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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Horsesoldier    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   12/30/2005 3:41:16 PM
>>Which would you rather have?<< Bradley. >>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?<< BMP is cramped (to include no real ability to carry sustained combat loads of ammunition, equipment, etc.) and tends to kill everyone on board when it is hit. Copying it does not seem like an especially bright idea. >>How does the M2A3 compare to the BMP-3M?<< Beats it hands down. >>Can either survive an RPG hit?<< Bradley can. >>How does the Bradley's performace in Iraq compare to the BMP's performace in Chechnya?<< Hard to tell, since, for instance, our guys are willing to dismount the vehicle to do their job, so perhaps the grossly superior survival and success rate of Bradley versus BMPs has much to do with troop quality as well as vehicle quality.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   12/30/2005 10:40:37 PM
The BMP fit the Red Aarmys concept of mechanized combat in the 1960s, which was & is vastly different from the US Armys idea then & now. Even a modern BMP would not fit what I undertand to be the US Armys tactics and operational doctrine. If I were training a mechanized brigade for some African or other low speed army to beat up another similar mob then the BMP might be my first choice.
 
Quote    Reply

TriggaFingaz    Points of view   1/2/2006 9:01:35 AM
If I were training a mechanized brigade for some African or other low speed army to beat up another similar mob then the BMP might be my first choice. Correct. From the viewpoint of the procurement accountants in a defense ministry, the BMP is a superior purchase becoz it is cheaper and available in huge numbers. From the viewpoint of the men who have to bounce along in the vehicles and possibly take hits, the Bradley is the default choice becoz of superior survivability!!
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Points of view   1/2/2006 1:55:44 PM
Fiscal accounting is just part of my choice. The simpler short term operating requirements, faster training for less educated soldiers, are there. I also suspect the BMP supports simpler tactics. the Bradleys extra capability would confuse too many of the crew.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:Points of view   1/2/2006 2:06:04 PM
Accounting considerations, while irritating, are still important. After all, an AFV that is there is infinitely superior to one that isn't.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    RE:Points of view   1/2/2006 2:43:07 PM
> an AFV that is there is > infinitely superior to > one that isn't Not to the soldiers inside who will get instantly roasted upon first contact. Not to the buyer who spent a lot more dengii on the AFV than did the owner of the missile that took it out. Importance is relational. v^2
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:Points of view   1/2/2006 3:12:33 PM
There's not many ATGM that will not take out a Bradley as well as a BMP. The BMP1, admittedly, is a horrible IFV and vulnerable to HMG fire. The BMP2 has a better gun and turret but the hull is the same. Applique armour can make it proof against HMG fire and generally more survivable. It's still pretty cramped inside. But, an AFV that you can actually bring to battle is infinitely more survivable than one stuck back at base due to maintenance costs, or because you can only have one mechanised unit of Bradleys Vs 2 or 3 of BMPs. If you want to tangle with infantry AT with IFVs, you're going to get messed up in anything that doesn't seriously overmatch the infantry. In any case, a chap with a Javelin can kill any current MBT for less than 1/6th of the cost. This doesn't make MBTs useless.
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   1/2/2006 3:25:07 PM
Wot BMP? A BMP1/2 and a BMP3 are very different vehicles and most likely operate under quite different tactical considerations. And then, the BMP-4/BMP-T are again totally different concepts. Myself, I'd better walk than ride in any of those cans, but, since I used to have a seat reserved just for my arse in the back of an IDF M-113, right across that ominous-looking fuel tank hanging from the flammable tinfoil wall on the opposite side of the bucket, I'd take the Bradley any day if American-made suspensions, leg and head space and armor protection mean anything while I'm dying of motion sickness anyway. The IDF captured a certain number of BMP-1's from the Syrians on the Golan in '73 and in Lebanon back in '82. Contrarily to the then-accepted norm, none of these vehicles ever saw Israeli service, perhaps because of the very low survival rate of the Syrian BMP-1 crews when hit with anything that could penetrate it's thin armor. I have looked up a lot of stuff about the BMP-3, that is apparently quite a market success due to it's impressive armament. I still do not understand where TF are this thing's engine and fuel tank(s) and whether or not it has a ramp in the back like the other IFV's, and where and how TF do you wedge in the infantrymen that are suppose to validate it's claim to being an IFV, and not just an assault gun that can swim. I had already formulated, to no avail, a request to the BMP-2 and Sarath troopers on this board to share some of their experiences, and I feel this is the opportunity to reiterate. Thanx in advance for your edifying prose!
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:BMP vs. Bradley: Which is better   1/2/2006 3:50:07 PM
>>If I were training a mechanized brigade for some African or other low speed army to beat up another similar mob then the BMP might be my first choice. << It would not be mine. BMP was built expressly for a fast, mechanized war. It really is not fit for use as an IFV or APC in situations where troops are going to be in the field for more than a few days. In Afghanistan, the Soviets had to weld all sorts of extra fixtures to the vehicle (like external water tanks) and then still short-stack their infantry complement to get a vehicle that could handle even limited sustained operations. Most 3rd World armies would be better served by the M113, French VABs, or even BTR series vehicles (especially with the possibility of fitting 30mm turrets and 120mm mortars that the Russians have been shopping around for the last decade).
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Points of view   1/2/2006 4:04:11 PM
>>The simpler short term operating requirements, faster training for less educated soldiers, are there.<< I'd question that. Certainly by the time you get to the BMP-2 you're looking at a vehicle that differs primarily from the Bradley, systems wise, in terms of generation, not of presence of absence. US thermals are superior to Soviet-era night vision, but some guy still has to learn how to use either. The US 25mm is a better gun than the Soviet 30mm, but you've still got to teach basic principles of gunnery, etc. The PKM coax is not especially easier to master than the MAG/M240C the Bradley carries. Both carry ATGMs, etc. >>I also suspect the BMP supports simpler tactics. the Bradleys extra capability would confuse too many of the crew. << Bradley does not bring a whole lot of capabilities to the table that the BMP-2 cannot perform (just not as effectively) until you get to the -A2ODS and -A3 vehicles. Even then, the increase in capabilities may or may not carry with them an increase in complexity for the crew -- i.e. having a laser rangefinder makes gunnery easier, not harder to train or do. With the A3s it does, I'd think -- teaching hunter-killer tactics with the commanders seperate thermals is something that might be more difficult than regular gunnery.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics