Brad either. I only have the ancient Tamiya kit in my stash- which I didn't buy, I got it as a raffle prize. 

Gamera

Funny I've never built a Brad either. I only have the ancient Tamiya kit in my stash- which I didn't buy, I got it as a raffle prize. 

The original Tamiya Bradley (both the M2 w/interior and the M3 without) is a fun kit. I would actually put it in a similar category to the old Tamiya M41 Walker Bulldog. Build it out of box and paint it olive green or MERDC camoflage and have fun with it.

Thanks Rob, that's a great idea. I could use a decompression build. I've got a bunch of half-finished stuff I need to finish up and then I might just give that a go. 

I should run off a few pictures of Gino's Brad to use as inspiration. 

Thanks guys.  It was a fun build and I like how it came out.

I traded several years ago for the deluxe Orochi kit; what did kinetic improve on it?

The Orochi kit had issues with soft or non-existent details in a few areas in my opinion.  Here are the bigest ones (from my linked review above).

Kinetic fixed most of this by adding a new sprue with parts for the TOW launcher, rear door handle, new headlights and tail lights, stowage basket wall and center support, and a set of T161 tracks and new sprockets for them.  As I mentioned above though, the T161 tracks are too new to be on a Bradley w/ERA mounted.  They do mention what to leave off for a non-ERA vehicle, but don't talk about the tracks.  With these fixes, it builds into a really nice kit.  Kinetic did a pretty good job of fixing it.

New Kinetic sprue.  

The original Tamiya Bradley (both the M2 w/interior and the M3 without) is a fun kit...Build it out of box and paint it olive green or MERDC camoflage and have fun with it.

Yup, it is still a nice kit.  Another option is to go nuts and super-detail it with a full fighting compartment and turret interior.

More here: https://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=279232

Nice job Gino. I don't know a lot about modern AFV's, but I guess I'm going to have to learn as I want to make a model of my mates ASLAV when he was in the sandpit.

Thanks Dodgy.  I'm sure you will do a great job on the ASLAV.

Thanks for pointing out the issues with the Orochi kit. And great photos there of your Tamiya Brad- that's some good inspiration right there! 

Thanks gents.  

One of the nice things about modern armor is that there is a lot of photographic references for the vehicles.

One of the bad things about modern armor is a lot of it has now been in use for over a generation; for instance the Bradley and Abrams have been in use since the early 1980s. It is now 2020 and that's almost 40 years of use.

Many things have changed and many things have remained the same. Older 30+ year old vehicles have been rebuilt and modified to current standards and have details of their original versions (1980s) but are more up to date than versions newly built in the early 2000s that haven't been upgraded yet.

But, it's nice to model kits of subjects that are in use and you may have friends who crewed them.

This build really resonates with me for reason I can't quite explain.

Maybe it's the way the cotton replicates the launching caharge so well, that I catch my breath waiting for the sustainer motors to kick in (or that hthe beast nose dives in the dirt).

Capturing such moments is very special.

Bravo.

Thanks CapnMac.  I can't ask for a better compliment.  I really like how it turned out as well.

Gino, I always learn new things from your projects. I really didn't know anything about the M3A3 Bradley CFV, or the TOW missile for that matter. In fact I hardly ever heard about the Bradley family of AFV. So I have been reading the last few days and realized I had never heard the term ERA either.

I have a few questions: CFV stands for Cavalry Fighting Vehicle and IFV for Infantry Fighting Vehicle. What makes one Cavalry and the other Infantry? TOW missile: TOW stands for Tub-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided. I believe the US Army had these in Vietnam and if correct are they same in the M3A3? If they are the same why would the Army use an old technology on a new AFV? ERA stands for Explosive Reactive Armor. Does the armor actually explode, or does it suppress the explosion when hit with a projectile? I have seen ERA on some models and knew it was a form of armor but never thought much more about it. My question is does the latest Abrams tanks have ERA, and if not why not?

This is a lot of questions, but you have truly got my interest with your M3A3 Bradley model.

Harold

Thanks Sarg.  Glad you like it.

So I have a few questions: CFV stands for Cavalry Fighting Vehicle and IFV for Infantry Fighting Vehicle. What makes one Cavalry and the other Infantry?

The difference in the two is the layout of the crew compartment in the rear.  The IFV has seats for 6 infantrymen and their gear.  The CFV has two seats in the back for 2 scouts.  The rest of the area is for extra TOW missiles and 25mm ammo.  There is also a slight difference in the rear periscopes.  On the IFV, there are 3 periscpes on the top of the rear hull above the ramp.  On the CFV, there are 4 periscopes on the top hatch.

M2A3 IFV

M2A3 IF rear w/persicopes mounted on hull top.

M3A3 CFV

M3A3 CFV top hatch w/persicopes.

TOW missile: TOW stands for Tub-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided. I believe the US Army had these in Vietnam and if correct are they same in the M3A3? If they are the same why would the Army use an old technology on a new AFV?

The TOW was tested in Vietnam in limited numbers in late '72.  The current TOW has been through a few upgrades and they are definitely not the same missile.  The current versions are much more capable.  There is talk about upgrading future versions with a Javelin launcher.

ERA stands for Explosive Reactive Armor. Does the armor actually explode, or does it suppress the explosion when hit with a projectile? I have seen ERA on some models and knew it was a form of armor but never thought much more about it. My question is does the latest Abrams tanks have ERA, and if not why not?

The ERA blocks actually explode when struck to lessen the effects of the round and provide space between the hull and where the round detonates.  They are especially successful against RPG-type rounds that produce a molten jet that cuts through the hull.  They blow the jet apart and defeat it.  Abrams, M113s, and most other vehicles can/do mount ERA as well.

ARAT (Abrams Reactive Armor Tiles) being installed on an M1A2 SEP v2.

HeavyArty

Thanks Sarg.  Glad you like it.

 

 

So I have a few questions: CFV stands for Cavalry Fighting Vehicle and IFV for Infantry Fighting Vehicle. What makes one Cavalry and the other Infantry?

 

 

The difference in the two is the layout of the crew compartment in the rear.  The IFV has seats for 6 infantrymen and their gear.  The CFV has two seats in the back for 2 scouts.  The rest of the area is for extra TOW missiles and 25mm ammo.  There is also a slight difference in the rear periscopes.  On the IFV, there are 3 periscpes on the top of the rear hull above the ramp.  On the CFV, there are 4 periscopes on the top hatch.

M2A3 IFV

M2A3 IF rear w/persicopes mounted on hull top.

M3A3 CFV

M3A3 CFV top hatch w/persicopes.

 

 

TOW missile: TOW stands for Tub-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided. I believe the US Army had these in Vietnam and if correct are they same in the M3A3? If they are the same why would the Army use an old technology on a new AFV?

 

 

The TOW was tested in Vietnam in limited numbers in late '72.  The current TOW has been through a few upgrades and they are definitely not the same missile.  The current versions are much more capable.  There is talk about upgrading future versions with a Javelin launcher.

 

 

ERA stands for Explosive Reactive Armor. Does the armor actually explode, or does it suppress the explosion when hit with a projectile? I have seen ERA on some models and knew it was a form of armor but never thought much more about it. My question is does the latest Abrams tanks have ERA, and if not why not?

 

 

The ERA blocks actually explode when struck to lessen the effects of the round and provide space between the hull and where the round detonates.  They are especially successful against RPG-type rounds that produce a molten jet that cuts through the hull.  They blow the jet apart and defeat it.  Abrams, M113s, and most other vehicles can/do mount ERA as well.

ARAT (Abrams Reactive Armor Tiles) being installed on an M1A2 SEP v2.

 

Harold

Thanks Harold.  I don't know about writing a book, but as my wife likes to point out, I have all sorts of useless information bouncing around my head.  However, I usually can't remember the name of someone I met 10 minutes ago.  Go figure.

Sergeant

I have a few questions: CFV stands for Cavalry Fighting Vehicle and IFV for Infantry Fighting Vehicle. What makes one Cavalry and the other Infantry?

Along with the difference in the number of "GIBS" (a tongue in cheek acronym meaning Guys in Back Sleeping), the M2 IFVs originally had firing port weapons to allow the infantrymen inside to fire from within the vehicle.

There were two ports on the right and left side of the troop carrying compartment and two firing ports on the rear cargo ramp. The weapons resembled shortened M16s called the M231. The handgrip portion of the weapon "screwed into" the firing port and the infantrymen "aimed" by looking through the periscopes.

The weapons were not every effective, it was almost like the old bow guns on WW2 tanks. The side firing ports were eliminated on the M2A1 and subsequent versions. The ramp firing ports still exist, but are rarely used or even trained on.

The M3 CFV never had the firing ports. The ports were originally blanked over, but eventually ramps were made without ports.

Beyond great information you and Gino have a good sense of humor. You both made me laugh and I like the term GIBS. It reminds me of how things were during my time in the service.

Harold

HeavyArty, I think most of us have that problem!

Sergeant

Beyond great information you and Gino have a good sense of humor. You both made me laugh and I like the term GIBS. It reminds me of how things were during my time in the service.

Harold

When heavy scout teams went from six M3 Bradley CFVs to ten M1025/M1026 HMMWV armament carriers, the term GIBS changed to LACS or Lazy Autobahn Cruising Scouts. They literally stopped dismounting from their Brads and drove the HMMWVs instead.

M2 IFVs originally had firing port weapons to allow the infantrymen inside to fire from within the vehicle.

There were two ports on the right and left side of the troop carrying compartment and two firing ports on the rear cargo ramp. The weapons resembled shortened M16s called the M231. The handgrip portion of the weapon "screwed into" the firing port and the infantrymen "aimed" by looking through the periscopes.

To add to Rob's comments....

Here is what they looked like outside of their mounts.

The idea was to provide the ability to fight from within the vehicle.  Here is a drawing showing supposed arcs of fire from the vehicle.  As Rob stated, they weren't very effective and were quickly abondoned w/the M2A1 version.

Here you can see the firing ports on the left side of an M3, the two circular bumps below the TOW launcher.

The two right side ones can be seen near the right rear side of this M3, blanked over.

Rear ramp firing ports on M2.

M3A1 without firing ports, look below the TOW launcher again, nothing but smooth armor plate.

Legacy ramp firing ports left on an M2A2 ODS Bradley.

M3A3 with ramp firing ports plated over.

Ramp firing ports eliminated on new-build M7A2 B-FIST (Bradley-Fires Integration Support Team), FA observer vehicle.

At the risk of drawing brickbats from the 19D croud, Cavalry units are meant to find and observe the bad guys.  In certain circumstances, to "fix" the bad guys in place with fires, so that the "heavies" can wheel up and defeat them in detail.

So, the one version lets you bring a squad to the battle, then support them as they deploy.  The other version is meant to just get enough eyeballs out to see what, where, when, how, and report back (or sideways, or whatever).

TOW has been around a long while, despite efforts to replace it.  I want to remember it's in its fifth full iteration.  Range is in the 3-4 kilometer neighborhood.  Which is a long time to watch the thing track over to the target trailing it's two control wires.

There's an inital "cold gas" charge that punches it out of its lanch tube, the missile gets a few meters out in front of the launcher, then fires a sustaining motor from the sides of the missile.  The missile then flies along at a sedate 278 m/s (±900 fps) while the shooter keeps the thing steered onto target manually.

That manual aimin does mean that, if the target moves, the shooter can bring the missile on to it, but the treadheads will tell you that that smoke trail invites evey weapon inside a track to chase at the shooter.  Flinching while wire-guiding a missile does not produce good results.

The early versions used bare nichrome wire, and this was not compatible with wet areas.  It was entirely common to see a TOW whoosh on out and then nosed dive into the ground.  Or zoom off into the sky.  A smart person wanted to duck on launching.

There was a fire-and-forget version developmed by Ratheon, TOW-FF, but that was canceled for cost over runs.  Such is life.

There were three cavalry missions for Cold War era cavalry units; recon, security and economy of force. The Bradley was developed with this doctrine in place.

You are only thinking of one type of mission, the reconnaissance role.

The security mission includes screening the main force (make the enemy think they are the main force), cover (provide contact with the enemy while the main force breaks contact) and guarding flanks of the main force.

Economy of force involves using the cavalry formation much like you would use another armor or mechanized infantry force of similar size and capability.

Yes, I am a graduate of the US Army Cavalry Leader Course, a one month follow on to the Armor Officer Advanced Course for officers slated to serve in cavalry units.