M2 Bradley

[bigvig]

From Wiki


During the Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams.[5] 20 Bradleys were lost; 3 by enemy fire and 17 due to friendly fire incidents; another 12 were damaged.[6]

Forgive my ignorance. What is the need for the Abrams if Bradleys do the job just as well and also serve as an APC and are just as fast?

[rattenkrieger]

From Wiki



Forgive my ignorance. What is the need for the Abrams if Bradleys do the job just as well and also serve as an APC and are just as fast?

Armored vehicle is a name for a lot of vehicles. Also a hummer is an armored vehicle... so are you allways going to use tanks to destroy them?

[TR1]

Because Abrams can take a hell of alot more punishment than a Bradley.

[derf]

Was the Bradley M2 capable of taking on the Iraqi MBT at the time?

[The Dane]

Yeah with their TOW missiles but they could also take out T-55 and T-62's with their 25mm by hitting the side and the rear of the turret.

[bigvig]

Armored vehicle is a name for a lot of vehicles. Also a hummer is an armored vehicle... so are you allways going to use tanks to destroy them?

Well thats just the wiki article. There was a documentary series called Modern Warfare, and I'm sure it said the Bradley destroyed more tanks than the Abrams.

[rattenkrieger]

Well thats just the wiki article. There was a documentary series called Modern Warfare, and I'm sure it said the Bradley destroyed more tanks than the Abrams.

I knew i recognized those words :)... i've seen it to on Discovery channel. You always have to watch carefully at what is said on television and in media... and sometimes even think twice about the meaning of a certain word. Small things can provoque big changes

[The Dane]

and I'm sure it said the Bradley destroyed more tanks than the Abrams.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/report.php?p=3285146)

Yeah it IS correct.
I wonder how something like CV9035 with eg. Spike LR missiles would have performed in such a situation? :)

[bigvig]

If you have the patience

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1333142962487608487&q=desert+storm+site%3Avideo.google.com&ei=ocxBSKGAMIOcrwKb_-icCQ&hl=En

Talks about it somewhere in there.

[Hellfish]

The APFS round of the Bradley were pretty effective against the Chinese Type 59s and Type 69s. IIRC they even took out a couple of T-72s by shooting at the turret ring.

Plus, the Bradleys would be used against the lighter skinned vehicles - BMPs, BTRs, etc. - that either the 120mm of the Abrams would be overkill against or to conserve 120mm ammo. Bradleys carry several hundred 25mm rounds - it might take as few as 2-3 hits to kill a BMP or BTR. It's just more economical to fire a couple 25mm rounds and save the 120mms for anything bigger encountered.

[James]

Well thats just the wiki article. There was a documentary series called Modern Warfare, and I'm sure it said the Bradley destroyed more tanks than the Abrams.

Were those tanks manned?

[TR1]

The APFS round of the Bradley were pretty effective against the Chinese Type 59s and Type 69s. IIRC they even took out a couple of T-72s by shooting at the turret ring.

Plus, the Bradleys would be used against the lighter skinned vehicles - BMPs, BTRs, etc. - that either the 120mm of the Abrams would be overkill against or to conserve 120mm ammo. Bradleys carry several hundred 25mm rounds - it might take as few as 2-3 hits to kill a BMP or BTR. It's just more economical to fire a couple 25mm rounds and save the 120mms for anything bigger encountered.
Thats got to be a damn lucky shot!
otherwise either those T-72s gives to Iraq had paper instead of sand filling in the amour or those reports are just wishful thinking.

[Hellfish]

I admit I've only used Bradley gunnery trainers, but against static targets, hitting the turret ring at ~1500m isn't too difficult. The 25mm was pretty accurate.

That said... it was only a gunnery trainer.

There are a lot of stories to come out of GW1, some exaggerated, some not.

[bigvig]

Were those tanks manned?

Presumably so.

[Mordoror]

Presumably so.

don't be so sure.... it was not uncommon on the advancing time in GWI to have surendering iraki crew members leaving their tnaks or armored vehicle in front of a Abrams or a Bradley and then this last one to destroy the ennemy immobilized and empty vehicle with its main gun....

moreover how many of those kills are double or triple kills ?
I remember a footage section of the French engagment near the Al Salman airfield when you clearly see a T55 or Type59 iraki tank hit firstly by a 105 mm APDS of an AMX10RC vehicle then one or two seconds latter by a Milan missile fired by an infantry missile team

Given the ground manoeuvring superiority of the coalition, it was not uncommon to have multiple allied vehicle killing the same target

[wasser]

From Wiki



Forgive my ignorance. What is the need for the Abrams if Bradleys do the job just as well and also serve as an APC and are just as fast?

Simple numbers don't allow such a leap to conclusion. Assuming that Bradleys killed more armor or tanks than the Abrams did, there are some glaring uknowns:



Specific numbers of Abrams and Bradleys used (1:1000 ratio would change the numbers drastically - that's hyperbole :p)
Exactly what did they kill and how many respectively (even the word "tanks" is abused)
How were they used and could they have been swapped without consequence to the task?
What about logistical and maintenance issues?


There just isn't enough information and analysis of data to draw any meaningful conclusion.

[bigvig]

Good post waser, thanks.

[Abolith]

Pffft the T-72's were vastly outgunned and horribly outdated by everything in the coalition forces. throw a Bradley up against something more modern, such as a T-80 or T-90, and it isn't going to fair as well. MBT's have a specific placed in mechanized forces as do APC's.

[the_recruit]

Pffft the T-72's were vastly outgunned and horribly outdated by everything in the coalition forces. throw a Bradley up against something more modern, such as a T-80 or T-90, and it isn't going to fair as well. MBT's have a specific placed in mechanized forces as do APC's.


Very True. Although I am curious to know if there was some way to mount a 120 on a Bradley. That would be a scary weapons system.

[Hellfish]

Very True. Although I am curious to know if there was some way to mount a 120 on a Bradley. That would be a scary weapons system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8-AGS

The Thunderbolt prototype AGS had a 120mm low recoil gun on a Bradley chassis.

[Ratamacue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8-AGS

The Thunderbolt prototype AGS had a 120mm low recoil gun on a Bradley chassis.In addition, the XM1202 Mounted Combat System will be roughly the size of the Bradley, and mount a lightweight 120mm gun.

[Mackie]

IIRC a Bradley was destroyed by an RPG in 2003 and the whole crew died.
I believe 9 soldiers were in.

Imagine this attack against an Merkava based IFV:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/NamerSirpad01.jpg/800px-NamerSirpad01.jpg

IFVs or MRAPs becomes heavier and heavier. A German Puma weights the same like the new Japan MBT.

http://pix.nofrag.com/c/e/5/a9867583e58cb1cea0392409a5c72.jpg

http://www.defense-update.com/images/CV90ra.jpg


And MBTs have an psycho effect: p-)
http://www.defense-update.com/images/Leo-PSO.jpg
http://military.people.com.cn/mediafile/200704/27/F2007042709361100481.JPG

[I can't think of a name]

M2 destroyed by RPG? What type or do you mean IED? I am sure RPGs can mobility kill them but kill the whole crew?

[TR1]

Not that surprising, a late version RPG-7 with tandem warhead or something more modern would be quite up to the task...all depends where they hit, must have been very lucky aim.

[DesktopArmor]

IIRC a Bradley was destroyed by an RPG in 2003 and the whole crew died.
I believe 9 soldiers were in.

And MBTs have an psycho effect: p-)



I don't know of any destroyed in that manner (entire crew killed) by an RPG. I do, however, know of multiple vehicles destroyed by IEDs. Usually the vehicle is destroyed, but at least some, if not all the crew survive these attacks. It should be said that at the same time IFV weights are going up, MBT weights are coming down. Seeing as how an M-1 (or any other MBT) can also be destroyed by IEDs, there is no way to just add armor and solve the problem. Build a heavier vehicle, they just make a bigger bomb. And, also, if you aren't trying to scare the living daylights out of everyone you meet, it's not really a good idea to roll down urban streets in a MBT, especially if you're trying to rebuild the country. The heavier you make an IFV, the harder it is to transport and, potentially, the less able it is to be used in critical situations. You can have the best-protected IFV in the world, but if you can't get it to the action, it doesn't matter a thing.

[wilhelm]

M2 destroyed by RPG? What type or do you mean IED? I am sure RPGs can mobility kill them but kill the whole crew?

Not too sure of the incident, if true. But the development of the RPG did not suddenly stop with the most prolific and cheapest model, the RPG-7. Some of the later models are very capable and advanced systems in their class and are quite capable of doing the type of damage mentioned above..

[Mordoror]

A RPG29 is given to penetrate at least side and rear hull of a M1
The front armor of a Chally2 (glacis) was penetrated by such weapon
So it is not unlikely for a RPG29 to be able to penetrate front or side armor of a Bradley
after it is the luck of war
either you are lucky and the fusion dart of the HEAT warhead goes through the compartment without touching somebody and setting ablaze ammo or equipment

otherwise you have the specific effect "heat and light"

[DesktopArmor]

A RPG29 is given to penetrate at least side and rear hull of a M1
The front armor of a Chally2 (glacis) was penetrated by such weapon
So it is not unlikely for a RPG29 to be able to penetrate front or side armor of a Bradley
after it is the luck of war
either you are lucky and the fusion dart of the HEAT warhead goes through the compartment without touching somebody and setting ablaze ammo or equipment

otherwise you have the specific effect "heat and light"

No one here is claiming that the M-2/3 is RPG-proof, to the contrary plently of pictures are out there of them after being pierced by an RPG. However, claiming that one was completely destroyed and the entire crew killed by an RPG is what is being questioned. As for RPG-'proof' construction, a lucky shot, regardless of the physical armor (not counting an APS) of a vehicle, will at least cripple it.

[Mordoror]

@Desktop armor
it was an answer to the post 23 (see above) just to explain that the fact is possible

now, concerning the fact of an M2-M3 completely destroyed by an RPG (any model) in Irak, it has to be documented (at least from my side as i am not aware of such incident and so on that point i totaly agree with you)

[indiana46767]

Simple really, send in the Abrams to kill the enemy and behind the Abrams is the Bradley APC. Abrams pack the punch, the brandley packed with people. Perfect combination. The Bradley also has armament, don't get me wrong, but less of it.p-)

[the_recruit]

Simple really, send in the Abrams to kill the enemy and behind the Abrams is the Bradley APC. Abrams pack the punch, the brandley packed with people. Perfect combination. The Bradley also has armament, don't get me wrong, but less of it.p-)


My Friend's Father was a tanker and said the Bradleys were usually the first ones in formation as they performed scout roles.

[The Dane]

Is there any plans about upgrading Bradley's with the new Bushmaster II/30mm ?

Or is the 25mm good enough?

[Ratamacue]

Is there any plans about upgrading Bradley's with the new Bushmaster II/30mm ?

Or is the 25mm good enough?I don't know anything about plans to upgrade the Bradley, but the XM1206 Infantry Carrier Vehicle being developed for Future Combat Systems will utilize the Bushmaster II, as well as the USMC's Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

[The Dane]

Thanks.
It's a pretty neat cannon, the MK44 as its also called.
Especially the airburst capability!

Btw: a tread i started about the Bradley some time ago.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=133126

[panzrman]

Is there any plans about upgrading Bradley's with the new Bushmaster II/30mm ?

Or is the 25mm good enough?


Yes, there is.

And yes, the 25 mikemike is still good enough.

[Hellfish]

IIRC a Bradley was destroyed by an RPG in 2003 and the whole crew died.
I believe 9 soldiers were in.


Just for posterity's sake, don't read too much into this. ONE Bradley destroyed by an RPG with all hands lost isn't that big an issue when you consider how many Bradleys have been in combat (several thousand, I imagine) and how many years/months of conflict they've been involved in (5+ years at least of low and medium intensity conflict). There is not other modern IFV that has seen so much combat and experienced both so few losses and such a high operational tempo.

I'd still rather be in a Bradley than many other operational IFVs these days - the possible exception being the CV90 series, which have only had a handful of vehicles in combat zones for a short amount of time. I don't even know if they've ever fired a shot in anger, or received any, so their combat capability is still just an educated guess at best.

[DesktopArmor]

[quote=Hellfish6;3298432]Just for posterity's sake, don't read too much into this. ONE Bradley destroyed by an RPG with all hands lost isn't that big an issue when you consider how many Bradleys have been in combat (several thousand, I imagine) and how many years/months of conflict they've been involved in (5+ years at least of low and medium intensity conflict). There is not other modern IFV that has seen so much combat and experienced both so few losses and such a high operational tempo.

Just as some information, in the '100 hours war' (~four days) of Desert Storm, 20 M-2/M-3s were destroyed (most by friendly fire) and 12 were seriously damaged. As for the conflict in Iraq, (~five years) between 50 and 60 M-2/M-3s have been destroyed/damaged to the point that they are unusable. According to the Lexington Insitute, M-2/M-3s have an Optempo increase of 500% in Iraq over peacetime.

[The Dane]

Just for posterity's sake, don't read too much into this. ONE Bradley destroyed by an RPG with all hands lost isn't that big an issue when you consider how many Bradleys have been in combat (several thousand, I imagine) and how many years/months of conflict they've been involved in (5+ years at least of low and medium intensity conflict). There is not other modern IFV that has seen so much combat and experienced both so few losses and such a high operational tempo.

I'd still rather be in a Bradley than many other operational IFVs these days - the possible exception being the CV90 series, which have only had a handful of vehicles in combat zones for a short amount of time. I don't even know if they've ever fired a shot in anger, or received any, so their combat capability is still just an educated guess at best.

And you have to wait until Feb. 2010, when the first Danish CV9035 company deploys to Helmand.
Then it will see some action for sure :)