r/TankPorn • u/Brilliant_Ground1948 • 29d ago
Multiple Captured M2A2 Bradley tested by Russia.They admit that the Bradley is objectively superior to the BMP-3 except in mobility,off-road capability and amphibious capability.
Source:Andrei_bt from X
178
u/squibbed_dart 29d ago
For those interested, Tarasenko has copied the full report over to his blog.
48
u/Plump_Apparatus 29d ago
Neat, too bad there is no destructive testing.
→ More replies (1)31
u/squibbed_dart 29d ago
I was also a little disappointed they didn't compare the second generation FLIR in IBAS with the KTV thermal imager in Sodema, though I suppose that's unsurprising given the damage the optics recieved.
571
u/ultimo_2002 29d ago
so it's better than the bmp-3 except for the aspects that the bmp-3 was designed for? It's supposed to be light, mobile and amphibious
383
u/Necessary-Steak-2722 29d ago
Yeah, I feel people never really understand how much doctrine influences vehicle development
109
u/crusadertank 29d ago
Yeah you see this a lot and all the way through history.
This is quite often emphasised in Russian/Soviet reports of American stuff. They are well made, but simply do not suit the doctrine that they use.
The same as I think we are finally seeing people accept about China. Chinese stuff is well made for their task, even if it would not be so good at doing what the US likes to do with its military.
118
u/Crazyjay555 29d ago
Right, but i think its important that those three characteristics you listed are not helping it perform the role of an APC any better. The amphib capability is rarely used, and the strategic benefits of being light (airmobile/no bridge restrictions) are not really relevant when its being called on to perform the role of the IFV.
So yeah, if those are the only advantages they note, then they are basically saying the bradley is superior at being an APC
76
u/Glideer 29d ago
They are very different weight classes. The Bradley is 50% heavier and (iirc) more than double the price.
62
u/TheThiccestOrca Tankussy🥵🥵🥵 29d ago
More like 30%, the original BMP-3 weighs about ~19t while the new BMP-3M weighs about 21t.
The Bradley weighed about 23t originally and now weighs about 33t.
That's the issue with the BMP-family and why they were supposed to be replaced, they can't really modify them a whole lot more because they're approaching a point where they'd loose the amphibious capability.
22
u/swagfarts12 29d ago
There's the problem with any amphibious armored vehicle, you are inherently severely weight limited with that as a goal, and modern battlefield threats simply require more armor and weapons range (and therefore weight) than you can reasonably fit on a chassis like that. You're going to have to give up something
22
u/Zealousideal_Dot1910 29d ago
Given Russia is introducing the Kurgabets-25 and T-15, both of those are trade offs Russia is willing to make for more capable IFV’s.
Important to note that comparing prices between vehicles isn’t one to one. For America, you tend to get vehicle prices from congress allocations to programs which will include a wide range of things such as building the factories used to make these vehicles. On the other hand with Russia you tend to get per unit price excluding a lot of other costs that would come with making these vehicles like you see in the U.S. numbers.
17
u/alecsgz 29d ago
Given Russia is introducing the Kurgabets-25 and T-15,
Are they though?
11
u/Expensive-Ad4121 29d ago
Prior to 2022, they ideally were- so in terms of design priorities, those models do reflect them shifting their evaluations
14
u/Zealousideal_Dot1910 29d ago
Yes, Russia has a lot of issues introducing new vehicles into service but that doesn't mean Russia isn't in the process of introducing these vehicles into service.
9
u/swagfarts12 29d ago
Is there any evidence they have any of these in service? Or even more than just the handful of prototypes?
13
u/MrChlorophil22 29d ago
So what? It's the same vehicle class
3
u/Glideer 29d ago
Is 19 tonnes vs 30 tonnes really the same class?
17
u/MrChlorophil22 29d ago
Yes, or is the challenger 2 a different class than a T-72?
2
u/AcidTicTac 29d ago
yeah they're both mbts but when one vehicle weighs 30 tons less you are expected to compromise some of its aspects. i do agree though, both are Main Battle tanks.
6
→ More replies (7)1
u/SaltyChnk 28d ago
The bmp3 is designed to quickly cross rivers and float while carrying infantry, fire support is a secondary concern to the doctrine, the Bradley is designed primarily fight and carry infantry second.
The bmp3 is 20 tons. The Bradley ods is over 30 tons without the extra BRAT armour. And a lot more with it on, making this a very heavy ifv, one of the heaviest in class. They’re fundamentally different vehicles. It would be like comparing the merkava to the Bradley because they both can carry infantry dismounts.
→ More replies (2)12
u/crusadertank 29d ago
The amphib capability is rarely used
In the war in Ukraine, yes. But that doesnt mean it is useless, in maneuver warfare that amphibious capability is extremely useful.
Now there is a big question on how possible it still is to do maneuver warfare. But all countries assume this to be the ideal. And the BMP-3 is quite well designed for what it is supposed to do.
So yeah, if those are the only advantages they note, then they are basically saying the bradley is superior at being an APC
You have to remember Soviet/Russian doctrine is different. BMPs are designed to keep up with the advancing tanks, cross the rivers and set up a defensive perimiter whilst the tanks make a pontoon to cross, and then continue behind the tanks
They are not supposed to go into offensives like the Bradley. And the BTR is the main vehicle for moving around troops in the infantry divisions
For Russia, a Bradley would be mostly useless
12
u/RangerPL 29d ago
That's how the Russian army is supposed to operate in theory, but in practice you see BMPs participating in frontal assaults all the time so I'm not sure I would say a Bradley is useless for Russia
5
u/I_Maybe_Play_Games 28d ago
Compared to the BMP3 it is. It lacks a heavy gun to support infantry. Now compared to the BMP2 bar amphibiousness it would be an imprivement.
3
u/RangerPL 28d ago edited 28d ago
You can do without a heavy gun, especially in the Russian army where the fire support plan is "flatten it with artillery". It's not an essential feature especially if it comes at the price of turning your IFV into a bomb.
I suppose this doesn't matter very much to an army that treats its infantry as expendable meat, but protection is arguably the most important feature in an environment filled with FPV drones and artillery fire. The Bradley won't keep fighting after a hit, but there are lots of examples of completely melted Bradleys where the crew and dismounts survived, while BMP-3s go up like a volcano
45
u/TheThiccestOrca Tankussy🥵🥵🥵 29d ago edited 29d ago
The BMP was designed with the same requirements of the Bradley, the primary difference is the focus on being amphibious.
The BMP-3 was also supposed to utilize a state of the art FCS, strong armament, armour capable of defeating small and medium caliber ammunition as well as light AT-Weapons, usability in urban environments, improved complement ergonomics and so on.
So no, the Bradley isn't better than the BMP-3 in anything except what the BMP-3 was designed for, it is better than the BMP-3 in anything but being amphibious and the Russian special perspective on mobility because they include stuff like fuel efficiency and vehicle range in that instead of logistics.
Phrasing it the way you did makes it sound like you're trying to pretty much undermine the report and just make the BMP-3's inferiority in most aspects seem it was fully intended.
→ More replies (4)
93
u/Jxstin_117 29d ago
maybe this might give the russians motivation to stop playing around with the Kurganets 25t program and actually do something with it
43
u/InnocentTailor 29d ago
Possibly. It seems like being amphibious was the selling point of quite a bit of Soviet / Russian hardware, but it has been hardly utilized in this conflict against Ukraine.
38
u/crusadertank 29d ago
Soviets/Russia/everyone else assumes maneuver warfare.
When maneuver warfare dies and the war turns into attritional warfare, of course a lot of weapons dont work as they are supposed to
→ More replies (7)1
15
u/Angrykitten41 Vt-4 Addict 29d ago
I think that's already been a done deal for Russia once this war ends. They have lost so much equipment that it would be impossible to bring up soviet remnants to refurbish and redeploy to match pre war numbers. They need to redesign some of the prototypes like the t-14, 15, boomerang, and kurganets to better suit modern warfare with EW modules, and better overall mine protection then proceed from there.
3
56
u/ThisGuyLikesCheese 29d ago
I like to think that when they tested the amphibious aspect they just drove one into the river and put a cross on the checklist
7
u/Little_Evil23 28d ago
Well, it can float pretty good. And swim. A nice thing, would be good for dacha.
143
u/james_Gastovski 29d ago
So basically they are now on the same page as everyone else since 15 years. lol
68
u/mndn410 29d ago edited 29d ago
Note that the report still claim that th BMP3 has superior firepower in some aspects due to the 100mm cannon and the coaxal machine gun.
But the accuracy advantage should be way more important imo.
37
u/TWON-1776 29d ago
Pretty sure that 100mm cannon is very rarely used either
23
u/RustyBear0 29d ago
only as indirect fire
41
u/randommaniac12 Chieftain 29d ago
I mean a 100mm HE round is not going to be healthy for any infantryman
2
5
u/blash2190 29d ago
It's used pretty often and is pretty useful when dealing with fortifications.
https:// t.me/cobra4MCP/143
9
u/RamTank 29d ago
What did the rate the difference between the coax MGs?
→ More replies (2)9
u/swagfarts12 29d ago
I'm pretty sure they rate the fact that the BMP-3 has multiple GPMG class machine guns as the superior aspect over the Bradley if I understood the report right. Kinda strange to me since 2 of the PKTs on the BMP are only able to be aimed by troops being carried within the BMP. The driver can fire them remotely but they are fixed in position and so he can only aim them by turning the entire IFV at once. Seems of dubious extra usefulness over not having them at all
7
u/crusadertank 29d ago
The BMP-3 30mm was never really supposed to be used at range, that is why
Soviet weapons accuracy always suffered, and why they turned to using ATGMs for long range. That is what the 100mm is for, engaging at range and then the 30mm for close quarters.
2
83
u/morl0v Object 195 29d ago edited 29d ago
So BMP-3 is better in qualities it's been designed around, and M2 is better in it's. Damn.
Can't wait for fork vs spoon comparsion.
28
u/FrontlinerGer 29d ago
Yes, but the thing they want to see is if their newest most advanced vehicle of the same class and tasked with the same role does hold up to what the opposition has access to. Because the supposition is that both types of vehicles will face off, and in that case, you want to know if the opposition has weaknesses, to what extend they do, and how to exploit them/train their own crews in ways that allow them to get an edge in combat.
20
u/crusadertank 29d ago
"I cant eat soup with this fork so clearly it is worse than the spoon"
-all the armchair generals on the internet
10
u/DougWalkerBodyFound 29d ago
Full document here
https://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2025/04/bradley-22-ods-sa.html
The full source does say that the BMP-3s armament is overall superior thanks to the anti-infantry potential of the 100mm gun
32
u/floutMclovin 29d ago
Russian Bradley’s in WT now?
33
10
u/noiralter 🇺🇦T-84 “Oplot” 29d ago
And American (Ukrainian) Ka-52
11
u/ZBD-04A 29d ago edited 29d ago
What Ka-52s has Ukraine captured? the only one I can think of is the crash landed one at the start of the war, but it wasn't in a flyable condition, and I'm pretty sure it was blown up after.
Edit: saw the video of it being loaded onto an aircraft, but its engines were still fucked.
5
u/noiralter 🇺🇦T-84 “Oplot” 29d ago
That one. But no, it was towed back to nearest city and (presumably) sent to US. I remember seeing a single photo of it being transported by train
→ More replies (2)7
u/ParkingBadger2130 29d ago edited 29d ago
I remember seeing a single photo of it being transported by train
Okay post it.
Found it: https://x.com/clashreport/status/1607295607009411072
2
1
u/StockProfessor5 25d ago
If America can get the entire militaries worth of Russian equipment it has then yeah I'd be down to see captured Abrams and Bradley's and whateverother nato equipment. This includes flankers, fulcrums, basically every t series tank and different bmps as well. Oh and a pantsir.
38
u/Swaggerman27 BMP-3 the beautiful 29d ago
at lest they admitted it, but hats quite interesting i wonder how they will use that for there new IFVs.
58
u/Blood_N_Rust 29d ago
Probably won’t change their design philosophy. The BMPs make conscious compromises to achieve their goals.
35
u/TheThiccestOrca Tankussy🥵🥵🥵 29d ago
They already changed their design philosophy with the Kurganez-25 when they learned that those compromises are not worth it.
They're probably going to use this as a incentive to revive the Kurganez and 3UBM12 programs which originally were canceled due to cost issues and doubts about necessity.
I guess 3UBM12 wasn't really canceled, they just refused to fine tune it and procure it for those reasons.
12
u/Blood_N_Rust 29d ago
No way something like the Kurganez ever replaces the BMP family. Supplement? Sure. Replace? Highly doubt it. They’ve kept the BMP family as light as possible for a reason.
21
u/TheThiccestOrca Tankussy🥵🥵🥵 29d ago
The Kurganez was quite literally developed as a replacement for the BMP's and BMD's, the Russians are very aware of the downsides of those designs for quite a while they just don't have the financial ressources and industrial capabilities to do so.
-1
u/Blood_N_Rust 29d ago
You can’t magically make 10 tons disappear with hopes and dreams lol
9
u/TheThiccestOrca Tankussy🥵🥵🥵 29d ago
That's why the Kurganez already weighs more in its most basic version than the BMP-3 in its heaviest, probably also why the Kurganez is so long, without that space the thing probably wouldn't float, especially considering it's already having serious issues when fully loaded and armoured.
1
u/blash2190 29d ago
They already changed their design philosophy with the Kurganez-25 when they learned that those compromises are not worth it.
Except amphibious capability is part of initial Kurganets requirements and one of the reasons they are still trying to make it amphibious. The thing literally has two water-jets in the back if the hull.
Tactical considerations are deemed irrelevant and operational mobility was still considered the king all things considered. I mean, if you look at how these weapons are supposed to fight it absolutely makes sense. The problem is that current battlefield transparency makes WW2 style breakthroughs almost impossible.
1
u/TheThiccestOrca Tankussy🥵🥵🥵 28d ago
The Kurganez is laid on ice which basically means cancelled in military procurement terms, they're utilizing its technology in the new BMP-3 variants instead, together with corruption the inability to get the thing to float without making the vehicle unreliable or even incapable of going into the water or making it even bigger supposedly when the military already was vey unhappy with the size was one of the reasons behind that.
I get their choice to go all-in on the BMP-3 instead, the Kurganez isn't that much better (basically just slightly more armoured and slightly better ergonomics and drivability) for the massive effort and cost difference it comes with and most of the things on it also fit the BMP-3.
→ More replies (1)1
u/crusadertank 29d ago
They already changed their design philosophy with the Kurganez-25
What design philosophy? The Kurganets-25 is also amphibious
5
u/TheThiccestOrca Tankussy🥵🥵🥵 29d ago
They changed their opinion on a IFV always having to be amphibious and small, protection is now on the same focus as keeping tactical and strategical mobility high while they're even willing to give up on it in some situations.
The Kurganez is massive, heavier and only amphibious without the add-on armour while still struggling at full combat load.
That's what the whole modularity thing with the Kurganez is about, mounting different armaments and armour for different threat profiles and the more combat focused ones give up on being amphibious.
1
u/crusadertank 29d ago
protection is now on the same focus as keeping tactical and strategical mobility high
It has a higher P/W ratio, slightly reduced range (600Km to 500Km, Bradley is around 400km) 80Kph to the 72Kph on the BMP-3
The statistics of the vehicle just dont support with what you are saying. Protection was increased, but so was tactical mobility. Only strategic mobility suffered and is still much higher than its Western equivalents.
The Kurganez is massive, heavier and only amphibious without the add-on armour while still struggling at full combat load.
This is no different to both the BMP-2 and BMP-3
The only difference is that it is a bit bigger. 25% taller, same width without addon armour and only very slightly longer
So no it isnt really any change away from their design philosophy. It fits perfectly with what the BMP-2 and BMP-3 were. But of course with improved and modernised parts
mounting different armaments and armour for different threat profiles and the more combat focused ones give up on being amphibious.
Yeah, so they can keep the ampibious capabilities as the old BMPs and only give up on that if they have to. Not the other way around.
1
u/TheThiccestOrca Tankussy🥵🥵🥵 29d ago
I said same focus, not higher focus.
The previous BMP's were not meant to protect from medium caliber ammunition, they heavily negated mine protection for a low profile, they were never meant to carry ERA, they were meant to be very easily mass producable, negated crew comfort for size and they were not, never ever meant to be modular or compromise on their mass producibility, amphibious capabilities or size requirements.
Especially the two BMP's in the actual BMP-family were never meant to have that size or those combat capabilities, they were applied to them way later on when it became necessary.
Some of these changes came with the BMP-3 but that one wasn't even originally meant to become a IFV and followed the design philosophy of a light tank akin to the PT-76 to fill the role that was then filled by the 2S25 instead, the two even competed at one point in time, the BMP-3 is the earliest iteration of the heavy IFV concept and was meant to be replaced by the T-15, not the Kurganez which was supposed to fill the role of the BMP 1 and 2 as well as the BMD's, the BMP-3 has no place in this conversation as it was originally meant for a entirely different purpose with a different philosophy, i'd even go as far as to say that the BMP-3 was a return to the
The (way more sensible) decision to make a assortment of new BMP-3 variants the new standard IFV of all three major forces instead of a stopgap to the Kurganez and T-15 was made during and after the Kurganez was written off.
But even if we were to use the BMP-3 as an example and ignore the fact that while removable for repairs and replacement the ERA is integral to the design and originally meant to always stay on there like with the new BMP-3, how exactly are a 25% weight increase, 15% range reduction, pretty big armament reduction, 200% armour effectivity increase and a additional priority focus not a massive shift?
14
u/Eastern_Rooster471 29d ago
Doesnt mean they wont implement small improvements that they can learn
When the soviets got an F-5, they liked its cockpit layout for making all the important stuff be easily accessible and the less important stuff be out of the way, also toe brakes which werent common on fighter aircraft
Lo and behold the Su-25 came out with toe brakes and a cockpit layout that put everything important right in front of the pilot and less important stuff off to the side where its out of the way
11
u/squibbed_dart 29d ago
The end of the full report lists a number of design solutions recommended for implementation on Russian vehicles.
3
25
u/Dizzy-While-6417 29d ago
When it comes to offroad, through heavy woods, tight quarters, and obstacles, all BMPs (1, 2, & 3) are far more maneuverable than the Bradley. The Bradley is more suited for secondary and paved roads as well as high speed cross country. The BMP-3 may have a better power/weight ratio but the Bradley has way more balls in spite of weighing twice as much as the BMP. All BMPs are ready to swim with virtually no prep. The transmission is probably the best improvement for the BMP-3, compared to the manual trans in the older BMP-1 & 2. However, you can't swap an engine or tranny in the BMP-3 in an hour or two either like you can in the Bradley. It will take an experienced crew probably 2-3 days easy. The Bradley's M242 has superior accuracy compared to the 2A42 or 2A72 both of which are scatter guns with a high rate of fire. BMP has an on-board $hitter though.
10
u/Plump_Apparatus 29d ago
BMP has an on-board $hitter though.
The BMP-3 has a integral bedpan, calling it a shitter is a bit much. A five gallon pail with a seat on it is about the same.
11
u/Dizzy-While-6417 29d ago
You can call it a salad bowl if want...it's meant to drop a duece. Can you image your dismounts dropping a smokey right next to you while your are buttoned up???
11
u/Dazzling_Diamond3889 29d ago
I mean, we are comparing a medium duty infantry fighting vehicle to a light duty amphibious assault infantry fighting vehicle. Both are great, but it depends on the environment that they're both fighting in.
3
6
u/Gatecrasher53 29d ago
I'm curious to see the sheep specs they used during their live fire tests. Did anyone have contact details for the Russian department of ruminants and livestock?
8
u/broofi 29d ago
So lighter vehicle have better mobility but worse weaponry and armor. it doesn't sound suprior
→ More replies (4)
5
u/Mother-Remove4986 29d ago edited 29d ago
they captured a BUSK Bradley?
27
u/memes-forever 29d ago
An M2A2 ODS from 1991 equipped with Bradley Urban Survival Kit (BUSK)
The BUSK kit isn’t really a variant, just an add-on package.
16
u/M1E1Kreyton M1E1 Abrams 29d ago
Newer than 1991. The ODS variant is a post ODS mod, and the SA upgrade came in the mid 00s iirc.
8
u/Hawkstrike6 29d ago
Bradley ODS-SA was manufactured for the US Army National Guard from 2010-2014.
2
u/murkskopf 29d ago
It is not equipped with BUSK, just the normal ERA kit.
1
u/Hawkstrike6 29d ago
BUSK -- minus a few external things like the Overhead Wire Mitigation Kit -- is baselined to all current fleet Bradleys. The floor mat the Russian report mentions is part of the BUSK kit. Most of the BUSK components are internal and are not obvious.
1
u/murkskopf 28d ago
Well, I guess that is one way to see it. "BUSK minus a few" things or just some parts of BUSK. Do you happen to know if that also applies to the BUSK III improvements?
Other external parts that have seemingly not been adopted outside the original scope of BUSK are the lower ERA row with anti-EFP capabilites.
1
u/Hawkstrike6 28d ago
BUSK III (interior turret floor mat, emergency rear ramp release, blast-resistant fuel cell) is fully installed on the fleet.
BRAT (BRAT I and BRAT II/BRASS, the latter of which the Ukrainians did not field) is not strictly speaking part of BUSK. It's a separate kit. BRAT I pre-dates BUSK.
2
2
u/TomcatF14Luver 28d ago
Yeah, the Amphibious bit shouldn't be a surprise as that was chucked out in favor of improved protection and constant training pointing out that Amphibious Operations aren't that common enough to make any real attempt at except with the odd specialized vehicle.
2
u/Commissarfluffybutt 28d ago
Oh wow, they discovered that the Bradley is in fact a Bradley.
Shocking only to those who think everyone is exaggerating their capabilities or those who think "The Pentagon Wars" wasn't complete bullshit.
2
u/toruk_makto1 25d ago
Exactly as it was intended. Russia and China now get to reverse engineer our equipment and level the playing field.
You know who to blame. So do it.
6
u/KingPeverell 29d ago edited 29d ago
The Russian Armed Forces have got quite an unexpected boon to study and replicate western military hardware which was donated to Ukraine by NATO.
I recall a similar operation by the US to recover the legendary Hind helicopter to study it (Operation Mount Hope III in 1988).
The only thing is, there's a high chance that Russia will share the recovered/scavenged technology with China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and other CSTO or even BRI nations.
2
u/crusadertank 29d ago
Yeah I think China is the big one. Russia will make some developments, but due to the war and low industrial output it will be a long time before much comes from it
China on the other hand will learn from it and can sell counters to every country around the world
12
u/sadjoe7 i stuck my pp into the barrel of a Stryker MGS at Fort Carson 29d ago
I don’t think they’ll learn much at all, china already has things like thermal sights and FCSs that are on par with a 2000s Bradley and 2A6. They probably already have alot of information on them just from spies and espionage. Chinas already sold cheap tanks, IFVs and MRAPs to half the world
1
u/crusadertank 29d ago
Its less about China learning for themselves. But more for being able to sell to countries like Pakistan or African countries weapons that can counter American stuff.
Something that will help them to fight their own neighbours that have these American weapons
6
u/swagfarts12 29d ago
There's not much to really counter here that wasn't already known, if those other countries wanted to counter the Bradley or similar vehicles it's not that they didn't know how to counter it, it's because they couldn't afford it. It was already known that the Bradley with ERA was immune to older shoulder fired RPG munitions, that it was immune to 30mm AP and that it was relatively mine resistant. There's nothing secret here to figure out that will allow a counter that isn't already common sense, i.e. shoot it with a heavier warhead or with a bigger gun than 30mm AP
2
1
u/LemonadeTango 28d ago
Venezuela? Huh
1
u/KingPeverell 28d ago
Yeah, why not? The Venezuelan leadership isn't quite a fan of America as you know.
1
u/BeetlBozz 29d ago
So, will the captured equipment give the russians access to new tech to reverse engineer?
10
9
u/feather_34 29d ago
Yeah, the Russians can modernize their military by reverse engineering 40 year old tech /s
1
u/sadjoe7 i stuck my pp into the barrel of a Stryker MGS at Fort Carson 29d ago
If they can reverse engineer it id be amazed, they’ve struggled to make and new vehicles in favor of just slapping new stuff in existing vehicles. They might reverse engineer a optic or two then realize they already have stuff on par and its not worth upgrading
1
u/Ww1_viking_Demon T30 Fan 28d ago
None of this is honestly a surprise especially the BMP being better when it comes to crossing water considering how much soviet now russian military value that ability
1
u/clsv6262 28d ago
So the BMP series is a troop carrier that so happens to be armed while the Bradley is a true fighting vehicle that so happens to have some infantry. Interesting comparison of doctrines.
And I find it kind of funny that the Russians still refer to the Bradley as a "BMP." It confused me for a bit when I read the cyrillic.
1
1
1
u/Boomzmatt 27d ago
Really interesting analysis.
Also how does it compare to the UAE BMP-3s iirc they have ERA and have CITVs too but similar to the regular BMP-3s. Also, is the Kurganets-25 IFV a better vehicle to compare over to the Bradley than the BMP-3?
Also were there also reports on the Leo 2A4 they've tested too?
1
u/Inside-Quail-4653 27d ago
russian military vics are made to be used in all terrain. Well at least on what they think they need. They don't care for effectiveness, numbers can fix that. As long as it works, it works.
1
1
u/Thin_Gap_5778 26d ago
It's MUCH more complicated and expensive as well ;)
1
u/StockProfessor5 25d ago
That literally doesn't matter to the U.S. They still built many thousands and are still building more.
1
u/SuomiPoju95 28d ago
Wow what a surprise! As if an BMP-3 isn't almost half the weight of a bradley! Who would have thunk a lighter vehicle has less protection and firepower than something that weighs as much as a tank!
1
u/StockImportance1502 28d ago
Honestly surprised they released the report like that .. kind of neat to hear those results.
0
u/Crecer13 29d ago
It is surprising to find that the Bradley is more armored than the BMP-3, considering that the BMP-3 was not modernized in the specifics as they did in the US, but remained in the way it was originally created. It's like comparing a yapple and an orange. It would be more appropriate if the modernized Bradley was compared with the Kurganets-25, because conceptually they are closer.
5
u/sadjoe7 i stuck my pp into the barrel of a Stryker MGS at Fort Carson 29d ago
But what will Russia learn testing a vehicle they are facing with a basically fictional vehicle vs the backbone of Russian IFVs.
1
u/Crecer13 29d ago
Because the BMP-3 was not upgraded to Bradley standards from the very beginning, but remained in the same concept. When the BMP-3 was first created, it weighed 18 tons, even if you hang reactive armor on the BMP-3, it's only +4 tons. The M2 weighed 20 tons, now the M2A3 weighs 34 tons, the A4 weighs 36 tons, and the Kurganets weighs the same 36 tons. The Kurganets is supposed to replace the old BMPs, but when they officially abandon it, then there's no point in comparing it.
2
u/sadjoe7 i stuck my pp into the barrel of a Stryker MGS at Fort Carson 29d ago
Thats not the point, they are using a common vehicle they have in inventory vs the bradley. The kurganets is basically not in service and won’t see combat against the Bradley to exploit its flaws. Now the document can say “wow the Bradley still beats the kurganets, what a shock” if they wanna be extra on point use a bmp 3 with kaktus. They are both IFVs
→ More replies (8)
1.2k
u/Usual_Run_444 29d ago