Ukrainian Bradley vs Russian BMP
2023 ж. 7 Қыр.
315 665 Рет қаралды
Go to ground.news/redeffect to get the latest news on Russia and Ukraine. Try it out or subscribe through my link before Sept 25, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access to avoid media bias.
Ever since the introduction of the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle to the war in Ukraine, a lot of debate has sparked on the internet, about it’s effectiveness, especially when compared to the Soviet and Russian BMPs...
Patreon: / redeffect
Sources:
"M2/M3 Bradley At War" - M. Green & J.D. Brown
"Боевые машины пехоты БМП-1, БМП-2 и БМП-3" - Сергей Суворов
thesovietarmourblog.blogspot....
thesovietarmourblog.blogspot....
www.dieselrebuildkits.com/wp-...
Go to ground.news/redeffect to get the latest news on Russia and Ukraine. Try it out or subscribe through my link before Sept 25, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access to avoid media bias.
have you seen lazerpigs vid:?
How’s that Bradley mine protection panning out?
@@war8036 not very good haha but they upgraded it with didmounted infantry up frony
I thought its light weight is because it have to swim in water?
Still worth clarifying: 11:42 bmp-2 hit in the roof of the tower above the breech of the 2A42 cannon, probably an 82mm mortar 11:45 this is NOT a BMP-3! this is a BMD-4, the side of which serves as protection only from 7.62. Pay attention to the welded faceted tower, this is a BMD. The old problem with the supply of spare parts and additional solutions, when only new cars are fully equipped.
The BMP vs Bradley showdown will probably come down to the one that shoots first. The autocannons on both will rip the other apart.
Not,who shoot first. But the one who gets the first hit first. Just because you shoot first doesn't mean you get the first hit. Retired 11B 1996-2020.
i think the BMP would kill faster because it shoots 3 times faster with a bigger round than bradley
Guess the comparison should be more of wichs is more successful in it's role than in a 1x1 battle between both.
@@diverr69 The bradley got better sights and other electronics. You will most likely spot the BMP before it spots you, then it doesent matter if the bmp shoots faster
@@diverr69it doesn't matter, the first round that hits you is like to penetrate into the crew compartment and disable the crew from firing back. The Bradley's higher accuracy and optics give it the advantage at firing first and hitting first.
As a former Bradley crewman I'd say this is one of the most thoughtful comparisons between the platforms I've seen. Thank you for your insight and diligence.
Bradley has one major weakness... a crippling flaw. No AC.
are u joking ? Cherrypicking and ... these head on meetings dont happen mostly. Who takes on Bradleys are tanks, ATGM teams, helocopters, artillery ,mines.
Yeah no AC is horror in afganistan type environments. Hope you guys never have to be in such a situation again.
@@Eleolius As funny as it sounds its actually a huge issue. Especially in environments like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Uhh no, this is... questionable at best. The diligence in research is... basic at best. No insight i've learned here.
Having been a Bradley crew guy for years and cross trained with BMP 2s/3s It comes down to the intended use but the Bradley is still overall a more well rounded vehicle. Defensively the bradley is top notch, the optics combined with the FCS and high silhouette make this the ideal choice. Having said that The BMP's are extremely nimble and a smaller target. If i was conducting offensive operations during the day specifically id take the BMPs. Anything defensive or in low visibility/night id take the Bradley all day.
gawd bless
A person having non combat experience for 1 year would do worse than a person who had experience for 1 month and 5 months of combat
Where'd you cross train with BMP-3s?
The main purpose of an infantry fighting vehicle is to deliver infantry to the battlefield and provide fire support for an attack.
Great comment, but if we look at soviet doctrine we can see why BMP-3 were made the way they are, because USSR was for the whole time preparing for an attack over the great European plain in germany and they needed quick victories and knew there would be heavy losses
I work on the Bradley for a living and everything stated on the Bradley is spot on but something i would have to add is maintenance. The Bradley turret subsystems are known to be fucky (certain subsystems) and replacement parts arent kept on hand. Not counting times the wrong part was ordered but most of the times your replacing SDB or TDB not to mention the gun and turret resolvers. The amour is undoubtedly better then the BMP but the PUAD for the engine is surprising thin. As well as the slanted armor plates on the turret, there is a gap between the armor plates and the turret hull with a hole for the 240C maintenance. (Edited note). The info I have said is not classified nor controlled classified information. Not even close to what war-thunder has came across. There are subsystems I can’t talk about. Only NSN wise and function of components but other then that it’s free game even if u just walk up to a Bradley. Also they have a data deletion switch which basically turns the Bradley into a multi million dollar paper weight if it were to be captured. Just saying for the misinformation of the reverse engineering that the Russians “could do” to the Bradley
You forgot about the huge fuel tank that's located by the turret.
The BMP-2 is also stupidly cheap. Unlike the M2 Bradley that goes up to 2.1 Million, the BMP-2 only costs 300 thousand bucks and can be fixed by a monkey with a wrench. And in any war, attrition is what makes or breaks any forces.
@@pilotman9819 true enough, but in a war, money maters only so much. a more important limiting factor will be resources for production, availability and logistic burden to get the asset to the front. The US has thousands of Bradleys in a desert in dry storage, but shipping them over to Ukraine is a different matter (after refurbishment, obviously).
From what I've heard, the State Depratment who in their infinite wisdom were the ones pushing for the Bradley to be sent to Ukraine didn't really think about also shipping a sufficient amount of spare parts for them as well. If true, that's hardly surprising, since they are all civilians and not even the brightest bunch of civilians at that.
@@pilotman9819 and how much does a bmp-3 cost?
Only real issue i would see with the Bradley is mobility, especially during winter time with snow and mud. There is a reason why both Norway and Sweden went with the CV90 instead of the Bradley after testing both during the winter months.
Also because of economic offsets, just look at who it’s built by. US companies except for Boeing with Finnish Hornets generally won’t do offsets.
@@zeitgeistx5239though ironically enough they share parts. The cv90 uses the same roadwheels as the bradley (for whatever reason lol)
Bradley does have snow grousers that improve handling on snow and mud to some degree.
When you can fire from farther away with the tow and have better sights you’ll be able to to put fight the BMP especially with the most of them being 1-2 rn
@@ChnChn-in5kf Depends on circumstances really. If Ukrainian war is a yardstick, you'll see that vehicle-on-vehicle combat isn't prominent at all.
Having served over 23 years as an 11B. Over half of my career was with the Bradley. It's a great IFV. However, with extra armor, the transmission isn't tough enough to handle the extra weight. The 25MM is not enough. The Tow missiles are top-notch. The sightings system is top-notch as well. However, it's not amphibious, extremely heavy, under gunned. And extremely huge target. US ARMY needs a new replacement.
Yeah the “new” solution here is decades old yet still classified anti gravity “propellent less propulsion” tech. This white/black world nonsense needs to stop. I’m tired of tax dollars being wasted on IFV’s while OUR manmade 🛸‘s of all shapes n sizes zippin around while the military keeps telling us lies that they know nothing. What a joke.
Wtf is your username, you get dishonorably discharged?
Replace the bradley for the CV90 or Puma ;)
Bmp-3 with better protection and fcs would be able to go toe to toe aginst the bradleys bmp2 must be phased out
@@LewisB3217 Don't do drugs
I just want to point out that some of the pictures you present are not of BMP-3s, but BMD-4s, specifically, at 8:26 and 11:44. This can be seen, due to the hull and turret designs being slightly different to those of BMP-3s
I also think that the ajustables suspensions are only present on the bmd 4
arent bmd4s even lighter armored at the sides than bmp3 as they are intended as air drop vehicles?
@@jPlanerv2 yes they are but they are also faster and smaller with more modern targeting systems
@@osefman2763 i saw a lot of pictures of them shredded by arty shrapnel in first days of urk russia war, but thats a trade off of being airborne
As an Old M3A3 gunner and a BMP enthusiast, I really enjoyed this video. Thank you
Did you ever saw any service ? Would you like to share any memories with us ? (interesting, weird or funny preferably)
@@aksaraylicelalithe ac never fucking works and they make us wear full MOP/CBRN gear during NTC in the desert
I tend to look at them from a design philosophy. BMPs are designed with long high intensity conflict in mind when the most important thing is availability, ease of maintenance over long periods without specialized servicing and higher carrying capacity. Weight doesn't only equate to more deployment limits but increased regular and time consuming maintenance. A complex , heavy, expensive vehicle to simply carry 5 men(very small combat value), really doesn't make good sense. On the other hand, for low intensity conflicts the maintenance considerations, lower carrying capacity, deployment limits and cost become secondary. The focus being on the value and survivability of the limited number of individuals deployed often with more extensive training representing a higher investment, which in turn requires more protection.
Great comment, we always have to look at doctrine of that state, because BMP-3 were made the way they are, because USSR was for the whole time preparing for an attack over the great European plain in germany and they needed to gain as much ground as possible and they were expecting heavy losses so they also knew that they needed a of IFVs which they had
This criteria should be added too when comparing tanks vs tanks. As we saw on conflict Soviet/Russian tanks are pretty much better in every way at the conflict because of how vastly easier it is to repair. Both sides can field more and cannibalize the parts for when tanks need urgent repair.
Correction, BMP is made to follow all orders from the top, to be crewed by minimally trained conscripts, and fixed by them
In modern combat the lower dismount capacity may be an advantage (or rather not a disadvantage). You don't want an entire unit of infantrymen getting killed when a drone hits a single vehicle.
I would argue that yes, the BMP carries more troops on paper, but not really in practicality. There is a reason we see Russian and Ukrainian troops riding into combat atop their BMPs and not inside them. They are notorious death traps because of their awful ingress/egress pathway, same sort of problems that the BTRs had. The grunts determined they were better off taking their chances outside the armor and being able to get away quickly than being behind the relatively thin armor and getting stuck in the door. If the guy in front of you takes a round, you're pretty much screwed in a BMP. Then you consider that the BMP-1 and 2 can be penetrated by .50 cals and occasionally a 7.62 if it has the right angles and you have a pretty poor combination for troop survivability. BMPs are also pretty well known for not handling mines very well, and the same being said for their crews, whereas we have plenty of examples of Brad crews surviving mines and IEDs and dismounting to escape. I think ultimately the deciding factor is the optics and fire controls on the opposing vehicles and I think the Brad has the advantage here. These days it winning an engagement largely comes down to the "he who shoots first wins" sort of deal.
8:26 is a BMD-4 recognisable from the Bakhcha turret but there is plenty footage of BMP-3 with Sodema .
Bmp 3 and Bradley arent quite comparable, 100mm low velocity cannon and respectable ammo count make it its own artillery. They require very different approaches to use.
Still both are used for the same role, I haven't seen any BMP-3s being used for indirect fire or as an SPG like the T-62s and 55s
@@therealmp40 look more then.
And what different approach does it require exactly? Could you please elaborate?
@@therealmp40I literally watched a video of a Ukrainian being slapped in a trench by indirect 100mm fire yesterday.
@@jugganaut33 Where is that footage?
I've always really liked the 100mm gun on the BMP-3 and thought it to be a considerable improvement on the basic IFV/BMP concept and with the footage from Ukraine, I'd say i wasn't far off with that assessment. Always useful to have another vehicle that can double tank duties in urban combat, which is to say, HE-Frag direct fire on fortified enemy position. There's also that footage of an assault on a village by one tank and 2 BMP-3 and all three firing their cannons at the enemy positions (plus the 30mm by the bmps) was very impressive and imposing.
i would say that BMP 3 is basically 3 in 1, - you have huge 100m gun for attacking tranches and buildings, -you have 30mm cannon for infantry especially clearing forests, + ATGMs even if tanks are not available it wouldn't be a huge problem, BMP3 would be able to provide a good cover BUT a huge but is armor and electronics, with 100mm cannon i don't see a reason why BMP3 should be a lightly armored fighting vehicle it should have at least 30t
@@fpsserbia6570 because it needs to swim, as per russian doctrine of use for IFVs ... And not sink a meter into the mud when the rainy season hits
@@MatoVucI wish the Russian can place engine of bmp 3 in the front so as to allow easier infantry dismount in the rear.
@@blugaledoh2669 that would need a redesign of the entire hull, as the vehicle would be front heavy and would not be able to swim. But if you want something like that, the Chinese have their ZBD-97 and ZBD-04
@@MatoVuc didn’t the Russian design the BMP Manul
Awesome video, would love to see more of these type comparisons in the future
It is important to mention that when a vehicle is declared to be resistant to let's say 30 mm ap it usually means parts of it or the majority of it can bounce a 30mm ap hit. HOWEVER, the Bradley even with the armored package is full of spots and areas where the extra armor doesn't cover and even with the extra armor , ballistic simulations using ansys show it barely stops 30 mm ap there. This, together with the rate of fire of these autocannons means that in medium and short ranges, if a Bradley is spotted let's say by a bmp3 or 2 it will be fired upon and hit by probably 15 to 60 rounds within a span of 2 to 10 seconds. That means that before the crew can locate and return fire to whatever is shooting them it is likely that dozens of rounds will have already hit them and bouncing all of those if they are 30 mm ap is statistically impossible. Same applies to the bmp of course, I'm not roasting the Bradley. Bmp2 being able to stop 23mm ap is very optimistic as simulations also show it can get penetrated by it in many areas. In short what I want to say is that even if you bounce a round or 2, if you get hit by like 25 of them, some will find the spots that are penetrable or will degrade and dig through the armor. Being in a tank and bouncing a sabot gives you 5.5 to 9 seconds to react before the second one comes in. But in an ifv vs ifv engagement you will be torn apart by dozens of rounds within those 5 or 10 seconds. So the likelihood of an ifv not spotting the threat and having time to react to being shot at given by uts protection is very very unlikely.
Doesn’t seem like we see a lot of bmp on Bradley fights. Bradley can call out artillery better and since this is an artillery war, the Bradley wins out
Moreover, even 30mm can easily destroy all sights(especially thermal) and we have one video of Bradley, which suffered fire from BMP-2. Armor wasn't penetrated, but all sensors, sights and etc were destroyed(this also work for BMP-3)
@@TKUA11 In this war, almost all artillery spotting is called out by drones. Only in extremely bad weather when the drones can't fly would spotter vehicles be needed and in that weather they would likely be parked by ground conditions. For much of the recon work where drones are unusable, it is now pick-up trucks or side-by-side ATVs.
The big problem with all this, is that BMP just as Bradley or any military vehicle is a part of a grand scheme that is called military doctrine. Or operational tactics. Comparing them in itself is stupid idea. I'll give an example. Most people believe that M-777 outranges most Russia's artillery, so they supposedly can't effectively conduct counter artillery suppression fire. What people don't know however, is that Russians are not only using artillery for counter artillery fire, but also drones. They just sending the fucking Lancet which hunts these guns while they are on a move, sometimes even with ammunition trucks as bonus. Counter artillery - level "Savagery". That implies, that there is more to it, than you can see on KZhead. From what i am aware of, there are different types of BMP-2s and BMP-3s that are used on a frontline and it all depends on tasks. Those BMPs without additional armor, are actually transporting and evacuating soldiers from the yellow zone of frontline where being hit by artillery or anything is unlikely. Those with additional armor and thermal scopes are used to transport and evacuate soldiers from the red zone of frontline. They will use their mobility and very low profile to great effect by dropping infantry into trenches providing heavy suppressive fire and then they will drive back until there is more support or evacuation is needed. As for the topic itself, both IFVs are fine. But when it comes to this theater of war in practice - Bradley doesn't have a single sufficient advantage from it's characteristics because of how desperately Ukrainians are using them to breach frontline. So it's really put at disadvantage from a get go. That's why so many Bradley IFVs has been lost since, and that's why "Bradley Square" exist. To put it simple, Bradley never faced an enemy that has all the same capabilities of NATO and even more. When they fought in past, their opponents didn't even had sufficient intel on US forces whereabout to begin with. Not just satellites, but any intel. They were completely blind. And US conducted maneuver warfare because of this advantage. Maneuver warfare is impossible in real modern warfare and that's something we never actually knew. This is the first real war for Bradley.
@@TKUA11there is atleast 10 drones for every ifv on both sides. If you are using ifv to spot for arty you are doing it wrong.
Truly you are a remarkable channel redeffect, thanks for taking views on both sides, instead of being one sided, done a great job comrade
not at all, do you not watch his stuff at all? @kotomineberndrewd8325
@kotomineberndrewd8325 not really, even he thought NATO armory and artillery rounds are outdated and don't cause enough to IFV and Tanks with a suitable amount of ERA
Mans has always done his best to achieve just that. Only man babies ever thought otherwise.
The Nato Armory as a whole is not in the least outdated. Some elements are. Because they were underestimated in their importance due to what nato countries would have and didn‘t plan for not having. That being air superiority. But to say the whole armory of nato is outdated is something only russian state media might consider seriously. And even there I question if any russian actually whole heartedly believes that nato is in all aspects and their whole armory inferior. Because were that the case the way ukraine goes rn would be even worse for russians. After all, if the whole armory of the west is outdated in comparison to theirs and nato sends their older stuff, bur the russians still haven‘t won it must be as people in a gaming chat would say „a skill issue“
@kotomineberndrewd8325 Muh opinion...really bro?
Bradley has better protection, armour piercing rounds, electronics and optics, while BMP has a lighter weight and amphibious ability. But currently the way Ukrainians are using their Bradleys makes them no different from the Soviet BMPs.
Which is odd. Could it be just overall bad tactics? The Bradley is superior in almost all angles yet of all the NATO IFVs sent, it has the most losses(Almost 45% of all Bradleys sent is lost) next to the M113. (At 38% total lost)
Because of the terrain and the enemy they face the Ukrainian Bradley's can't be used like the US used them against Iraqis. If anything this war shows that armoring vehicles needs to be taken a lot more seriously
@@pilotman9819 Better protection is still insufficient protection. What difference does it make.
@@pilotman9819armored vehicles are much more vulnerable when the enemy actually has anti-tank weapons and tactics... and morale... and an army...
@@pilotman9819its mostly specifically because the bradley is so much better than Ukraines Bmp-1/2 park that their disproportionately being used and lost in offensives. Then you could always point to the fact more bradleys are seemingly able to be repaired later on after being damaged unlike the Bmp to suggest the losses might not be as severe as they seem
I do think there was one noteworthy point overlooked during the section covering firepower. Namely, the fact that the BMP-3 using gun launched ATGMs limits it to using 100mm diameter ATGMs. As we know, the charge diameter is one of the most important variables in determining how much Armor a HEAT projectile can penetrate, so this is a noteworthy disadvantage. The Bradely has the 152 mm TOW, and even the BMP-2 can have the 135 mm Konkurs while the BMP-3 is stuck with 100 mm 9M117 series. It's not the biggest deal in the world, but I think it is worth mentioning.
Nope, BMP3s can also have 9M120 Ataka (Spiral 2).
The latest 9m117 version can still go through 750 mm after era so i wouldn't say that it's that bad
@@zedeyejoe Not through the gun and not on the standard model of BMP-3. I haven't seen any evidence that Russia adopted the variant that was shown with the twin Ataka launchers and I certainly haven't seen any evidence of them being used in Ukraine.
@@osefman2763 I am hesitant to put too much stock in publically available penetration values for modern ATGMs for a variety of reasons. Regardless even going off those publicly available values that is still less than modern TOW variants and slightly less than the most modern Konkurs variant. Like I said in my original post it isn't the biggest deal, but it is worthy of mentioning.
@@Delta36A1BMP 3 can also place outside ATGMs if that's what you wanted.
Sounds like a classic russian problem with the bmp3, good design with less emphasis on survivability but suffers from lack funding for the electronics
The something i call "Human is replacable, tank is not." issue
Well , at least it doesnt suffer from poor reverse speed .... 🙄🙄 yes i am looking at you T-72 and T-80 dont you hide from me ....
@@nektarkir4220t-80 literally has the best reverse speed of all current russian tanks
@@Random-nf7qb T-90M ? Also i think the Armata has that record ( not sure tho )
@@nektarkir4220 T 64, T 72 and T 90 have the 4km/h reverse. T 80 has 10+
I feel like people in the comments are focusing too much on the hard specs like the gun armor missile and profile when it’s a IFV. The main focus for IFV is to support and deploy infantry so other aspects like crew/passenger ergonomics and survivability should be much higher priorities than IFV vs IFV capabilities
Welcome to soviet/wehrmacht simps talks Always talking about t-34 and panzer but never mention how shit were being a crew in it were
"The main focus for IFV is to support and deploy infantry" Wrong! You're thinking of APCs. IFV stand for Infantry Fighting Vehicle. It's meant primarily to hunt and kill soldiers. As such its mobility and firepower are more important than crew protection as it's not meant to go against armored vehicles to begin with.
@@Narcan885 the difference between an apc and ifv is that an apc is supposed to deliver and evac infantry and protect them from small arms and indirect during transport, after it fucks off since its just a carrier and not meant to really stick in the fight;it’s just a taxi. An IFV on the other hand loiters and fights WITH the infantry and supports them. They do have the ability to “hunt” infantry but remember one of the greatest threats to an ifv or any armored vehicle is well equipped infantry so it doesn’t have complete dominance over infantry in a vacuum. The dominance comes with the fire superiority it can provide to its accompanying infantry. You need both elements to achieve this.
@@Narcan885 This conflict is probably the beginning of the end of the IFV concept. IFVs have to pick between mobility, protection, firepower, and troop carrying capability. However, we see that neither the Bradly nor the BMP has the protection or troop carrying capability to actually deliver and support infantry. The point is rapidly coming where things will likely move back to dedicated APC and dedicated light tank/fire support vehicle. The two types working together.
@@-foxwint-3140Yup that’s why I believe in Sherman tank supremacy. Some of the most comfortable and (eventually) best survivable tanks on the Allied side.
The Bradley also has the option to go without the TOW missles and instead use a support device that accurately pinpoints spots for artillery strikes giving them coordinates
that's called a smartphone now
Exactly. This is an artillery war, there isn’t Gona be any bmp on Bradley fights, and both vehicles are used to attack trenches so the fight is between handheld rockets and the vehicles
And the Bradley linebacker can use Stingers, might be helpful to send a few over
@@TKUA11so you want to remove the missiles from the Bradley to ad something that a cheap drone can do?
@@LewisB3217 Soviet practice using MANPAD on moving vehicles for decades already.
Another problem with the BMP3 is that with all of that 100mm ammo, it has a MUCH higher chance of a catastrophic explosion or "brew-up" compared to the Bradley.
In general, I think the Bradley is better compared to the BMP-2, wich is normal since it has received better upgrades, but now, speaking about who looks better, I think the BMP-2 has something that makes it really cool looking
and that is all that counts!!
I think the BMP-2M they are basically the same with the bradley, only would give the BMP the edge because its a much smaller target and its upper frontal plate is more heavily angled
Russian stuff looks cool in general
@@topbanana.2627 I remember a video of BMP2M being attacked by Ukrainian VOG dropping drones and mortars, surviving over 15 direct hits in the hull and still returning fire. It was only defeated once the Ukrainian drone dropped a VOG through the hatch and got 1 or 2 crew members. Genuinely so underrated vehicle when it comes to durability. It can literally survive 20mm AP rounds to the front hull
Yeah, i bet most of it is down to that crazy angled front hull@@slavicemperor8279
At 11.45 this is not a BMP-3, but a BMD-4. And she just has a side armor worse than the BMP-3
You didn't mention the reason why the BMPs are so much lighter, and it's because of their amphibious capabilities. That being said, it's true that it's something that seems like was a miscalculation made by Soviet engineers/military doctrine and strategy planners, because in this conflict it's very hard to find instances in which that would be a useful feature, while the protection drawbacks due to the weight limitation are obvious.
.50 cal protection wouldnt make it not amphibious though.
@@magneticfire7515 but Soviet also want to make it small , so it's impossible to fix that problem. Russia did try to fix with their Kurganets 25, which is basically M3 Bradley+ 3rd gen thermal + a toilet+ amphibious, but it seems like they abandoned that baby.
good point!
Soviet doctrine was just about huge armored head on attack on nato from GDR and to gain as much ground as fast as possible while expecting heavy losses so we can kinda see why they did that, but there is no doubt that more armor could have been placed on BMP-3s side
Most importantly, the amphibious capability requires top notch maintenance, which proved to be lacking in many cases in the Russian Army. That adds to the argument of this design choice being an unnecessary burden, both in designing and operating stages of this vehicle life.
Red didn't mention the BMP-3's proximity fused HE shells. Those are priceless in a war with so many trenches and foxholes
In fact it is basically a threesome product of a BMP,a Nona mobile mortar system and a Stryker MGS.
It doesn't matter the possible things it can get if that's not being sent to the front. Take 30mm apfsds/apds for example. Normal ap shells are standard and essentially no one has access to apds shells
i feel bmp3 is trying to do too much at once, you can't really have an amphibious lightweight 100mm+30mm+ 3 7.62mm on tracks that still has good base armor and NERA modules. imo Russia should have gone the route of btr-t and used all their old t55 since its much more survivable than Bradley due to having better base armor (a tank is a tank) on frontal and sides and theres reinforced floor to stop mines too, the thing has similar armament to bmp but could potentially fit bmpt/bmp3 turret if it was continued
I’d take the Bradley, from the images from Ukraine the crew is more likely to survive than a bmp.
Hey RedEffect, very interesting video, I know this video surjection is not about the war in Ukraine, but could you do a comparison between Russian and Chinese tanks and armoured vehicles plz 🥺
China tank is just copy of Russia tank
@@billyparker5974 The problem was Chinese wasn't covered and kinda rare but some African countries who took interest so we'll see about that next.
@@billyparker5974 I will find it interesting if Red make a video about some Chinese weird (but pretty capable) tank like Type 59G or Al Zarrar, those are probably the best modernized T 54/55 type tank out there.
Future Bear vs Dragon seems more likely to happen now that Russia is back to being the incompetent corrupt shithole (at least now it’s widely known and not covered by “Russia STRONK” memes) China will retake Vladivostok if they smell blood in the water.
I remember the Kremlin taking digs at the US military budget, stating they can do more with less. There are many components to the budget - solider pay, maintenance, bases upkeep and construction etc - but the difference between the BMP and Bradley highlights one of the reasons for those disparities. Protection and technology cost more than a lack of those, so the US focuses on troop survivability rather than the Russians firepower focus
remember soldiers go into war and expect to die so protection is important but not so important it justifies a nearly 1 trillion budget hahaha
And logistics is always the key to win a war between neer peer powers. Russian logistics are overstretched and are being continued to hit. They basically requisitioned and stole evert civilian truck they could find in russia and it is still not enough. Freezing hungry and thirsty conscripts with 10 shells per artillery piece per day for support. If ruasia did not have ungodly amount of sheepish men to sacrifice they would have collapsed long ago. "-Amateurs talk tactics, proffesionals talk logistics." Omar Bradley
@@Jartran72 are you an ukraine clown?
@@quinnard9750 standard russian mindset, convinced you're expendable so you march to your death drunk and thoughtless.
BMP3 100mm main cannon can also be used for indirect fire. There are videos how BMP3 crew coordinates fire with visage from a drone for aim. Definitely an interesting option to have
Odličan video kao i uvijek.
@@u2beuser714 Za Blajburg spremni
3 uploads in a week? Am I in tank heaven?
I like how the BMP-3 has a cannon that can be used like tank guns. This allows them to operate on their own and they dont necessarily need fire support from tanks. Of course it's not a 120 or 125 mm gun but I certainly wouldn't like to be shot at by a BMP-3.
Being fair here, would you like to be shot by a Bradley? If so, you got thicker skin than me.
it doesnt do almost anything evenvs lightly armored vehicles. Vs armor - 30 mm or 100 ATGM. No RPG round like 73 mm like in BMP-1.
The BMP was made to be amphibious, but lack of maintenance has made the Russians dependent on bridges to cross rivers.
Awesome work, as always!
They both beat having to walk around in a warzone with mines everywhere.
The BMP floats. It was developed for Europe. With a lot of rivers and water obstacles. Therefore, her armor is thinner.
A useless feature (they can only really 'technically' float, and no one uses that feature cuz it sucks [eg. in Ukraine, both sides always use pontoons]), that doomed its protective capabilities, making BMPs thin-shelled death traps.
I think you didn't give enough criticism for the way dismount leaves BMP-3 it's way too inefficient and can be even dangerous if anyone will try to exit without ducking they are exposed to enemy fire, and even if they duck it takes as they have to watch for how they move. Bradley has straight up electric or hydraulic ramp as wide as the rear of the vehicle it's self.
If enemy fire is so dense that you can't leave without your head being blown off, the problem isn't the dismount method. And hydraulics fail, specifically Bradley doors, as was shown off in a video from the inside of a Bradley that was on fire.
@@kite2036Bradley still has the roof access, not ideal if the Hydraulics fail but it won’t be a “T-34 driver” situation where the only exit is so goddamn awful that you end up burning to death because of it.
Your videos are fun to watch, thank you for making them. :)
but he lies are many and intended.
Oof. Having 100mm ammo dump and very bad armour in bmp3. It's combination as good as driving and drinking
Fair comparison overall, but imo you should have put a stronger emphasize on the superior electronics of Bradley. Especially what that actually means. It can't be overstated how much of an improvement a battle management system is. The BMPs are pretty lackluster in that department, as you mentioned. I could say more, but that's the most significant point I'd say.
Ahh, the typical but I have more modern electronic.
@@thinhvcoinYes, the appropriate comparison in fighter aircraft would be avionics and the new buzz-word "sensor fusion". Situational awareness, is one if not the most important factors on a battlefield. Knowing where blue and red forces are, is a milestone in information technology. Google a bit around, and find out what it actually means and you'll realize how much of an advantage this is. Actually, if you ever played a modern FPS shooter, you should already be aware. This little map showing you all your comrades and spotted enemy positions? Guess why game studios introduced this. To avoid people running around like chicken not knowing where to go, as they don't know where everyone is. That would be boring. Now, this also translates to battle management systems, just the motivation to have them is a different one. One quite more important. That's precisely why western military equipment can be so much more effective. Russia tries to compensate with sheer fire power (yes "terminator", I am looking at you). Having better electronics is comparable to the advantage of early German tank forces in WW2. Compared to most of their competition, they had crew and inter-tank communication right from the start. That gave them a significant advantage and helped them to gaining the upper hand against superior tank forces. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't "the" reason for their success, it wasn't even the most important one, but it was a significant enough difference.
@@thinhvcoin So discounting an incredibly potent part of a system is just fine then?
@@rantanplan178 хорошую электронику не возможно компенсировать огневой мощью идиот! Ты я так понимаю в армии не служил?
@@user-uy8fw5sp4t Maybe there is an error in translation or you misunderstood me. I never said firepower could compensate missing electronics. Quite the opposite. That's precisely why most modern western systems are superior to latest Russian developments.
Thank you for sharing more information on things.
Great analysis R.E. You always produce great content.
The CV 90 took a direct hit from a Russian MBT as well as a hit from an RPG 7 even after these hits the CV90 worked so the crew could drive away without a problem if the crew didn't panic now i don't blame the crew it must have been overwhelming so now the Russian has a fully functional CV90 with 2 holes in it
And what? Captured cv90 won't help them in any way. Lol Ukraine got to capture ka52 in the start of the war. So it's normal to loose vechiles
In short I'll just say BRADLEY IS FINE! In long I'll just say the Bradley is a perfectly capable IFV for the purposes of modern warfare, even if this one doesn't have the newest bling. This also mostly applies to the ageing BMP-2. Edit: Crazy how they don't just uparmor the BMPs in the field. All you need is a welding torch, and a destroyed enemy (or friendly) vehicle. Sure welding and cutting that steel could somewhat mess with the integrity of it, but doubling the side protection would be worth it for me. In WWII some Americans used Panther plates to uparmor their Sherman tanks, creating a kind of "Jumbo at home". The suspension and engine suffered a little from that, but since the BMP (3 especially) already has been shown to have the capability to bear some extra weight I doubt it's gonna be that detrimental. I suppose command would not allow this to happen...
@@mitchellcouchman6589 well the BMP-2 is made from steel so if they just use armor plates from other BMPs it doesn't matter. You can also weld dissimilar metals although that's harder. The simplest solution would be welding on brackets using the appropriate metals and utilizing some nuts and bolts to attach the armor plates, similar to armor skirts on the WWII Panzers. This would also ease replacement, maintenance, and transport. It would also create spacing which can be beneficial. All they need is some good old redneck engineering.
BMP-@@mitchellcouchman6589 BMP-3 but bmp1,2 is steel, less bulky.
This is a really good comment. It's very difficult for a piece of equipment to not meet the standard of 'good enough' that both the Bradley and BMP meets. Even the old version of the AK-12 was 'good enough'.
@@kite2036 well I'd say the M113s didn't meet the "good enough" or "perfectly adequate" standards, they barely managed to reach the "better than nothing" standard. The fields of those things just destroyed everywhere were quite sobering to see.
BMP is a different mindset from the Bradley. Bradley: big heavily armored fighting vehicle capable of standing its ground. BMP: Small and fast hit and runner that can outmaneuver its enemy due to its decreased weight (armor) and amphibious ability.
This channel so far had been the least baised channel on the Internet. Keep it up thanks for all the information so far !
Loved this video, it really puts into perspective these ifvs
It worked be interresting to hear about the value of the amphibian capability, and ground pressure considering the muddy seasons of eastern europe, and poor bridge infrastructure in Ukraine, especially since many bridges have been blown up. The BMPs have light armour specifically to retain amphibious performance
The ground pressure of the two vehicles are on paper, very similar, even though there's a 10 ton weight difference (BMP tracks are thin). This quickly goes south for the Bradley considering add-on armor and ERA they've equipped it with.
I've seen elsewhere that due to poor maintenance, the BMP's amphibious capabilities are not being used. Which is unfortunate and fortunate for Ukraine.
@@VilamusEven with good maintenance it can only be used in very good weather on calm rivers
Red Effect, can we get a video on the CV90's performance and maybe a comparison between the CV90 and the BMP platforms used by the Russians? As for what CV90, naturally the one used is the Strf 90E, which is the successor version (upgraded) Strf 90C.
That’s just overkill at that point. The CV90 would just rip through all BMP variants like a 1000 degree knife through butter.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 does that include BMP-KSh based on object149 chassis? because no way any CV90 variants has the firepower to go through that include the CV90-120
@@itsuk1_1 the armata is never going to see combat so they dont matter
@@einar8019 wishful thinking
@@itsuk1_1 no, its realistic thinking
Thank you. Good analysis and presentation.
Great video! Informative and not biased 👍
lol
I think you forgot to indicate the main plus of any bmp. This vehicle is very good off-road and can overcome water obstacles without crossing. In simple terms, the BMP will move into position faster than its opponent (if they move there at the same time) and will provide infantry support in places where Bradleys and other non-amphibious infantry fighting vehicles cannot reach allied infantry positions
so much water in ukraine
@@Jokubas124U highest density of rivers and streams of any nation outside of russia its self and southeast asia, the country of Ukraine is one massive river delta of the Volga why do you think i produces 50+% of the worlds wheat
Yes and no, the Bmp is ampibious yes but that required all Rubber seals to be in place and in good condition, something that is difficult in the best of times and almost never the case in wartime. This is why you never actually see any bmp's swimming
They rarely ever use its amphibious capabilities in Ukraine, they mainly try and use pontoon bridges instead of fording
@@nilasferm1239 see BMP-3 swimming kzhead.info/sun/jZyTncunkHyMpWg/bejne.html
Well, I always thought that mobility is much more than the declared top speed, you`ll have to take into account fording, trench crossing, swim, weight (bridge crossing), secundary transportation into battlefield, all terrain capabilities in general. There are logistical considerations also. I'd guess BMP series would be quite better at all of those... then is doctrinary use to take into consideration. These comparatives are fun to watch but could be quite deceptive, in my opinion.
Полностью с вами солидарен
BMP can swim, Bradley can’t
@@andrewezjevikovthe BMP can BARELY swim, but its so unreliable at doing so that as far as i know, east germany forbade its use for crossing rivers Ive seen BMPs sink like a brick because the water almost reaches thw drivers hatch while swimming, if the water isnt completely still or the vehicle isnt fully sealed, it just cant swim
@@joseaca1010it definitely can swim well, though slow.
@@jade7631 like i said, it cannot swim in rough waters or if its not properly sealed, and it shows considering how much both sides have used pontoons
The problem for increasing the armor of the BMP-3 is the requirement for buoyancy. In Russia, they are sure that the BMP should be amphibious. This does not allow for increased protection. During the whole war, it seems to me, there was not a single successful crossing of the river without bridges. But the generals adhere to the idea of amphibious infantry fighting vehicles, and this does not allow changing the protection to the desired level.
And I will complete it. The quality of the waterproofing is very low, and the machine picks up water quickly. It turns out that the BMP cannot swim normally, but the protection is poor because of this.
Doesn't change the fact BMP still better than Bradley 😂
@@syahranal-amsi5913 No, it doesn't change anything. But if they had abandoned the requirements imposed on the BMP as an amphibious vehicle and started installing reinforced armor, the BMP-3 would have become even more effective than it is now.
How can you find such specific information as the shielding configuration and even the shielding composition?
One interesting thing to note is that the Chinese BMP3 counterpart (ZBD04) does have conventional doors at the back unlike the BMP3. In some of the early war pictures, quite a few BMD troops were killed trying to exit their vehicles through the top. It's quite telling that both the T15 and Kurganets have conventional doors as well. One interesting thing is that both the US and Russia do agree on is that a large calibre autocanon seems to be the future (instead of a 100mm canon) as seen on the T15/XM30 MICV.
rather than agree, this is more likely due to technological advances.
There is a saying, China is the biggest fan of US.
Yeah, basically all of the pluses of an Autocannon with more damage to enemy vehicles. I never liked the Idea of the 100mm on a BMP-3, mainly because I don’t think it’s really needed in an IFV. If it were an Infantry Support platform that is up armored… sure.
probably because chinese are very small people in general.
Good video. But a central role of these vehicles is to carry infantry, and I would have liked to hear a bit more about this angle. I am not tall, but on one short ride found the BMP2 compartment quite appallingly cramped - no wonder the infantry squad tend to ride on the top!
The infantry riding on top is to stop artillery shrapnel penetrating the sides 😉
The tendency to ride from above has appeared since Afghanistan. There was little artillery and a lot of mines.
@@alexkurdyukov1911and also if there is a threat they can deploy faster :') ( still not so really safe tho )
What Is the outro song? I watch all of these vids and always find myself bopping along to it XD
Good analysis Red
I'd also like to mention how either side uses their IFV's. The Russians are using them to great effect during trench assaults as they are designed: move infantry into position, suppress the trench for a short time, then leave. Ukranians use their Bradleys as breakthrough vehicles, or as sentries. These are constantly getting hit by mines, missiles, and FPV's, which is exactly why the Russians evacuate their BMP's once the infantry is in place. As a side note, the BMP-3 outranges the Bradley's TOW's. I doubt that the optics could identify a target at the listed range of 5500 meters (9M117M1-3), but that's still more that the TOW 2B Aero RF's 4500 meters, and the Ukranians don't even have those.
The only time IFV'S can support infantry is when theg are escorted by tanks but primarily the Bradley's and BMP'S are supposed to be the Uber of the battlefield transporting the infantry to Assault enemy positions also according to American Doctrine of Armored warefare the M1A2 Abrams are supposed to work hand in hand with the Bradley's and because of the Bradley's superior fire control they can scout targets for the tanks or helicopters or Artillery the Ukrainian Army does not know how to utilize that because they dont have years of training to do so they are basically a Soviet Army using Soviet doctrine with a western spin on it
Yes. It explains why Bradleys are suffering a (relatively) higher rate of attrition, they are kept in active combat much longer (lower quality/shorter training also plays a factor)
Russians are getting their shit together. At this point NATO should call it quits.
They tried that nato method but back off and switched to troop transport
I've seen the bradleys also seen as infantry support. For evacuating the wounded and for quick response to an counter attack or flank. Russian IFV seem to give birth like a mama turtle and scoot out. Leaving the infantry to fend for themselfs. Different mindset.
nice video as always, but you also need to factor in cost of purchase and cost of operating as these as have both strategic and tactical impact.
Yo I just saw a T72 vs a Leo 2 in combat. care to place your thoughts on this?
Hey Red could you do a video on the BMD family of vdv ifvs I'd be interested to hear what your breakdown of them
Just from their weaknesses I think the BMP has a back up role in quelling any uprisings or the like. Pretty intimidating to people who'll likely only have pistols and kalashnikovs. You don't need a tank
And yet Lazerpig's audience will still call this guy a vatnik. Insane.
Am great fan of military tech and enthusiac cross all over tue world. This is the best unbiased comparism have seen on youtube.
During the Battle of 73 Easting, a BMP 1 delivered a lucky shot to a Bradley which sadly killed one of its crewmen.... But overall, the Bradley destroyed more Iraqi Armor than the Abrams I think...
That’s is correct the only Bradley that was lost in that battle was from a friendly abrams shot.
In the confusing of the battle,iraq bmp 1 fired 73mm rd.hitting the bradley gun turrent ,killing the crew
Hmmm weird hitting a Bradley’s turrent and actually penetrating it would only kill two people in theory since the driver is down near the front of the vehicle. Only the gunner and commander are in the turret
The commander of the Bradley was unbuttoned with his head exposed outside of the hatch (for awareness), they heard the first BMP-1 round incoming* but were unaware they were being targeted, unfortunately for the Bradley crew the additional incoming killed the exposed commander
Iraqis were tech inferior. West+Ukr is now the party with worse tech in the field - 400k+ Ukr are in cemeteries already. Not civilians.
BMP-3 is the only IFV in this video which can perform indirect fire which is a massive plus that this war has shown. No matter how protected you are, once you are exposed and on the line of sight below 2000m, your vehicle immediately get slapped by return fire. The BMP-3 can shoot directly at 4000m and indirectly at 5000m which make them double as mobile mortars and gun lauch ATGM also has proven to be superior to APFSDS as range are just too imoprtant on open field.
yes for example you can make two lines of 10 bmp3 attackers, the first acts as front liner while the second supports them with indirect fire, i can almost guarantee that they would be able to survive on their own and advance for quite some time
True. I've seen a video of the russians using a BMP3 to fire indirectly into trenches from behind a small hill with the 100mm.
On paper lol. Based on Russian biased data. Why do you believe the Russians? Their army has been slacking bigtime hahahaa
@@Natobot9000I’ve seen plenty of Bradley turrets get launched into low orbit
@@Natobot9000 yeah do you got evidence that bmps turrets are thrown into orbit?
Great Video!!
Suggestion for future comparisons: An added Cost per Unit estimate and Rate of Productions comparisons, if possible Great video!
I would also take into account the fact that the BMP-2/3, like the BMP-1, are able to cross small rivers and lakes by swimming
True but only the BMP-3 is reliably able to do this, with 1 & 2 rubber seal’s having issue staying in good condition.
Also the fact that they barely use that feature
I know its probably been answered before but what is the song in the outro?
Face away -svard
@@MuhammadAli-255 thank you
@@MuhammadAli-255Crappy songs
RedEffect, what is the outro song? Sounds really good
Considering the cost, the amount of materials spent on production, and the industry's ability to produce these machines, it would be correct to compare 2-3 BMP with one Bradley ... and in today's situation, perhaps all four.)
Zapomniano wspomnieć o pływalności.
Sweden had Bmp-1 and Cv90 serving side by side and Finland still has Cv90 and Bmp-2 serving side by side. The BMP-1/2 is just hopelessly obsolete already in the 1990's, it suffers from being the worlds first IFV as all other IFV's where designed as improvements over the BMP-1/2. The Basic Cv90 armor is built to stand up to 30mm AP frontally.
It's not obsolete for urban warfare and lighting up garrisoned buildings and it transports troops. Thats about all the Bradley's can do to.
@@off6848 I would agree but with the thermals and TOW the Bradley can be effective at range. Same with bmp-2m and bmp-3
Dude, the price, the damn price! Anything can be "superior" if it's 10 times more expensive to buy and operate!
@@WiscoMTB37 A big problem for the TOWs in this conflict are the treelines it really puts a damper on things. The fields are perfect but those damn treelines really you can tell the desert is the optimal theater for TOW theres nothing to disturb the wire
According to Ka-52 pilots. High profile of Bradleys and MRAPs is kind a huge factor. Meanwhile it's almost impossible to hit BMP-1. Bradley may have better optics, fire controll, transsmission, engine, even GPS. But it dies first against Russian helicopters Ka-52 or ATGM dquads with Kornet. CV 90 is amazing on paper. It has cannon with remote controll explossive shells. But in reality it can be destroyed by single cheap RPG from 50s. And It's higher chance to hit it, than BMP-1
Good overview of the competing specs but I would say the most compelling evidence of their relative effectiveness would be, how are they faring on the battlefield right now? It's harder to get that info I'm sure but it would be interesting to know.
Great video!
Very in-depth analysis. However, something that I feel is sometimes missing from your analyses, which might otherwise prove useful to put things into perspective, is the actual cost of the weapon platforms/systems/vehicles being discussed
Labour and other production costs in Russia vs US are miles apart due to low rouble value, so costs wouldn't be very informative.
@@vanxthenecron3059 If your currency does not loose value due to inflation, then it does not really affect the cost of production of domestically-produced goods (i.e., if most of the good's production chain is domestic), regardless of your currency's value on the trading markets. This is mostly the ruble's case right now, and the Russian arms manufacturing industry mostly relies on domestic supply chains, except for some more critical components such as electronics. So no, the fact that the ruble has a non-inflation-related low value right now hardly affects the weapon platform costs. Then again, yes, labor is definitely cheaper in Russia than in the West regardless of the ruble's value, nothing new there. Either way, when I said about comparing weapon platform costs, I thought it went without saying that those can easily be adjusted by purchasing-power-parity, that is why we have such metrics, to enable meaningful comparisons of products from different countries, whether it's hamburgers or tanks, even though the markets for those goods are wildly different.
Vehicle height seems like a double edge sword; if you're lower and smaller, you're a harder target. But if you're taller, you can generally see better over berms and other cover that the vehicle might be partially hidden behind.
that a drone spots it ? R.E. didnt say much about top atrmor of Bradley.
@@cdgncgnI’m sure the top armor of the Brad is better than the top armor of the BMP-3
Would the BMP-3 be to wide for rail cars if given addon armor on the side?
3 REDEFFECT VID UPLOAD IN ONE WEEK??? AM I DREAMIN!!!???
The difference between the Bradley and BMP is doctrinal. The Bradley was designed to be a scout and tank hunter whereas the BMP-2 is your traditional APC with amphibious capabilities, low profile, and low cost. Soviet doctrine would have seen 1000s of BMPs rolling across eastern europe behind the tanks dropping off infantry. The Bradley is just too big, too thinly armored, and doesn't carry enough troops whereas the BMP-2 is a death trap. I wouldn't want to be in EITHER vehicle in Ukraine. The replacement for the Bradley is just as cursed as its original production.
The Bradley has more armor than every soviet apc lol, and better armor at that, esp with its addon armor, soviet APCS are smaller though
There are no explosives in BMP-2, so it's not really a death trap.
You would rather be on foot through the minefields ?
@@jem2779it’s a death trap getting out of it when it catches fire
"soViEt dOcTrIne!".
I think you should have mentioned that the armor on the BMPs is so thin so that it can be airdropped and it also has amphibious capabilities and I think those are factors for lacking armour
Airdropped can be only sheetty BMDs
The BMP cannot be airdropped. That's the BMD. The amphibious capabilities are also rather lacking.
*_Nice!_* Less than an hour ago watched good doco on _history of _*_IFV,_* dating all the way back to WWI.
I think the protection of the Bradley is why so few have been destroyed vs damaged compared to the BMPs. The BMPs all range from like 64% destroyed to 76% destroyed while the Bradley is at 51% according to Oryx.
Bmps have also seen more intense combat from both sides including the early russian blunders when no one on the ground knew what they were doing and things were getting blown up left and right
It means you are only watching CNN or maybe censorship had limited your view. You nato countries live in bubble internet, it's funny to me as Indian when you laugh at Chinese You and Chinese have same environment
@@OSTemli Lol yeah because having better artillery and mine protection in a war like this just wont do any difference in the losses. I'm totally a brainwashed western chauvinist for even thinking that.
@@lumberjackagies5158 Yeah that matters as well. Hard to know exactly what matters most. They have used the bradleys during some hard assaults also.
@@OSTemliand you Indians don't? Lmao. You have stuff like hindustan times....
To be honest the Bradley's hostory is really weird. You hear that it was supposed to be an APC but when you look at it you have to wonder what happened to turn it into an IFV that it is today.
The Bradley was never meant to be an APC. I've only ever heard that claim from the movie Pentagon Wars and that movie is... the furthest thing from a documentary. The Bradley was designed from the beginning as a counter to the BMP-1. The Soviets invented the IFV and the US wanted one of their own.
And the us developed a superior ifv bc only thing the US had close to it was the M113 which was just a Apc with a .50cal
@@stephenvz7852Ahh the One size fits all M113. You want to fight infantry? M113. You want to move infantry? M113 You want to love wounded? M113 You want to fire mortars and move quickly? M113 You want to move cargo… guess what… M113
@@chaosXP3RTso many people quoting fucking Pentagon Wars. It’s a comedy, made using the diary of the dumbass who wasted the designers time with tests that an IFV is not supposed to face.
I would like if you could make a visualization of your findings. I know the effort that takes is huge. Still it would be very helpful.
The money that was meant for the BMP-3's armor probably was spent on an Oligarch's Yacht.
A important piece of information i missed, logistics and production, how expensive and complicated are the assembling, upgrading and repairing of those vehicles and how much they weight on their units logistical lines.
Thank you for another great, no-bias comparison, AS NORMAL! Do you think the tungsten penetrators in the GMLRS M30A1 would penetrate the BMP's at greater range. I had read something about 60 m, but I would rather hear from you if you have the answer.
Worth reiterating that "low profile" is of minimal value now a days as a survivability feature... Modern thermals and laser-ranged/radar ranged stabilized FCS mean being small will almost never hide you when the vehicle is active or moving, and the margin of accuracy for near misses is such that once detected, being missed is very unlikely. Bradleys are criticized for being big and tall. They are. But tracked IFVs of this era are not, as a rule, quiet or stealthy. While a BMP's small profile would help it in gentle hills and plains... it also would hurt it in seeing over said divots and hills. Bradleys, like most US AFVs, are very good at hull down, defensive, and bounding fighting styles... even back in GW1, Bradley's tall turrets got hit by enemy BMP low pressure guns. The results were lost commanders/gunners, but not drivers or the passengers- in fact, the Bradley so hit had a turret swap and stayed in service well into the Second Gulf War. A very, very survivable vehicle accross the board. In certain respects, being bigger can actually increase survivability. There is more space between critical components, more material to absorb spalling and blast effects, and more area that can be penetrated without hitting crew/passengers, or hitting fewer of them. Pretty much anywhere you hit a BMP, you're hitting something or someone important. As to the -3 putting it's engine in back, it's a bloody stupid idea. The engine in front serves as a large block of metal and parts that can absorb spall, fragments- even HEAT blasts to protect half the vehicle behind it. This has saved Bradley/other AFV crew, passengers, and even ammunition racks in combat many times. While criticized... 95% of it's criticism has been debunked- and in spite of it's age, and it's near obsolecence compared to a few barely-produced NATO IFVs... it remains relevant, useful, and when employed properly, easily a match for the very best Russia can produce, the BMP3... a vehicle decades it's junior. As far as peer opponents go, only China has an IFV that can really give the Bradley a definitive headache. And it hasn't been built in full numbers quite yet- though China is a different animal from Russia when it comes to procurement, capabilities, and logistics. They're more competent by far. Though, if they are truly on par with the USA, has definitely not been tested or established under realistic conditions. More guys have died inside of BMP series than in M113s... and Bradleys/Warriors combined. An IFV is a bad idea if it is shoehorned into playing "Light Tank" without at least light tank protection. Bradley arguably when uparmored manages to be at such a level of protection reliably- the BMP is a death trap for the crew and the poor guys in the back. Bradley could benefit from a more modern missile, and/or a longer ranged cannon, everyone agrees. But it does have -enough- cannon and the TOW-II is absolutely up to the anti-tank role since Russian APS have shown to be largely fictive rather than real. The jury may be out on that in other scenarios.
people : watching humvee bradley leopard 2 challenger 2 being destroyed in ukraine and thinking that abrams will be next too abrams : SAIIIIKE
Abrams will be te next if they send, we thought that about the leos más Challengers anda that is what is happening.
Solid video. I will say looking at most of the footage coming from the war the thing that really shows is survivability. Maybe it's the western training or small sample size as well but the few pieces of footage from bradley's hitting mines or getting hit by artillery is that most of the crew survive with minor injuries. I think there's a pretty famous clip where the bradley hits a mine and everyone gets out unscathed. Can't say the same for bmp footage coming from the russians or ukranians.
My guy, you make an excellent point. However, this is a redeffect comment section, and nobody here cares about little things like human life when compared to MUH GLURIUS RUSSIAN BEAR
I wonder if Red will make w video on the armor upgrades of the BMP family, like the ones used in Afghanistan and the other add on armor packages that were only prototypes.
What? Is that UA Bradley group named after a chaos god? Man now I fully expect an Ultramarine company of Leopards.
Wait where does it say that?
Oh goody, more western junk to test our new explosive rounds 🤣
In this analogy if Ukraine on the side of chaos wouldn't Russia be representing the imperium? Btw I didn't catch it after which chaos god is said group named ?
Where does it say that I want to see
@@josephboustany4852 eg 16:34 bottom text says Khorne group
I reckon if more BMP-3s would be equipped with add on armor, they would be even more formidable and quite comfortable to the Bradley
I didn't see a comment on the cost and numbers of units side of things. Very important to take in consideration
Both IFV have little surviveability under heavy fire. But BPM is amphibious, more mobile, smaller, lighter and cheaper.
Although Bradley is heavier it also has wider tracks so the mobility is probably better than the BMP-2 in practice but probably still not better than the BMP-3. Also you didn't mention ibe of the most important oart if a IFV, the dismount capacity. How many troops they can carry, how easy it is to get in and out of, and how much spare equipment they can bring along like specialist AT or MGs that sometimes are left inside the vehicle.
Watch a move called Pentagon Wars. Based on a true story of how Bradley was developed.
@BigSmartArmed you're joking, right?
@@major_kukri2430 Corruption and fraud is not finny. The fact that they tried to make Bradley amphibious and two of them sank, that is funny.
@@BigSmartArmed ok. You know that movie isn't historically accurate, right?
@@major_kukri2430I know which book it was based on and who wrote the book specifically as a reflection of factual events. You go a head and keep arguing with yourself, I'm out.