Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better
wrathofachilles    12/30/2005 3:28:50 PM
Which would you rather have? The Bradley is more effective in combat from what I've read, but is also more expensive and has a high incidence of breakage. Should the US have just copied the BMP rather than design the Bradley? How does the M2A3 compare to the BMP-3M? Can either survive an RPG hit? How does the Bradley's performace in Iraq compare to the BMP's performace in Chechnya?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
B.Smitty    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   3/22/2006 11:32:35 AM
Bluewings wrote: "As an exemple , the CV90 and the VBCI are both better than the Brad and the Boxer is better than the Striker even if they 've never seen real combat yet. (I can already hear some US posters screaming ...)" "Better"-ness has a significant subjective element. Saying one system is "better" than another without adding and understanding the context under which it is being evaluated leads to this type of endless bickering thread. For the U.S., the CV90 and VBCI are definitely NOT better than the Brad. For the Swedes, the CV90 IS better than the Brad. Boxer can't meet the Stryker's requirements, so for the U.S., Boxer is definitely NOT better than Stryker. For the Boxer's partner nations, it may be better (though many seem to have bailed)
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   3/22/2006 11:35:28 AM
"They always come back to the GWs saying stupid stuff like "it 's not combat proven" , which is rather silly ." What's silly about that? No one, not even the high and mighty US ;-) pay enough in development costs to accurately simulate the wear and tear of large scale combat operations. Heck, I've heard some of the more cynical folk refer to Desert Storm as just a big proving ground for all the stuff we bought in the 80's.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   3/22/2006 12:05:11 PM
>>"Just out of curiousity, how would they know? When was the last time Swedish troops were involved in high-intensity, high-tempo combat operations?" Kosovo .<< Which Swedish armored and mechanized brigades drove across Kosovo, fighting all the way, again? Care to refresh my memory on locations of any battalion-sized or larger engagements Swedish forces fought against comparably sized Serbian or Kosovar or Martian or whoever else forces during this offensive drive? >>You say that Swedish Troops would rather use CV90 than BMPs . Of course !! It is like comparing the Abrams SEP with the M-60 ! But that doesn 't mean they are UNHAPPY with the BMPs .It 's adequat and it does the job . Myself I am not a fan of the BMP serie but I admit that the BMP-3 is a good piece of kit .<< As I say, the BMP-1 and -2 have proven themselves to be death traps for the crews and generally second-rate vehicles (compared to their western counterparts, Bradley included but certainly not exclusively) whenever they've turned up in combat. BMP-3 is an interesting vehicle, but nothing about it leads me to believe that its eventual battlefield reputation will not be largely identical to that of the earlier vehicles in the family. As a light tank it is rather thin skinned, as an infantry transport it has the worst ergonomics of anything I've ever seen, etc. >>Sorry about my "Cowboy" reference but it seems to me that as soon as we 're discussing something non-US , it is put down or looked down by some American posters .<< No need to apologize, I, likewise, sometimes get overly strident in my posts, and I certainly am familiar with some threads where that attitud is surely on display. My take on this particular thread is not a case of "Bradley is American, therefore it is supreme" however. As I say, recouch the discussion as "CV-9040 versus BMP-3" or "Warrior versus BMP-3" and my conclusions would largely be similar, though the details of why might differ somewhat. Soviet-era kit, especially the AFVs, just have not demonstrated a good track record when lined up against their western counterparts. Now some of this goes back to the crew quality issue, but some of it appears to be solidly rooted in differences in design strategy and philosophy, with the Soviets basically going some directions that appear to be evolutionary dead-ends (such as the turret floor carousel autoloader). >>As an exemple , the CV90 and the VBCI are both better than the Brad and the Boxer is better than the Striker even if they 've never seen real combat yet .<< Discussing the CV90 and the Bradley is a rather more level playing field. There are things I like about the CV90 and there are places where I think the latest, -A3 versions of the Bradley are superior (being a former scout, I'm quite partial to the sensor suite the -A3s bring to the table). But, whatever particular pluses and minuses, you could talk me into crewing a CV90 in combat without having to bring up topics lie charges of desertion and summary execution into the equation, whereas it would take armed guards to get me into a BMP-1/2/3 that was going downrange . . .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   3/22/2006 2:30:03 PM
Ok HS , much clearer now :-) Thanks . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   3/22/2006 11:01:23 PM
"Boxer can't meet the Stryker's requirements, so for the U.S., Boxer is definitely NOT better than Stryker. For the Boxer's partner nations, it may be better (though many seem to have bailed)" B Smitty I was taking to a GD guy testerday and he said the Germans are showing interest in the Stryker!!!! Now this was just me and a GD tech rep BS'ing in a bar so it may not be true.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   3/23/2006 12:04:57 AM
Boxer, like Puma, has grown in weight, complexity, and cost considerably from the original specs. Boxer's only real saving grace is in its modularity. But, like Puma, if the weight can't be kept under control (add-on Armour Level 3), it'll be a tougher sell to fit it into an A400M than all those anti-Stryker antagonists who argued it wouldn't fly safely in a C-130. The Germans may well be interested in Piranha variants simply for the fact of weight issues, although I don't see why they would purchase the GDLS Canada Stryker when the MOWAG factory in Switzerland (have to satisfy the European Union crowd) can crank out the Piranha IV hulls, which are mechanically superior (and can support heavier add-on armour) to the P-III hulls the Stryker was built around.
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   3/23/2006 2:37:47 AM
"The new IFV differs the BMP-3 in that it has a taller hull with greater internal space, which allows infantries in the troop compartment to carry more heavy equipment into battle." This is the new chinese copy of the BMP-3. If it is accurate, and is also faster, then HS's point would not apply here. That paragraph specifically states the answer to HS point with the BMP-3 internal space-or lack of. Here is the rest of the article(as best as I could paste) The PLA has been developing a next-generation infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) to accompany its main battle tanks (MBT) in operation since the 1990s. When the first photo of the IFV undergoing road test was revealed in February 2003, earlier speculation was confirmed that the vehicle is heavily influenced by the Russian BMP-3. The PLA was reported to have acquired a small number of the BMP-3 in 1997 for trial and evaluation. The PLA also purchased the fire control and associated missile laser guidance system technology on the BMP-3 from Russia to be used on its own IFV design. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A D V E R T I S E M E N T -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the photo it can be seen that the next-generation Chinese IFV features a turret similar to those on the modified BMP-3. The main armament includes an auto-loaded 2A70 (or its Chinese copy) 100mm rifled main gun that fires HE-FRAG round as well as the 5.5km range 3UBK10 Arkan gun-fired laser-guided anti-tank missile. China has revealed its indigenous 100mm gun-fired missile, which might be based on the 3UBK10 design. The missile is believed to be capable of engaging tanks with explosive reactive armour (ERA) as well as slow, low-flying helicopters. Range is 100 to 4,000m. Hit probability is given as at least 0.8 with armour penetration of 600mm. Ammunition load is 8 rounds on BMP-3. Along side the main gun is a co-axial 30mm cannon firing AP (Armour-Piercing) and HE-FRAG rounds. Rate of fire is more than 300 rounds/min and range is 1,500 to 2,000m. The cannon is better for dealing lighter vehicles and other soft targets. The gunner’s aiming system is capable of automatic target tracking in all-weather, day/night conditions. The new IFV differs the BMP-3 in that it has a taller hull with greater internal space, which allows infantries in the troop compartment to carry more heavy equipment into battle. The new IFV is also possibly amphibious like all other PLA armoured vehicles. With its strong anti-armour firepower, the new IFV can take out any armoured vehicles in the world, and even make a serious threat to some older MBTs such as the M-60 and T-62. However, the use of the BMP-3 turret may significantly increase the unit cost of the vehicle, and also reduce the internal space for troops and equipment. As a result, the PLA may develop a series of modelsto include some less armed variants for troop transportation, command and control, surveillance, and medical evacuation. So, while this is not the Bmp-3, if you can apply this to the thread, based on the article, I would think this is a good challenge to the bradley, if not superior. http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/ifv.asp Semper Fi...
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   3/23/2006 12:09:22 PM
Clever Chineses ... Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Rommel       8/8/2007 8:09:27 PM
Well the BMP has only half an inch of armor wich means it get killed by almost any heavy arms. wheras the bradly has like 2 Ft. or something. And ther are like 13 diferent variants my personal favorites are the M3A3 and the M6.(M3A3 having amzing anti-tank capabilities with its two TOW missile launchers and a 25 mm bushmaster chain gun. The M6 having a bushmaster chain gun and a quad stinger missile launcher and both have i think 2 7.62 mm MGs.
 
Quote    Reply

Rommel       8/8/2007 8:11:58 PM
but the lav25 or the stryker beet both of them being able to be modified to suit many different tasks(and those versions being very good at those tasks!!!)
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics