Here is another fact.. Bradley protection up to 30mm with additional armor available... BMP 3 maximum protection up to 12.7mm....... The Bradley 25mm rapid fire auto cannon is going to turn the BMP 3 into swiss cheese.
Russia always lie about capability of their equipment to get procurement. While you were saying classified everything so you have no idea what you getting yourself into
Critical factors not considered in this video include: cost to manufacture and maintenance requirements. These are also very critical factors when fighting a major war against a strong enemy, in which industrial capacity and logistics become important.
Good logic. The war is not won by the King Tiger (slow, complicated, with many malfunctions, and so heavy that it could not cross many bridges in the field) but an average tank that you can quickly repair, fill with fuel and ammunition and send into battle as soon as possible..... .
NATO tanks are superior in terms of firepower and aiming devices. The question is how well Ukrainian crews are trained to use them. T72 in Iraq had no chance even against Bradley.....@@ÆthelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333
It is not fair comparison. US M2A4 Bradley cost about 4.35 million USD ea, while BMP-3 costs about 1.1 millions USD. If I am a warlord of Asia, I would rather buy 4 BMP-3's than single M2 Bradley in my arsenal.
@@ramadansteve1715 I'm not so sure about that friend, try to play mil-sim games you'll see it really comes down to the skill of the crews, which Russian is not lack of
Here's the main problem with Russian armor: I am 5'10". When I sat in the driver's seat of any of the Russian armor on display at Ft Irwin, I put the seat as low as it would go, and I was sticking out of the driver's hatch from mid chest, up. The tank commanders seat, all the way down, I couldn't get my head in the turret and close the hatch. Either of the turret hatches, I could stand on the floor, hanging out of the turret with my arms flat on the top of the turret. You needed to be an Umpaloompa to fit in these various armored vehicles from Russia.
@@Grid88 M2 Bradley and BMPs are both transport fighting vehicles that can also cross through waters, M2 Bradley tank is larger, wider and has better design and armor protection, while BMPs is much smaller, lesser armor protection and less better design compared to M2 Bradley but BMP is relatively more cheaper to produce, requires lesser amount of budget and components to build and much faster vehicle than M2 Bradleys, and can be produced in high numbers than M2 Bradleys, here is the actual difference of the two
Quite amazing what they get into a vehicle that's yes, several foot lower, with a greater ground clearance, and 9 tonnes lighter despite being very well armed. They do appear to burn rather well when that ammunition cooks off. Some of the pictures on Oryx of destroyed BMP3's show the armoured body which I believe is mostly aluminium burned away to nothing.
That sounds about as fun as when I had my M901 ITV over 60 mph. The best part was the look of fear on my TCs face. He never questioned my driving skills after that.
@Quinlan You must have never seen what a Bradley is capable of because the Bradley has decimated the BMP in pretty much every engagement. This has been proven in the 30+ yrs of destroying soviet and Russian equipment in the Moddle East.
They both have their pros and cons, the Bradley is better protected but is a lot heavier and is a bigger target, The BMP 3 trades protection for mobility, it's lighter and faster, has much better amphibious capabilities, and is easier to transport, The Bradley has more sophisticated tech but that also makes it harder to maintain and replace, but the BMP 3 is more versatile and has superior firepower. Something that is very often misunderstood is why the Soviet Union favored large quantities of cheap maintenance light vehicles, the common claim was that the USSR didn't care about losses and would just throw away men and material in Human Wave attacks, the only problem with this theory is that Human Wave tactics are a myth which nobody used. The reason the Soviets went for quantity over quality was that they were thinking in terms of a major war, and in such a war no matter how good your vehicles are you are going to lose a lot so they reasoned it was better to be able to sustain heavy loses but still be able to replace them, The West went for a more expeditionary force mentality with very heavy powerful vehicles that would finish of whatever the airforce left over. Desert Storm was a weird fluke when it comes to warfare, everything was in the US favor, They had overwhelming air power and very well-trained troops while Iraq's army while large was a joke, they had very old poorly maintained equipment, very poorly trained troops with very low morale and lacked any effective anti-air capabilities. This is why Desert Storm is a poor choice when it comes to comparing the efficacity of vehicles or equipment because none of it was used effectively.
The BMP having superior firepower is both debateable and largely negated by the Bradley's better optics. If the Bradley can see the target better, it will win more often than not. Also, the Bradley can bring its TOW into play faster than the BMP since the ATGM on the BMP is fired from the barrel of the cannon instead of from an external launcher.
@@cstgraphpads2091but it can shoot on the move. Bradley's have to deploy the fucking thing before launching an ATGM, since it can't move well with it deployed, because of the risk of damaging the structure. BMP-3 does have a weapon advantage simply because it can go against small bunkers with the cannon, something the Bradley absolutely can't do. On the other hand the survivability and equipment is excellent on the Bradley. But none of it matters really because of how they're used in Ukraine, and because they don't have the logistics the US could lend on their battlefields. So it's pros are rendered useless by the nature of the battlefield and the army using it.
Since I've been reading comments on this topic everywhere, I haven't heard a good explanation overall regarding the philosophy of the West and the East, NATO vs. Russia. I would also add the budgets. Russia does not allow itself super expenses and thus adapted the philosophy to the budget.
Well, let just say Russia’s BMP has more fire power than the Bradley, but from its track record on how it’s doing in the Ukraine War, I’d rather be sitting in a Bradley, manned with an American trained crew, and with all the updated technology any day! Like the Russian tanks, many BMPs were destroyed and rusting in fields and along Ukrainian roadsides.
Dont know how a Bradley can go well in Ukraine Overall it's just a piece of equipment That can be countered and destroyed as any other equipment Either its Ukrainian or Russian
@@chewbaccassecretlover12444 that was iraq But iraq is not the battle ground of Ukraine Where an artillery can snipe you from 70 kms away Or barrage you will MRLS Or drive thru a mind field or being hit by an MBT or kornet head on
My neighbor's son served in a Bradley in the Middle East. The biggest complaint he and others had with the Bradley is with the main gun. He said the 25mm is noticeably less lethal and has less range than a 30mm gun. Another although far less concerning problem was with the machine gun. The Bradley comes with a 7.62 mm coaxial M240C machine gun. The M240 is fine when dealing with infantry however it doesn't do well against lightly armored vehicles or reinforced buildings. Many crew on the Bradley would prefer a .50 caliber machine gun as their secondary weapon.
But the secondary machine gun is not for vehicles (unless soft sinned ones) or buildings, that is what the 25mm gun is for. All IFV use small calibre machine guns for suppression of enemy infantry and the big gun for buildings and vehicles, that is the whole point, is it not?!? That is how the vehicles are use in our country, but our IFV have a 40mm so it is way more powerful of course.
@@MrCABman1972 The argument my neighbor's son made is that a .50 cal is needed when the enemy is behind cover such as a building or rock walls or other such cover. A 7.62 mm M240 machine gun is not going to penetrate such cover but a .50 cal will. Of course so would 25mm ammo however that's wasting 25mm ammo on enemy combatants instead of armored vehicles.
The 25 chews up everything but MBTs. The sabot round can penetrate a BMP of any type out to 2000 meters, and HE will demolish trucks, bunkers, and troops. We use the HE on any troops past 900 meters. The 240C is used to suppress and kill dismounts in the open. You don't want it to be a 50 as I may need to shoot enemy dismounts close to or on my wingman's vehicle. The 50 would also half the ammo in the ready box from 800 rounds to 400. As a Bradley crewman, I find the M242's reliability more of an issue than power or range. The links have to be perfectly aligned and dunnage needs to be monitored periodically coming out of the eject shoot or it could jam badly. Usually requires disassembly of the gun. If I'm engaging an IFV at long range, I would prefer to hit him with one of my TOW-2Bs from defilade than use my chain gun. Nothing walks away from one of those
those extra tons of armour on the Bradley are critical. The BMP-3 is anything but “highly-survivable”, it’s under-armoured and has nothing like the optical targeting of the Bradley. Post-Soviet Russian electronics are parts bin collections of Western components. The Operation Desert Storm improved Bradleys are deadly effective
*All will become clear soon! In Russia there is a saying "You shouldn't share the skin of a bear if you haven't killed it yet!" In the near future we will see a lot of Bradley Abrams and Leopards who burned down in Ukraine, the road to hell is paved for them, just like almost 500 T-72 tanks transferred to Ukraine by NATO countries from Eastern Europe!*
@@qkosso1558 cool. too bad Russian soldiers aren't carrying around .50 machine guns and 30mm cannons with them or else that would be a problem for the Bradleys. the only Russian vehicles armed with weapons that can penetrate the Bradley are BTRs, BMPs and tanks, but the Bradley will be able to destroy those vehicles before they even know the Bradley is there. The Bradley is simply too advanced. The Bradleys optics and FCS is simply far more advanced than anything Russia has. I'm sure a few 30mm rounds from a BMP3 would be lethal to a Bradley, but that BMP3 would get destroyed by the Bradley before the BMP3 gunner even manages to aim at the Bradley, let alone actually aim and fire. It's like desert storm all over again. Advanced Western tanks with good night vision, advanced optics, advanced FCS, etc Vs. low-tech Soviet stuff. We all know how that turns out. Good look trying to take out a Bradley at night when you're in a Russian APC/tank that doesn't even have night vision.
Very true, we can argue about milimeters of steel and missiles but at the end of the day, if a bradley crew is unlucky enough to stroll past a treeline with a AT gunner he’s dead, the same way the BMP3 crew will be dead when the Ukrainian commercial drone operator drops a bomblet inside the cupola. Luck, skill, and being able to keep calm during combat will truly decide if these crewmen live
Not so, the BMP is light in the front, which gives it bounce during acceleration and on rough terrain, and the drastic upward slope of the BMP's front end gives it a tendency to go way nose down, as shown in the video. Nose down means back end up, which means limited/no drive while it's in that position, and gunners staring at the dirt rather than target. Not to mention the downward slope of the BMP's nose deflects incoming rounds down and under the vehicle, where heavy rounds can untrack it (I've noticed a lot of BMPs with split tracks in videos and photos); while the Bradley front end design deflects rounds up and away.
Correct... The weight to horsepower ratio is the deciding factor here. The bradley has a power to weight ratio of 19.4 hp per ton. The BMP has a 22.7 hp per ton ratio. The BMP being lighter for the power available might give it a higher speed by a few miles per hour, but the crappy ergonomics of Russian designed vehicles wears heavily on crews. In the Bradley you have all kinds of elbow room with which to work. I've been in both the BMP-2 and T-72. Both are cramped even for smaller crewmen and the auto loader presents its own dangers. The T-72s I've seen inside of had propellent charges and projectiles strapped all over inside the vehicle, some under the feet of the commander and gunner, strapped to the turret floor. No wonder they go up like a roman candle when they get hit.
@@sirenwerks is so. the gross weight of the vehicle and the output of the motor will not change no matter where you put the engine. You're talking about handling.
I think it depends on how they’re being used In Desert storm Bradleys could destroy T-72s due to better tactics and situational awareness that can also be linked to the presence of other assets/lack of enemy counter assets and tactics The BMP-3 is better prepared for an open terrain engagement, longer reach weapons (for the most part) moving in with tanks as if its one while having a low profile and can still provide quite the punch when it dismounts its troops I think the bradley would be better used to support the dismounts while the BMP-3 would be better used to transport dismounts Depends on the situation and how they’re being used, both are at the top in their categories
"The BMP-3 is better prepared for an open terrain engagement, longer reach weapons (for the most part) moving in with tanks as if its one while having a low profile and can still provide quite the punch when it dismounts its troops " Its not noticeable in the Ukraine war. BMP's are getting rekt left and right.
I feel like you Americans forgot how you guys got shit on in Vietnam and Afghanistan. And you lot act like you guys didn't cause many civilian deaths in your post-9/11 wars. The U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of September 2021, an estimated 387,072 civilians in these countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars.
The big caveat here is the BMP numbers are just on paper, in reality we’ve seen how “good” their armor is, not even mentioning that they don’t have anti tank missile module at all. But for the sake of comparison it’s a great video!
About the anti-tank module. They have other vehicles for that. The kharezantema for example. It’s never a single piece Of equipment against a single,e piece of equipment - it’s about táctical combinations of systems - comparison is silly it’s not the same machine
Do not write nonsense. The armament for the 100 mm gun includes the Arkan 9M117M1-3 ATGM. With a tandem cumulative part and armor penetration up to 750 mm of homogeneous steel covered with dynamic protection.
The nuance is that people who do not have even minimal knowledge are trying to write smart texts. The BMP-3 has an ATGM, the rocket is launched from a cannon. Also, these unreasonable people take advantage of the fact that some equipment did not have serious combat experience to praise it. But soon we will see burned-out Bradleys in Ukraine.
What do you mean "don’t have anti tank missile module at all", its literally shoots rockets through 100mm barrel, those rockets reach up to 6000m targets with 800mm penetration. Its literally better version of outside mounted rockets
One thing not mentioned is that the Bradley squad can egress from the rear of the vehicle while the engine placement of the BMP makes that impossible for the Russian Squad. Personally, I would much rather exit from the rear of the vehicle while in combat...☺
@@mattbanco4406 wherever they exit, it does not matter. BMPs are still walking coffins. Those things get penetrated by pretty much everything but small arms fire. The only somewhat decent vehicles are BTRs, but even those are not great compared to anything the west is able to field.
@@MrSheduur what about Bradleys do You think those coffin Will go all the way to eastern part of ukraine and comeback, this is not Irak or Afghanistan where the enemy don,t have Artillery with guided rounds, attack helicopters, su-25 tank Busters,modern anti-tank weapons ,drones flying around all day and night looking For those coffin to blast them, goodluck
It's all about who sees the opponent first and fires. Bradley electronics and networking means they will get the jump on pretty much everything armored. The rear dismount on the Bradley instead of the BMP-3 dismount is another big positive. I know what I'd rather ride in. And if a tank shows up, I know what weapon system I'd rather use, that TOW. BMPs on the other hand are rolling steel coffins, but they're dirt cheap and quantity have a quality of its own. But they also don't protect the infantry which are supposed to be riding within, yet refuse to do. They also do have a nice hatch at the bottom to rinse the BMP out when the old crew is done.
Main issue is that the Bradley is a infantry fighting vehicle that is meant to give maximum support to infantry and to attack anything that is its equal or better with the tow missiles. It literally can punch above its weight. The BMP-3 is more transport, not fighting vehicle. It can do some support but for the most part its not to be involved in heavy fighting other than whats necessary to kill infantry and small vehicles.
On paper these are both impressive weapons systems. However, Russia has proven they are a 3rd rate military in every way imaginable: crew capabilities, maintenance, etc. I believe it's safe to say the Bradley wins in a walk.
@@serch3ster I think you missed my point. My point about Russia is that they have been using the BMP is real-world exercises for several months now and have proven the BMP is not on the same level as the Bradley. Whether it's crew capabilities, BMP technology/maintenance, etc., it's no match for the Bradley which has been proven an effective fighting vehicle for the past two decades in real world situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You claimed 16 M2s and it's all over Ukraine? So I would call it good trade to Russian bmps. And btw, such comment from 2 years account bot is a bit unexpected😂
All depends what kind of terrains operating. Bradley will overpower in desert but can't do in mud for example in Ukraine. Russians ... I will say not the best not the worst all the time average. All comes to cost of vehicle. Bradley $3.5 mil other end BMP3 $1.3 mil.
Depends on which crew is the most trained, most organized and most lucky. If BMP sees the Bradley first then Bradley is dead 90%. If Bradley sees thd BMP then BMP is dead 90%. Whoever shoots first usually wins in modern combat
"Depends on which crew is the most trained, most organized and most lucky." So Bradley will win 90% of the time, cause russians suck at organized combat.
@@danielkiran8174 They are so incompetent that in addition to having eliminated most of the Ukrainian mechanised armoured units (the second largest army in Europe after Russia), they have also eliminated the hundreds of USSR vehicles sent in 10 months of war and now NATO has to send theirs in small batches.
Well, I'd be minded to give it to the BMP because of its firepower and agility. But, having seen how easily Russian armour is defeated in Ukraine, I'd have to give it to the Bradley on technological capabilities. Oh, and those two TOW missiles 🤔
@@blackpanther6655 No, the mass destruction of BMP in Ukraine is due to the fact that all the protective systems of the BMP were stolen back in Russia)) and because of the courage of Ukrainian people
Thermal sights give them a huge advantage to the americans and from what I saw in this video the BMP-3 has only infrared, and seeing that both have the ability to destroy each other, the one who would win in combat is the one who Spot your enemy first and in that the American vehicle wins.
@@AndreyPetroff The problem with the Russian equipment is corruption in the Russian system. The upper commanders pocketed the money instead of making sure the equipment was armed and maintained. We have video of Russian reactive armor cases filled with rags, Russian tires on trucks that shredded after 50 miles, Russian soldiers with crappy, insufficient food and barely trained at all. For the Russians to have done so poorly with the large numbers of tanks and IVF's at the beginning of the war shows they have major problems in training, logistics, tactics and strategy. Even the U.S. thought this would be over in a week after the invasion because a competent army with that advantage should he rolled right through, instead they got destroyed and even beaten back by a much smaller and lightly equipped Ukrainian army. The Russian trolls can say all they want but you got your behinds handed to you by an enemy that should have been no problem so you have some serious problems when the Ukrainians come back trained and armed with western equipment. The only thing holding NATO back from giving everything they need to throw you out is Putin's whining about needing to use nukes.
@@jd190d For the money that Germany maintains a 60 thousand army and 300 Leopard tanks, Russia provides an army of 1 million, the largest nuclear forces, a nuclear submarine fleet, a satellite constellation, 1000 fighters, and for the rest of the funds it maintained 250 thousand ground forces, it's ridiculous to talk about corruption . The military budget of Germany is 56 billion dollars, Russia 65. Why did everyone decide that the Russian army was supposed to defeat the Ukrainian troops in a week when the ground forces were equal in number, and after 2 months, due to mobilization, Ukraine had an advantage of 2-3 times.
@@milaro222 That was the boast that Putin made, that this would be done in a week. For all the money Russia has spent, why did their truck tries shred after 50 miles, why did their tanks fail so badly when facing Ukrainian infantry with ATGM's. Why are the Russian soldiers scrounging for food, why does Putin direct his missiles at civilian rather than military targets. Russia is fighting like the losing side who is desperate to do anything to change the tide of the war, not at all like someone who expects to beat the military of the country they invaded. If they want to stop this war, just leave Ukraine and it will be over. Why waste your people to try to take something that doesn't belong to you.
@@hectorlopez1907 Junk eh ? and Bradley is a wonder weapon right ? hehe im not as arogant as you are to say that Bradley is junk its a ok IFV with good armor for a IVF
Thorough comparison. The only problem with comparisons like this is they are based on the reported capabilities by the Russian military, which has proven repeatedly to lie about these capabilities. Drop all the BMP stats by 25% and you would probably have a more realistic comparison.
People discussing possible success of Bradley in Ukraine are talking as if Russians would only have IFVs or MBTs as counter-measure. You are forgetting the fact that they have shitload of artillery, hunter hellies, portable and effective ATGMs, kamikaze drones, mines etc etc. In Iraq Bradley became famous but they were under the wings of best airforce in the world. But in Ukraine they will be metal coffins... Not because they are weak or bad but because other elements of a mechanized war are missing.
BMP-3 is a newer vehicle than M2 Bradley, thus it is technically considered to be of slightly more advanced design. But both IFVs have more than adequate firepower to easily kill the other. So the difference will come down to who can do it at the furthest range, and who can detect the other sooner.
We'll see in the next Ukrainian counteroffensive how the French and American light tank/IFVs fare in battle. I suspect they will lose less IFVs than the Russians judging by this war so far.
@@Nooob3775 It all depend on the version we're giving Ukraine, though. There has been like 10+ iterations of Bradley IFVs, all with different levels of modernization. If we're just handing over Desert Storm era M2s in deep storage, they would certainly be considered less advanced than BMP-3.
Ergonomically and survivability, the Bradley is far superior in both these regard. Track records had shown that when Bradley IFVs were knocked out, its crew often bailed out with minor or no injuries. The infantry was no different, most were alive to disembark quickly through the rear hydraulic hatch. Contrary to that, the BMP-3s when they were destroyed, often detonated in a fireball due to their high explosive shells, carousel autoloader and relatively thin armor, while crews struggled to disembark with the cramped infantry hatches inside leading to several instances when they were ambushed in the early war, the infantries were killed before successfully organizing themselves. The vehicles afterwards proved to be impossible to recover, as their hulls and turret have all but disappear. The same can be said for the BMD-4 as well, sharing similar systems albeit 10 times worse due to their even thinner armor.
@@StartVisit You need to learn a bit more about what was and used now in both of this wars. Iraq used t54\55, type 69, M84a and some others. T72 and t72m was and still highly capable tanks, but not against next generation tanks and AFV with tanks Radars, Night and Thermal vision + full air superiority + long period of devastated economy, lack of spare parts and maintenance. So in fact yes the t72 was a big threat in open day fight but they was simply destroyed from +3000 km without even seeing the enemy + aviation + tow missiles. There was plenty of reports that iraq tanks wasn't even used in effencively being blind in night. And don't even mention older stuff.. Oh yea they had only old 3bm9 ammo from 1960x Now Russia - T-72 B3(B3M) modifications and t90m, t80bvm - they have so many upgrades in electronics, new guns, new thermal vision new armor in different variants, new engine e.t.c. that it can take to much time to explain. If you didn't notice a different I suggest you to look some other than pro Ukraine Rusofobic sources and learn a bit more about reality.
Given how 25mm bush master is inferior to 30mm auto cannon, Russian BMP-3 has a slight firepower advantage, not to say it’s 100mm cannon makes it almost a light tank, so I would say BMP-3 would dominate the battlefield if both vehicles are controlled by the crew with similar skills
@Александр Стрельцов It really depends on what kind of round it is, if it is 100mm AP rounds, then it would have a very easy time taking out any IFV and APC’s. Also, BMP-3 has ATGM as well don’t forget
@Александр Стрельцов you really know nothing about the ammo of bmp3 and why it was created, the 100m cannon shoot atgm ammo that has more penetration than Bradley missiles The ammo that bmp3 get for it's 100m is HE-FG high explosive fragmentation for infantry and atgms for tanks and stuff the point of making the bmp3 shoot an atgm form it's cannon unlike bmp2 is to have a Chance to counter the new active protection systems that tanks have it now days
Did you forget M2 can launch 2 TOW missiles at 2 different target at once. I heard the Russian took out all night vision off BMP-3 to put it on Putin new Dacha as security system. Now all BMP-3 have search light on them.
@@tomnguyen9931 Oh this could be what happen in some kid's fanfic, but what IS happening is that M2 bradley's armor is getting dismantled to build tesla
@@patriktoth3346 What are you even trying to say? The M2 has ERA, active protection systems and protection from 30mm frontally. Bradleys led the way and destroyed more tanks than the M1 Abrams.
@@jeebuzcrust APS? Where? ERA? Doesnt matter when it gets hitted by an APFSDS round. And its ukraine not a desert. Even the M113's failed to run during cold-days bro.
I love that logic but you're completely right, the BMP3 should be the better vehicle in most circumstances, hower if you aren't training crews or operating them intelligently they won't last long against modern western weapons.
There seems to be a trend here. American and German systems tend to heavily emphasize communication and coordination. Russian systems seem focused around everyone being a lone wolf. The current Russian tanks don't put much emphasis on communication or situational awareness. The old T34s didn't even have radios.
Great comparison video of two very relevant IFV's. The Bradley comes off looking very poorly armed next to BMP3 despite the power of the Bushmaster. Did I hear a while back that whole turret and weapons were to be modernised?
So far the BMP 3 isn't faring so well in Ukraine while Russian tankers in their MBTs are actually more scared of the Bradley and have said so many times.
The problem with this 100mm gun is that for every reload the barrel need to be lowered and lined for the auto-loader to work. And because the two guns 30mm and 100mm are coaxial this means that both are not stabilized and pointed at target when reloading- no pointed fire from 30mm can be done when need reloading. Anyone who knows that can use it, if after every 100mm shot for 5-6 seconds the bitch is helpless.
Biggest catch is that there are thousands of M2s, and a few hundred BMP-3s. Sure, a BMP-3's tank-sized gun and capacity to carry 8 ATGMs would make it the winner in a head to head fight, but IFVs aren't really supposed to be fighting the same kind of armour brawls that old tank movies are made of. If the US properly commits to sending enough bradleys to Ukraine, the sheer number of semi-modern Bradleys will more than make up for the lighter weaponry.
Imagine having three weapon systems in a vehicle.. wouldn't that strain your logistics? And with that amount of ammo there's danger of catastrophic explosions as demonstrated by a certain event happening today.
You would be surprised, the uniformity of modern rounds (Especially on Russian vehicles as pretty much everything uses either a 7.62x54, 30mm, 100mm or 125) makes logistics surprisingly easy, especially compared to things like Vietnam where guns used extremely diverse calibers. Really it depends on how much ammo the gunner wants to dump before resupply is needed. And comparatively, IFVs don't carry nearly as much ammo as an MBT, as they have to make room for infantry
The Bradley will play a very important role in Ukraine when the German, British, and now American tanks arrive. I think the Russians under estimate their importance.
BMP-3 would win because of its low profile and it’s heavier weapon and better armour than the M2 Bradley. The Bradley is good but the BMP in a real life situation is probably better considering Ukraine we have seen high rate of bmps abandoned not destroyed. High survivability rate makes it a good weapon but the bradly in the other had was destroyed multiple times with no crew escaping.
@@junkookbts1273 it can be better because it’s faster bigger gun and a better composite armour to protect against heavy machine gun fire. And a high crew survivability. That’s how
I love when people make comments on subjects they obviously know nothing about. The Bradley has been involved in major conflicts almost since its' inception and proven itself time and time again. Ever hear of the battle of 73 Easting of Desert Storm. The largest armor battle of the 20th century which the Bradley quite successfully participated in and even was responsible for more kills than the coveted M1 Abrams MBT. Stop playing video games and read a book once in a while so that you can make comments on subjects you obviously know nothing about at this point in time. SSG. D. Broad U.S.A. Desert Storm Veteran, 7th Corps 1st Inf. Div. 2/66 AR. Reg.
If they keep forgetting to close the back doors and hatches, where drones can fly and grenades can fall in, it doesn't make much difference how much armor, speed, or firepower they have. No troop carrier works if the troop never gets where it's going alive.
We see the usual US poster comments about the assumed superiority of everything American, but at 3-4 times the cost of a BMP-3 the Bradley sure has hell better be superior! But, is it 3-4 times superior? Hardly. One criticism which is proper is the habitability of the BMP-3 being unacceptable, confined, cramped, difficult to enter and leave. This interior would never be acceptable for American armed forces. Russia does need to look into making their armored vehicles more habitable and less cramped-that translates into improved combat performance (and lower risk for the occupants). That is one area where America excels.
Appears that the Russian BMP is a lighter but lethal competitor to the Bradley which has a less potent 25mm gun vs a 30mm gun. A M2 - 50 Cal would be a better choice that the 7.62mm machine gun. Although much higher, I believe that the Bradley is larger and better armored than the BMP. I'll bet the electronics of the Bradley is superior. Squad exiting at the rear of the vehicle is better. The BMP is cheaper to produce and less capable for survival for their crew. Thanks for the Review.
The answer to the question of who is better, BMP-3 or Bradley was given by the UAE, they chose the BMP-3, having bought 1000 units. Bradley lost the competition, but the Arabs choose the best for themselves
Ukrainian fighters are satisfied with the armored infantry fighting vehicles 3, the 100mm gun is especially good. The vehicle is much better than the obsolete BMP 1 and 2, but the Russian crews are poorly trained and failed to realize its potential. Bradley is exactly what we need to break through the Russian defenses, but in Ukraine there is soft black soil, let's see how such a heavy machine behaves on such soil.
ALL those characteristics mean absolutely nothing. The american jeepopotamus is heavier and only has a machine gun. The Russian machine has a huge cannon and can actually go over rural bridges where most battles are fought. Experience shows that most losses of US armored vehicles happened when bridges or roads collapused under them, often killing or maiming the crew. But all that is irrelevant. What matters is how many of them you have at this particular combat area and how fast they can get themselves and their troops there. And of course, remember how the yanks spent FIVE YEARS trying to take Basra, and only "succeded" when the Iraqis simply walked away from the leveled city. Same with Mosul. 18 months of incessant storming with tanks, missiles and planes - and zero result. So I suppose the resolve of the defenders matters, too. Attack London or Los Angeles - and they will flee to where they can buy (and use) toilet paper. Attack Moscow - and you will carry your ass back home in your hands.
I don't see how a "platform" matters as much as its weapon system. And you can mount a weapon system on a Volkswagen if it light enough to be carried by one.
A question so in video they claim BMP-3 hasd teh best survivalbility, but its weight is over 50% more than the BMP3 so the Bradley in my world should have higher survivalbility more armour that is, since its a huge differnce in weight
In Dessert storm the M3 Bradley got kaput by a Russian BMP. 100mm gun,, killing all its crew (You tube video narrated by the tank crew of other Bradleys in the unit) meaning its armor could only protect the crew from smaller caliber weapons.
The Bradley is overall superior, but the BMP-3 is still lethal. Tactics in how the Bradley is used make it superior. As a Bradley Master Gunner, I guess I'm biased, but I've been in a BMP-3. Death trap.
I will go with the Russian BMP, 1) Its amphibious meaning mobility and capability 2) Its role in an urban fighting setting is better than the M3 Bradley. Its main gun can punch through concrete walls the Bradley cant, that is what a IFV does right? And in an urban conflict that is a MUST NEED. rather than letting your MBT do it for you. 3) Its easy to maintain and operate. 4) In has a better chance of engaging an enemy main battle tank or better chance of survival. During the Siege of the City of Hue Vietnam 1968? as well as the Marawi Philippines in 2017?, the US Army used the 105 anti anti tank gun to neutralized the enemy hiding from concrete walls., the Philippine army procured a light tank armed with a 105 mm gun, afterwards, because they encountered the same problem in an urban conflict situation
I've seen some dumb arguements so i want to set some things rigth All bmp3's have thermal for the gunner Bmp3's are not ment to take on heavy mines and atgm's its a ifv the bradly also wouldnt survive The bradly fougth under equiped and under trained export bmp1's and bmp2's, no shit that the bradly would win
M2 is better for sure. It has steel amour, instead of aluminium armour of BMP. The most important thing is TOW missiles. BMP were destroyed so many units in ukraine.
People seem to be comparing the success of the Bradley during the Iraq war with the conflict in Ukraine. People seem to forget the US and it’s allies fought against a very weak Iraqi army that was totally crippled by the a very long conflict with Iran and sanctions. Many of Iraqs best air, armor and infantry units were gone by the time of the 1st gulf war.
Crippled?? Lol....Crippled armies dont successfully invade and occupy its neighbors.. Iraq had the 5th largest tank army in the world, was battle hardened from years of conflict, and well defended-Baghdad had the most heavily defended layered air defences on earth.. Soviet officials claimed Iraq "could not be defeated" by anyone including themselves....This during a time the Soviet equipment was still considered the equivalent of anything produced in the west..Luckily, it was positioned in a convenient easy to access place to invade....ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GLOBE.. The fact the coalition made it look so easy to comprehensively dismantle Saddam's military-in such a short time....shows how powerful the coalition was-NOT how inept and ineffective the Iraqis were... Don't confuse the strength of Iraq of the early 90's with its position in 2003 when it was a shadow of what it once was...
I’m from Ukraine, and reading the comments I just laugh, how people who don’t understand what’s happening here write about the fact that Bradley will help us. Your Bradley, these are burning boxes for Russian infantry fighting vehicles, Bradley in the first place gets stuck in the mud, any infantry fighting vehicle of Russia that, first of all, passes through passable, powerful, larger caliber, and a well-trained crew.The US just gives us a fly swatter against an elephant. All these Bradleys will be destroyed or simply broken. That's a fact.Russia has already destroyed almost all Himars, all British self-propelled guns and the rest. This shit does not work in Ukraine because all that they give us is shit compared to weapons to Russia. This is how the destruction of your Bradleys will take place. A drone flies up, detects Bradleys, rockets fly there and the end is the most elementary, the second is tanks, the third is RPGs,kamikaze combat drones, air bombs, all this is clearly coordinated and tactically thought out. In such a car, everything depends on the coherence of the crew, and we won’t have it, which is why all this shit that you bring to us is lost when we need tanks, planes, air defense. And yes, Bradley fucking destroyed tanks in Iraq just because they were standing behind the Abrams, that's all.Fighting Russia is not for you to fight the Papuans in Iraq. Remember this right away before writing garIraq. So they would be the end of the T72.So you better lay on the sofas and just watch these fucking boxes burn
Great video, great channel.
Great combination of NEUTRAL point of view for both comparisons and straight facts, something very rare to find this days.
good point.
Here is another fact.. Bradley protection up to 30mm with additional armor available... BMP 3 maximum protection up to 12.7mm....... The Bradley 25mm rapid fire auto cannon is going to turn the BMP 3 into swiss cheese.
Russia always lie about capability of their equipment to get procurement. While you were saying classified everything so you have no idea what you getting yourself into
@@betmyace6686 The bmp3 has armor protection of up to 30mm what do you mean?
@@betmyace6686
😂😂😂But the BMP3 has a 100mm main gun, an automatic 30mm machine gun and advanced armor hahaha it will destroy the Bradley shamefully.
Critical factors not considered in this video include: cost to manufacture and maintenance requirements. These are also very critical factors when fighting a major war against a strong enemy, in which industrial capacity and logistics become important.
Good logic. The war is not won by the King Tiger (slow, complicated, with many malfunctions, and so heavy that it could not cross many bridges in the field) but an average tank that you can quickly repair, fill with fuel and ammunition and send into battle as soon as possible..... .
@@robertstimac2428In this case it's the Abrams and Leopard 2 getting tonked by T-72/80/90.
NATO tanks are superior in terms of firepower and aiming devices. The question is how well Ukrainian crews are trained to use them. T72 in Iraq had no chance even against Bradley.....@@ÆthelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333
@@ÆthelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333 More like Abrams, Leopard 2 and T-72/80/90 getting tonked by FPV drones.
@@Denosauropteryxexactly
It is not fair comparison. US M2A4 Bradley cost about 4.35 million USD ea, while BMP-3 costs about 1.1 millions USD. If I am a warlord of Asia, I would rather buy 4 BMP-3's than single M2 Bradley in my arsenal.
A single Bradley is more effective than 4 BMPs lmao
@@ramadansteve1715 I'm not so sure about that friend, try to play mil-sim games you'll see it really comes down to the skill of the crews, which Russian is not lack of
@@marsontran1692 Drunk Russian conscripts are skilled? Lmao not so sure about that one
@@ramadansteve1715, tell that to russians irl, internet hero
@@ramadansteve1715
хаха, мы в среднем пьем меньше и в армии
Here's the main problem with Russian armor: I am 5'10". When I sat in the driver's seat of any of the Russian armor on display at Ft Irwin, I put the seat as low as it would go, and I was sticking out of the driver's hatch from mid chest, up. The tank commanders seat, all the way down, I couldn't get my head in the turret and close the hatch. Either of the turret hatches, I could stand on the floor, hanging out of the turret with my arms flat on the top of the turret. You needed to be an Umpaloompa to fit in these various armored vehicles from Russia.
Interesting
same. my nasty girl unit did opfor at fort irwin and im not built for their vehicles. im 2" taller and it was a joke.
stupid thinking
Easy solution Comrade. We cut off your legs. Then you fit. If you still complain, we cut off your head.
That's why they use Buryats in their armors
I like how much lower the BMP 3’s profile is.
Yes its profile is quite low.
@@Grid88 M2 Bradley and BMPs are both transport fighting vehicles that can also cross through waters, M2 Bradley tank is larger, wider and has better design and armor protection, while BMPs is much smaller, lesser armor protection and less better design compared to M2 Bradley but BMP is relatively more cheaper to produce, requires lesser amount of budget and components to build and much faster vehicle than M2 Bradleys, and can be produced in high numbers than M2 Bradleys, here is the actual difference of the two
Quite amazing what they get into a vehicle that's yes, several foot lower, with a greater ground clearance, and 9 tonnes lighter despite being very well armed. They do appear to burn rather well when that ammunition cooks off. Some of the pictures on Oryx of destroyed BMP3's show the armoured body which I believe is mostly aluminium burned away to nothing.
Unless they mount anti-javelin balcony on the top 😂
The troops inside dont.
I was a Bradley Linebacker crewman in the army. M6. My Bradley was able to get upto 60 miles an hour.
That sounds about as fun as when I had my M901 ITV over 60 mph. The best part was the look of fear on my TCs face. He never questioned my driving skills after that.
Fine for run far from russians
I still like the BMP3 better because big gun goes dush dush dush and bigger gun shoots missiles too, and lots of smaller guns too.
@@quinlanal-aziz6155 Dush dush guns are more capable than pop pop guns... the BMP wins there.
@Quinlan You must have never seen what a Bradley is capable of because the Bradley has decimated the BMP in pretty much every engagement. This has been proven in the 30+ yrs of destroying soviet and Russian equipment in the Moddle East.
They both have their pros and cons, the Bradley is better protected but is a lot heavier and is a bigger target, The BMP 3 trades protection for mobility, it's lighter and faster, has much better amphibious capabilities, and is easier to transport, The Bradley has more sophisticated tech but that also makes it harder to maintain and replace, but the BMP 3 is more versatile and has superior firepower. Something that is very often misunderstood is why the Soviet Union favored large quantities of cheap maintenance light vehicles, the common claim was that the USSR didn't care about losses and would just throw away men and material in Human Wave attacks, the only problem with this theory is that Human Wave tactics are a myth which nobody used. The reason the Soviets went for quantity over quality was that they were thinking in terms of a major war, and in such a war no matter how good your vehicles are you are going to lose a lot so they reasoned it was better to be able to sustain heavy loses but still be able to replace them, The West went for a more expeditionary force mentality with very heavy powerful vehicles that would finish of whatever the airforce left over. Desert Storm was a weird fluke when it comes to warfare, everything was in the US favor, They had overwhelming air power and very well-trained troops while Iraq's army while large was a joke, they had very old poorly maintained equipment, very poorly trained troops with very low morale and lacked any effective anti-air capabilities. This is why Desert Storm is a poor choice when it comes to comparing the efficacity of vehicles or equipment because none of it was used effectively.
The BMP having superior firepower is both debateable and largely negated by the Bradley's better optics. If the Bradley can see the target better, it will win more often than not. Also, the Bradley can bring its TOW into play faster than the BMP since the ATGM on the BMP is fired from the barrel of the cannon instead of from an external launcher.
Bradley is like a fat kid that tries to fight but can't really maneuver and falls on it'd face😂😂
@@cstgraphpads2091but it can shoot on the move. Bradley's have to deploy the fucking thing before launching an ATGM, since it can't move well with it deployed, because of the risk of damaging the structure. BMP-3 does have a weapon advantage simply because it can go against small bunkers with the cannon, something the Bradley absolutely can't do. On the other hand the survivability and equipment is excellent on the Bradley. But none of it matters really because of how they're used in Ukraine, and because they don't have the logistics the US could lend on their battlefields. So it's pros are rendered useless by the nature of the battlefield and the army using it.
Since I've been reading comments on this topic everywhere, I haven't heard a good explanation overall regarding the philosophy of the West and the East, NATO vs. Russia. I would also add the budgets. Russia does not allow itself super expenses and thus adapted the philosophy to the budget.
Theoretically, but practically it is not like that. In Ukraine I saw how they were destroyed without any problem.@@cstgraphpads2091
Well, let just say Russia’s BMP has more fire power than the Bradley, but from its track record on how it’s doing in the Ukraine War, I’d rather be sitting in a Bradley, manned with an American trained crew, and with all the updated technology any day! Like the Russian tanks, many BMPs were destroyed and rusting in fields and along Ukrainian roadsides.
Basically, you'd rather be fighting a dirt-poor country for it's oil, typical American.
Dont know how a Bradley can go well in Ukraine
Overall it's just a piece of equipment
That can be countered and destroyed as any other equipment
Either its Ukrainian or Russian
@@ztirociplus7270 The Bradley achieved more tank kills than Abrams MBT in the iraq war...
The Bradley is just a waste of time and is a lazy vehicle. It has no good record and no balance when to escape fire.
@@chewbaccassecretlover12444 that was iraq
But iraq is not the battle ground of Ukraine
Where an artillery can snipe you from 70 kms away Or barrage you will MRLS
Or drive thru a mind field or being hit by an MBT or kornet head on
My neighbor's son served in a Bradley in the Middle East. The biggest complaint he and others had with the Bradley is with the main gun. He said the 25mm is noticeably less lethal and has less range than a 30mm gun.
Another although far less concerning problem was with the machine gun. The Bradley comes with a 7.62 mm coaxial M240C machine gun. The M240 is fine when dealing with infantry however it doesn't do well against lightly armored vehicles or reinforced buildings. Many crew on the Bradley would prefer a .50 caliber machine gun as their secondary weapon.
Good insight.
But the secondary machine gun is not for vehicles (unless soft sinned ones) or buildings, that is what the 25mm gun is for. All IFV use small calibre machine guns for suppression of enemy infantry and the big gun for buildings and vehicles, that is the whole point, is it not?!?
That is how the vehicles are use in our country, but our IFV have a 40mm so it is way more powerful of course.
@@MrCABman1972 The argument my neighbor's son made is that a .50 cal is needed when the enemy is behind cover such as a building or rock walls or other such cover.
A 7.62 mm M240 machine gun is not going to penetrate such cover but a .50 cal will. Of course so would 25mm ammo however that's wasting 25mm ammo on enemy combatants instead of armored vehicles.
The 25 chews up everything but MBTs. The sabot round can penetrate a BMP of any type out to 2000 meters, and HE will demolish trucks, bunkers, and troops. We use the HE on any troops past 900 meters.
The 240C is used to suppress and kill dismounts in the open. You don't want it to be a 50 as I may need to shoot enemy dismounts close to or on my wingman's vehicle. The 50 would also half the ammo in the ready box from 800 rounds to 400.
As a Bradley crewman, I find the M242's reliability more of an issue than power or range. The links have to be perfectly aligned and dunnage needs to be monitored periodically coming out of the eject shoot or it could jam badly. Usually requires disassembly of the gun.
If I'm engaging an IFV at long range, I would prefer to hit him with one of my TOW-2Bs from defilade than use my chain gun. Nothing walks away from one of those
My understanding is the latest bradleys have longer barreled 25mm gun, for higher velocity, longer range, more penetration. Same gun, longer barrell.
those extra tons of armour on the Bradley are critical. The BMP-3 is anything but “highly-survivable”, it’s under-armoured and has nothing like the optical targeting of the Bradley. Post-Soviet Russian electronics are parts bin collections of Western components. The Operation Desert Storm improved Bradleys are deadly effective
*All will become clear soon! In Russia there is a saying "You shouldn't share the skin of a bear if you haven't killed it yet!" In the near future we will see a lot of Bradley Abrams and Leopards who burned down in Ukraine, the road to hell is paved for them, just like almost 500 T-72 tanks transferred to Ukraine by NATO countries from Eastern Europe!*
A 50. call can penetrate its side and a 30mm can pretty much penetrate it anywhere
Which one the Bradley or the BMP?
@@qkosso1558
cool. too bad Russian soldiers aren't carrying around .50 machine guns and 30mm cannons with them or else that would be a problem for the Bradleys. the only Russian vehicles armed with weapons that can penetrate the Bradley are BTRs, BMPs and tanks, but the Bradley will be able to destroy those vehicles before they even know the Bradley is there. The Bradley is simply too advanced. The Bradleys optics and FCS is simply far more advanced than anything Russia has. I'm sure a few 30mm rounds from a BMP3 would be lethal to a Bradley, but that BMP3 would get destroyed by the Bradley before the BMP3 gunner even manages to aim at the Bradley, let alone actually aim and fire.
It's like desert storm all over again. Advanced Western tanks with good night vision, advanced optics, advanced FCS, etc Vs. low-tech Soviet stuff. We all know how that turns out. Good look trying to take out a Bradley at night when you're in a Russian APC/tank that doesn't even have night vision.
@@qkosso1558 Before the BMP has spotted the Bradley the Bradley has already positioned, shot and ended the BMP
The crew. Really seems like it comes down to how skilled the crew is.
Very true, we can argue about milimeters of steel and missiles but at the end of the day, if a bradley crew is unlucky enough to stroll past a treeline with a AT gunner he’s dead, the same way the BMP3 crew will be dead when the Ukrainian commercial drone operator drops a bomblet inside the cupola. Luck, skill, and being able to keep calm during combat will truly decide if these crewmen live
2:58 The location of the engine has nothing to do with the power-to-weight ratio.
Not so, the BMP is light in the front, which gives it bounce during acceleration and on rough terrain, and the drastic upward slope of the BMP's front end gives it a tendency to go way nose down, as shown in the video. Nose down means back end up, which means limited/no drive while it's in that position, and gunners staring at the dirt rather than target. Not to mention the downward slope of the BMP's nose deflects incoming rounds down and under the vehicle, where heavy rounds can untrack it (I've noticed a lot of BMPs with split tracks in videos and photos); while the Bradley front end design deflects rounds up and away.
@BPBohn
Those are handling characteristics. They have nothing to do with the power to weight ratio.
Correct... The weight to horsepower ratio is the deciding factor here. The bradley has a power to weight ratio of 19.4 hp per ton. The BMP has a 22.7 hp per ton ratio. The BMP being lighter for the power available might give it a higher speed by a few miles per hour, but the crappy ergonomics of Russian designed vehicles wears heavily on crews. In the Bradley you have all kinds of elbow room with which to work. I've been in both the BMP-2 and T-72. Both are cramped even for smaller crewmen and the auto loader presents its own dangers. The T-72s I've seen inside of had propellent charges and projectiles strapped all over inside the vehicle, some under the feet of the commander and gunner, strapped to the turret floor. No wonder they go up like a roman candle when they get hit.
@@sirenwerks is so. the gross weight of the vehicle and the output of the motor will not change no matter where you put the engine. You're talking about handling.
I think it depends on how they’re being used
In Desert storm Bradleys could destroy T-72s due to better tactics and situational awareness that can also be linked to the presence of other assets/lack of enemy counter assets and tactics
The BMP-3 is better prepared for an open terrain engagement, longer reach weapons (for the most part) moving in with tanks as if its one while having a low profile and can still provide quite the punch when it dismounts its troops
I think the bradley would be better used to support the dismounts while the BMP-3 would be better used to transport dismounts
Depends on the situation and how they’re being used, both are at the top in their categories
I liked your opinion 👍
most based comment on this video
"The BMP-3 is better prepared for an open terrain engagement, longer reach weapons (for the most part) moving in with tanks as if its one while having a low profile and can still provide quite the punch when it dismounts its troops "
Its not noticeable in the Ukraine war. BMP's are getting rekt left and right.
@@danielkiran8174 BMP - 3 is not ambush proof
I feel like you Americans forgot how you guys got shit on in Vietnam and Afghanistan. And you lot act like you guys didn't cause many civilian deaths in your post-9/11 wars.
The U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of September 2021, an estimated 387,072 civilians in these countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars.
The big caveat here is the BMP numbers are just on paper, in reality we’ve seen how “good” their armor is, not even mentioning that they don’t have anti tank missile module at all. But for the sake of comparison it’s a great video!
About the anti-tank module. They have other vehicles for that. The kharezantema for example. It’s never a single piece Of equipment against a single,e piece of equipment - it’s about táctical combinations of systems - comparison is silly it’s not the same machine
Do not write nonsense. The armament for the 100 mm gun includes the Arkan 9M117M1-3 ATGM. With a tandem cumulative part and armor penetration up to 750 mm of homogeneous steel covered with dynamic protection.
Depends on the shell you put on that 100 mm gun.
That is some serious caliber for a IFV vehicle.
The nuance is that people who do not have even minimal knowledge are trying to write smart texts. The BMP-3 has an ATGM, the rocket is launched from a cannon.
Also, these unreasonable people take advantage of the fact that some equipment did not have serious combat experience to praise it. But soon we will see burned-out Bradleys in Ukraine.
What do you mean "don’t have anti tank missile module at all", its literally shoots rockets through 100mm barrel, those rockets reach up to 6000m targets with 800mm penetration. Its literally better version of outside mounted rockets
One thing not mentioned is that the Bradley squad can egress from the rear of the vehicle while the engine placement of the BMP makes that impossible for the Russian Squad. Personally, I would much rather exit from the rear of the vehicle while in combat...☺
nope a squad can egress from the rear of a bmp-3 as well
I think you are mistaking the BMP-3 for the BMD-4. Latter of which has roof mounted exit.
Infantry leaves from the back of a BMP 3 it has to exit compartments in the back on both sides of the engine.
@@mattbanco4406 wherever they exit, it does not matter. BMPs are still walking coffins. Those things get penetrated by pretty much everything but small arms fire. The only somewhat decent vehicles are BTRs, but even those are not great compared to anything the west is able to field.
@@MrSheduur what about Bradleys do You think those coffin Will go all the way to eastern part of ukraine and comeback, this is not Irak or Afghanistan where the enemy don,t have Artillery with guided rounds, attack helicopters, su-25 tank Busters,modern anti-tank weapons ,drones flying around all day and night looking For those coffin to blast them, goodluck
Well now that the US is sending Bradley’s to Ukraine we can find out for real.
it took out t90M xd
i would take the latest CV90 with its 40mm bofors
It's all about who sees the opponent first and fires. Bradley electronics and networking means they will get the jump on pretty much everything armored. The rear dismount on the Bradley instead of the BMP-3 dismount is another big positive. I know what I'd rather ride in. And if a tank shows up, I know what weapon system I'd rather use, that TOW. BMPs on the other hand are rolling steel coffins, but they're dirt cheap and quantity have a quality of its own. But they also don't protect the infantry which are supposed to be riding within, yet refuse to do. They also do have a nice hatch at the bottom to rinse the BMP out when the old crew is done.
Lol was that last sentence a joke or not? I can honestly see either or both being the case XD
Main issue is that the Bradley is a infantry fighting vehicle that is meant to give maximum support to infantry and to attack anything that is its equal or better with the tow missiles. It literally can punch above its weight.
The BMP-3 is more transport, not fighting vehicle. It can do some support but for the most part its not to be involved in heavy fighting other than whats necessary to kill infantry and small vehicles.
Well all those fancy electronics and it's burning all over ukraine lol
@Quetzalcoatl the Feathered Serpent the bmp has more firepower then a Bradley lol.
@@willl7780 Wait, you actually think electronics are supposed to stop artillery shells? Haha. Go back to your crayons.
On paper these are both impressive weapons systems. However, Russia has proven they are a 3rd rate military in every way imaginable: crew capabilities, maintenance, etc. I believe it's safe to say the Bradley wins in a walk.
Its a video about the vehicles not countries. Theres a lot more countries fielding the Bradley and BMP than just america and russia.
@@serch3ster I think you missed my point. My point about Russia is that they have been using the BMP is real-world exercises for several months now and have proven the BMP is not on the same level as the Bradley. Whether it's crew capabilities, BMP technology/maintenance, etc., it's no match for the Bradley which has been proven an effective fighting vehicle for the past two decades in real world situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
@Voorbaam Ach How so?
@@SeanGTM average american biast
@@SeanGTM i saw your reply youtube is very sensetiv these days
Bradley of course.
Well done keep going!👏👌👍💯
Thank you! 😃
Watching Bradley's getting wrecked all over ukraine lol..re reading these stupid comments is comedy gold
You claimed 16 M2s and it's all over Ukraine? So I would call it good trade to Russian bmps. And btw, such comment from 2 years account bot is a bit unexpected😂
When was the last time you saw a M2 Bradley blown up? Hardly any. If ask the same question about the BMP-3, you'll have your choice of IFV.
Bradleys were destroyed in yemen
@@JL-tm3rc you mean the one abandoned and they trew nade into them ?? Ah sure lol
they dont go up against and real threats
M2 Bradley, this vehicle is very effective against opium farmers and afghan fighters using old ak47s, this is great vehicle
The BMP-3M has UTD-32 660 hp engine.
All depends what kind of terrains operating. Bradley will overpower in desert but can't do in mud for example in Ukraine. Russians ... I will say not the best not the worst all the time average. All comes to cost of vehicle. Bradley $3.5 mil other end BMP3 $1.3 mil.
Excellent point
Depends on which crew is the most trained, most organized and most lucky.
If BMP sees the Bradley first then Bradley is dead 90%.
If Bradley sees thd BMP then BMP is dead 90%.
Whoever shoots first usually wins in modern combat
"Depends on which crew is the most trained, most organized and most lucky."
So Bradley will win 90% of the time, cause russians suck at organized combat.
Bradleys m2 have way better night optics and fire control.
@@danielkiran8174 They are so incompetent that in addition to having eliminated most of the Ukrainian mechanised armoured units (the second largest army in Europe after Russia), they have also eliminated the hundreds of USSR vehicles sent in 10 months of war and now NATO has to send theirs in small batches.
@@junkookbts1273 Back in 1995 .
Its 2023 the Russians have equipped their BMP3s with all the bells and whistles the US has
@@Miami1991 russian weapons are a joke
Pay attention to Ukraine war kiddo
i love the bmp low profile look, but id go with the bradley hehehe
Well, I'd be minded to give it to the BMP because of its firepower and agility. But, having seen how easily Russian armour is defeated in Ukraine, I'd have to give it to the Bradley on technological capabilities. Oh, and those two TOW missiles 🤔
a bradley would get defeated by a single RPG just like the BMP's cuz they both dont have that much armour
@@blackpanther6655 No, the mass destruction of BMP in Ukraine is due to the fact that all the protective systems of the BMP were stolen back in Russia)) and because of the courage of Ukrainian people
the Bradley will die the same way as BMPs do from artilery which the main killer of vehicles in this war
Thermal sights give them a huge advantage to the americans and from what I saw in this video the BMP-3 has only infrared, and seeing that both have the ability to destroy each other, the one who would win in combat is the one who Spot your enemy first and in that the American vehicle wins.
Both will not fight each other at all !!!
Bradley will be hunted by Tanks artillery and ATGM crewmen!!
All BMP-3Ms are equipped with the Sodema sighting system with a thermal imaging camera and automatic target tracking.
@@AndreyPetroff The problem with the Russian equipment is corruption in the Russian system. The upper commanders pocketed the money instead of making sure the equipment was armed and maintained. We have video of Russian reactive armor cases filled with rags, Russian tires on trucks that shredded after 50 miles, Russian soldiers with crappy, insufficient food and barely trained at all. For the Russians to have done so poorly with the large numbers of tanks and IVF's at the beginning of the war shows they have major problems in training, logistics, tactics and strategy. Even the U.S. thought this would be over in a week after the invasion because a competent army with that advantage should he rolled right through, instead they got destroyed and even beaten back by a much smaller and lightly equipped Ukrainian army. The Russian trolls can say all they want but you got your behinds handed to you by an enemy that should have been no problem so you have some serious problems when the Ukrainians come back trained and armed with western equipment. The only thing holding NATO back from giving everything they need to throw you out is Putin's whining about needing to use nukes.
@@jd190d For the money that Germany maintains a 60 thousand army and 300 Leopard tanks, Russia provides an army of 1 million, the largest nuclear forces, a nuclear submarine fleet, a satellite constellation, 1000 fighters, and for the rest of the funds it maintained 250 thousand ground forces, it's ridiculous to talk about corruption .
The military budget of Germany is 56 billion dollars, Russia 65.
Why did everyone decide that the Russian army was supposed to defeat the Ukrainian troops in a week when the ground forces were equal in number, and after 2 months, due to mobilization, Ukraine had an advantage of 2-3 times.
@@milaro222 That was the boast that Putin made, that this would be done in a week. For all the money Russia has spent, why did their truck tries shred after 50 miles, why did their tanks fail so badly when facing Ukrainian infantry with ATGM's. Why are the Russian soldiers scrounging for food, why does Putin direct his missiles at civilian rather than military targets. Russia is fighting like the losing side who is desperate to do anything to change the tide of the war, not at all like someone who expects to beat the military of the country they invaded. If they want to stop this war, just leave Ukraine and it will be over. Why waste your people to try to take something that doesn't belong to you.
And a year later we've learned the Bradley outpaces just about every Russian or old soviet vehicle
It really depends who shoots first
The Russian BMPT Terminator is a Formidable Threat to the Bradley IFV
Terminator is bullshit. Useless big machine, zero profit of battle.
@@guevara2819 the bradley is good for starting fires
BMP-3
Junk
@@hectorlopez1907 Junk eh ? and Bradley is a wonder weapon right ? hehe im not as arogant as you are to say that Bradley is junk its a ok IFV with good armor for a IVF
@@rinneganitachi4840 Bradleys destroy tanks
Thorough comparison. The only problem with comparisons like this is they are based on the reported capabilities by the Russian military, which has proven repeatedly to lie about these capabilities. Drop all the BMP stats by 25% and you would probably have a more realistic comparison.
Your so correct
People discussing possible success of Bradley in Ukraine are talking as if Russians would only have IFVs or MBTs as counter-measure. You are forgetting the fact that they have shitload of artillery, hunter hellies, portable and effective ATGMs, kamikaze drones, mines etc etc. In Iraq Bradley became famous but they were under the wings of best airforce in the world. But in Ukraine they will be metal coffins... Not because they are weak or bad but because other elements of a mechanized war are missing.
BMP-3 is a newer vehicle than M2 Bradley, thus it is technically considered to be of slightly more advanced design. But both IFVs have more than adequate firepower to easily kill the other. So the difference will come down to who can do it at the furthest range, and who can detect the other sooner.
We'll see in the next Ukrainian counteroffensive how the French and American light tank/IFVs fare in battle. I suspect they will lose less IFVs than the Russians judging by this war so far.
@@dylanc9174 All "russian new weapons" are fake for kremlin carnival only.
The Bradley is actually more advanced it has been upgraded a lot so I think when the Bradley’s get to the front line in Ukrainian they will destroy
@@Nooob3775 пиши уже по-русски, а то написал чушь какую-то
@@Nooob3775 It all depend on the version we're giving Ukraine, though. There has been like 10+ iterations of Bradley IFVs, all with different levels of modernization. If we're just handing over Desert Storm era M2s in deep storage, they would certainly be considered less advanced than BMP-3.
Ergonomically and survivability, the Bradley is far superior in both these regard. Track records had shown that when Bradley IFVs were knocked out, its crew often bailed out with minor or no injuries. The infantry was no different, most were alive to disembark quickly through the rear hydraulic hatch.
Contrary to that, the BMP-3s when they were destroyed, often detonated in a fireball due to their high explosive shells, carousel autoloader and relatively thin armor, while crews struggled to disembark with the cramped infantry hatches inside leading to several instances when they were ambushed in the early war, the infantries were killed before successfully organizing themselves. The vehicles afterwards proved to be impossible to recover, as their hulls and turret have all but disappear. The same can be said for the BMD-4 as well, sharing similar systems albeit 10 times worse due to their even thinner armor.
The Bradley destroyed multiple main battle tanks in desert storm and only 3 Bradleys were lost.
Just don't forget how old and rusty was those tanks
🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱
True. Well, this is Ukraine not Irak.
@@SpLitSecondS_ how old? The same T-72 Russia using now
@@StartVisit You need to learn a bit more about what was and used now in both of this wars. Iraq used t54\55, type 69, M84a and some others. T72 and t72m was and still highly capable tanks, but not against next generation tanks and AFV with tanks Radars, Night and Thermal vision + full air superiority + long period of devastated economy, lack of spare parts and maintenance. So in fact yes the t72 was a big threat in open day fight but they was simply destroyed from +3000 km without even seeing the enemy + aviation + tow missiles. There was plenty of reports that iraq tanks wasn't even used in effencively being blind in night. And don't even mention older stuff.. Oh yea they had only old 3bm9 ammo from 1960x
Now Russia - T-72 B3(B3M) modifications and t90m, t80bvm - they have so many upgrades in electronics, new guns, new thermal vision new armor in different variants, new engine e.t.c. that it can take to much time to explain.
If you didn't notice a different I suggest you to look some other than pro Ukraine Rusofobic sources and learn a bit more about reality.
Last winter did you notice the Russian crew members were freezing to death in those things?
Last winter? Hallucination very much?
@@NotUnymous before making stupid questions can you at least check when the war actually started?
Given how 25mm bush master is inferior to 30mm auto cannon, Russian BMP-3 has a slight firepower advantage, not to say it’s 100mm cannon makes it almost a light tank, so I would say BMP-3 would dominate the battlefield if both vehicles are controlled by the crew with similar skills
@Александр Стрельцов It really depends on what kind of round it is, if it is 100mm AP rounds, then it would have a very easy time taking out any IFV and APC’s. Also, BMP-3 has ATGM as well don’t forget
@Александр Стрельцов It isn’t though, it was good against IFV and APC. BMP’s Kormet is also an anti tank guided missile
@Александр Стрельцов you really know nothing about the ammo of bmp3 and why it was created, the 100m cannon shoot atgm ammo that has more penetration than Bradley missiles
The ammo that bmp3 get for it's 100m is HE-FG high explosive fragmentation for infantry and atgms for tanks and stuff the point of making the bmp3 shoot an atgm form it's cannon unlike bmp2 is to have a Chance to counter the new active protection systems that tanks have it now days
Did you forget M2 can launch 2 TOW missiles at 2 different target at once. I heard the Russian took out all night vision off BMP-3 to put it on Putin new Dacha as security system. Now all BMP-3 have search light on them.
@@tomnguyen9931 Oh this could be what happen in some kid's fanfic, but what IS happening is that M2 bradley's armor is getting dismantled to build tesla
Comes down to tactics
BMP -3 better , Bradley good but too tall , make it a bigger target.
Bradley for me.
Some of yall are still living back to 1991 when you thought the U.S was still on top
BMP 3 is like a tin can, its all about its firepower and mobilty . That BMP is aluminium armor and is not rated against any cannon fire
Lmao dude The Bradley HAS ALUMINUM ARMOR and cant withstand anything more then 14.5mm arounds
@@Miami1991 False. Track record speaks for itself.
@@jeebuzcrust False. 3 Bradleys were destroyed and most of the Iraqi's equipment got destroyed without locating the bradleys.
@@patriktoth3346 What are you even trying to say? The M2 has ERA, active protection systems and protection from 30mm frontally. Bradleys led the way and destroyed more tanks than the M1 Abrams.
@@jeebuzcrust APS? Where? ERA? Doesnt matter when it gets hitted by an APFSDS round. And its ukraine not a desert. Even the M113's failed to run during cold-days bro.
Bradley is when you need troops protection and occasional anti-tank capabilities, BMP-3 on the other hand is firepower only vehicle
Bmp3 has better but is under russian command and operated by rusian soldiers in which makes the Bradly no1
I love that logic but you're completely right, the BMP3 should be the better vehicle in most circumstances, hower if you aren't training crews or operating them intelligently they won't last long against modern western weapons.
There seems to be a trend here. American and German systems tend to heavily emphasize communication and coordination. Russian systems seem focused around everyone being a lone wolf. The current Russian tanks don't put much emphasis on communication or situational awareness. The old T34s didn't even have radios.
Great comparison video of two very relevant IFV's.
The Bradley comes off looking very poorly armed next to BMP3 despite the power of the Bushmaster. Did I hear a while back that whole turret and weapons were to be modernised?
Thx for appreciation. Pls share.
So far the BMP 3 isn't faring so well in Ukraine while Russian tankers in their MBTs are actually more scared of the Bradley and have said so many times.
bmp3 explains the current Ukraine and russian war yeah bmp3 is a best tank to hunt and played as a target very nice for practice to the ukranians😂
M113 were a nice target for the russians. Also for the weather. And we cant forget the sand camouflag
The problem with this 100mm gun is that for every reload the barrel need to be lowered and lined for the auto-loader to work. And because the two guns 30mm and 100mm are coaxial this means that both are not stabilized and pointed at target when reloading- no pointed fire from 30mm can be done when need reloading. Anyone who knows that can use it, if after every 100mm shot for 5-6 seconds the bitch is helpless.
Hmm i'll go for the Swedish upgraded CV90 ..
It's the best ifv followed by the bmp3
Biggest catch is that there are thousands of M2s, and a few hundred BMP-3s. Sure, a BMP-3's tank-sized gun and capacity to carry 8 ATGMs would make it the winner in a head to head fight, but IFVs aren't really supposed to be fighting the same kind of armour brawls that old tank movies are made of. If the US properly commits to sending enough bradleys to Ukraine, the sheer number of semi-modern Bradleys will more than make up for the lighter weaponry.
they are not sending thousnds of brads...
Imagine having three weapon systems in a vehicle.. wouldn't that strain your logistics? And with that amount of ammo there's danger of catastrophic explosions as demonstrated by a certain event happening today.
No
You would be surprised, the uniformity of modern rounds (Especially on Russian vehicles as pretty much everything uses either a 7.62x54, 30mm, 100mm or 125) makes logistics surprisingly easy, especially compared to things like Vietnam where guns used extremely diverse calibers. Really it depends on how much ammo the gunner wants to dump before resupply is needed. And comparatively, IFVs don't carry nearly as much ammo as an MBT, as they have to make room for infantry
I choose BMP-3F😊😊😊❤❤❤
The Bradley will play a very important role in Ukraine when the German, British, and now American tanks arrive. I think the Russians under estimate their importance.
Ukrainians are not getting the latest models of the Bradley.
I come from the future and I can confirm... they didn't did too well on the battlefield
@@agentepolaris4914 I come from the future and I can confirm... a t90m was destroyed by the 25mm cannon on the bradley
BMP-3 would win because of its low profile and it’s heavier weapon and better armour than the M2 Bradley. The Bradley is good but the BMP in a real life situation is probably better considering Ukraine we have seen high rate of bmps abandoned not destroyed. High survivability rate makes it a good weapon but the bradly in the other had was destroyed multiple times with no crew escaping.
@Александр Стрельцов yea that would be so fun to see
How can a 30 ton vehicle be better armoured than a 45 ton vehicle? Delusional
@@junkookbts1273 it can be better because it’s faster bigger gun and a better composite armour to protect against heavy machine gun fire. And a high crew survivability. That’s how
@@kgb1632 bigger gun means jack if the Bradley has better fire control and optics.
The Bradley will shoot first and more accurate
@Александр Стрельцов ever heard of UPGRADES ?🤣
wow bmp3 probably has it in the bag
a lot depends on training. a Russian tank crew is lucky to fire one round a year, in the US i have heard up to 35 live rounds
one round a year??? Are you serious? What a BS
What a nonsense. What is your source, BBC , CNN, CNBC? 😂
Ask the Ukrainians how many rounds Russians are allowed to fire in a DAY, let alone a year. Do you really believe the crap you post? LOL
Definitely the BMP-3 is better
The problem here we've never seen the Bradley in a tough combat action unlike the BMP 3
And the BMPs are destroyed severa times in UKrayne
Bruh, this dude is not paying attention to the video lmao. They mention the operation desert storm in the video which bradley took action
The Bradleys are involved in desert storm and if you think they didn't fought in there, they were owning t72s in Irag
I love when people make comments on subjects they obviously know nothing about. The Bradley has been involved in major conflicts almost since its' inception and proven itself time and time again. Ever hear of the battle of 73 Easting of Desert Storm. The largest armor battle of the 20th century which the Bradley quite successfully participated in and even was responsible for more kills than the coveted M1 Abrams MBT. Stop playing video games and read a book once in a while so that you can make comments on subjects you obviously know nothing about at this point in time. SSG. D. Broad U.S.A. Desert Storm Veteran, 7th Corps 1st Inf. Div. 2/66 AR. Reg.
@@dtbroad5862 Respect, British but I still thank you for your service.
The BMP3 sounds impressive on paper, but the big question is, does it actually work?
Most things in russia don't work
If they keep forgetting to close the back doors and hatches, where drones can fly and grenades can fall in, it doesn't make much difference how much armor, speed, or firepower they have. No troop carrier works if the troop never gets where it's going alive.
Mariupol please
Even South Korea bought it, so it works.
We see the usual US poster comments about the assumed superiority of everything American, but at 3-4 times the cost of a BMP-3 the Bradley sure has hell better be superior! But, is it 3-4 times superior? Hardly. One criticism which is proper is the habitability of the BMP-3 being unacceptable, confined, cramped, difficult to enter and leave. This interior would never be acceptable for American armed forces. Russia does need to look into making their armored vehicles more habitable and less cramped-that translates into improved combat performance (and lower risk for the occupants). That is one area where America excels.
16 Bradley's destroyed 😂
84 BMP-3 destroyed 🤑💀
Babe, it's ok. Losing the vehicles in the battle is the common thing. Can you tell me how many bmps were wrecked?
@@elvhulobanegaswhere u get that number 84 BMP 3's
And 513 bmp3 currently lost in the Russian invasion of Ukraine while about 150 Bradley have been destroyed lil bro
Did you mention that due to the carousel system, bmp3 ends up obliterated with the turret flying above it?
Yeah everyone goes on about the autoloader but doesn't that make that happen?
The bmp is simply an overrated target for the Bradley. Anyone who believes differently is merely fooling themselves.
Watching Bradley's burn all over ukraine probably makes you hide in your safe space
The Bradley achieved more tank kills than Abrams MBT in the iraq war...
There should be a category for maintenance and crew ability to operate the vehicle.
Still the bradly hasnt been combat tested in a long time
We shall see it in action pretty soon in ukraine
Tanto los BMP y los Bradley fueron destruidos
I'd have to go with the BMP...
At 30 tons , it is lightly armored compared to the M2
The one that gets the first shot off!
Bradley is better
I think the BMP-3 is better than the Bradley. The BMP has greater range, carries more soldiers and has more firepower.
Bradley all the way.
Appears that the Russian BMP is a lighter but lethal competitor to the Bradley which has a less potent 25mm gun vs a 30mm gun. A M2 - 50 Cal would be a better choice that the 7.62mm machine gun. Although much higher, I believe that the Bradley is larger and better armored than the BMP. I'll bet the electronics of the Bradley is superior. Squad exiting at the rear of the vehicle is better. The BMP is cheaper to produce and less capable for survival for their crew.
Thanks for the Review.
BMP3 wins!👍🇷🇺😍💘💯
Why don't you ask Ukrainian?
Russian weapons suck😆
Bmp 3 cant travel far without breaking down
@@asianmurican3739 Russia weapons terrible. Ask Ukraine.
@@remogatron1010 Nearly all of Ukraines Equipment is of Sovjiet/Russian Origin.
There is a video called, What went wrong. It's on a channel called Task and purpose.
It shows what a death trap the russian bmp is.
As an indian I will go with the Russian BMP-3
It's got better fire power than the American junk.
It depends on the air support they have on the battlefield
Easy answer, The one that is better is the one that shoots first.
The answer to the question of who is better, BMP-3 or Bradley was given by the UAE, they chose the BMP-3, having bought 1000 units. Bradley lost the competition, but the Arabs choose the best for themselves
Power of Bradley is communication and data exchange. In this case, russian BMP is simply blind.
Ukrainian fighters are satisfied with the armored infantry fighting vehicles 3, the 100mm gun is especially good. The vehicle is much better than the obsolete BMP 1 and 2, but the Russian crews are poorly trained and failed to realize its potential. Bradley is exactly what we need to break through the Russian defenses, but in Ukraine there is soft black soil, let's see how such a heavy machine behaves on such soil.
ALL those characteristics mean absolutely nothing. The american jeepopotamus is heavier and only has a machine gun. The Russian machine has a huge cannon and can actually go over rural bridges where most battles are fought. Experience shows that most losses of US armored vehicles happened when bridges or roads collapused under them, often killing or maiming the crew. But all that is irrelevant. What matters is how many of them you have at this particular combat area and how fast they can get themselves and their troops there.
And of course, remember how the yanks spent FIVE YEARS trying to take Basra, and only "succeded" when the Iraqis simply walked away from the leveled city. Same with Mosul. 18 months of incessant storming with tanks, missiles and planes - and zero result. So I suppose the resolve of the defenders matters, too. Attack London or Los Angeles - and they will flee to where they can buy (and use) toilet paper. Attack Moscow - and you will carry your ass back home in your hands.
Infantry Fighting Vehicle are literally translation of Боевая Машина Пехоты in russian. It's kinda sort of amazing itself🤔
The bmp-3 can be also equipped with kornet atgm
I don't see how a "platform" matters as much as its weapon system. And you can mount a weapon system on a Volkswagen if it light enough to be carried by one.
A question so in video they claim BMP-3 hasd teh best survivalbility, but its weight is over 50% more than the BMP3 so the Bradley in my world should have higher survivalbility more armour that is, since its a huge differnce in weight
In Dessert storm the M3 Bradley got kaput by a Russian BMP. 100mm gun,, killing all its crew (You tube video narrated by the tank crew of other Bradleys in the unit) meaning its armor could only protect the crew from smaller caliber weapons.
The Bradley is overall superior, but the BMP-3 is still lethal. Tactics in how the Bradley is used make it superior. As a Bradley Master Gunner, I guess I'm biased, but I've been in a BMP-3. Death trap.
Yep, you're biased
Oh they are using those superior tactics and Bradley's are getting blown up all over ukraine lol
@@patrickd2013 watching Bradley's explode is funny after reading all these moronic comments
It’s who sees who first and shoots first
I will go with the Russian BMP, 1) Its amphibious meaning mobility and capability 2) Its role in an urban fighting setting is better than the M3 Bradley. Its main gun can punch through concrete walls the Bradley cant, that is what a IFV does right? And in an urban conflict that is a MUST NEED. rather than letting your MBT do it for you. 3) Its easy to maintain and operate. 4) In has a better chance of engaging an enemy main battle tank or better chance of survival. During the Siege of the City of Hue Vietnam 1968? as well as the Marawi Philippines in 2017?, the US Army used the 105 anti anti tank gun to neutralized the enemy hiding from concrete walls., the Philippine army procured a light tank armed with a 105 mm gun, afterwards, because they encountered the same problem in an urban conflict situation
bmp3 is the king
It took 8 minutes to read the specs and then didn't even attempt to answer the question posed in the clickbait title. Waste of time.
I've seen some dumb arguements so i want to set some things rigth
All bmp3's have thermal for the gunner
Bmp3's are not ment to take on heavy mines and atgm's its a ifv the bradly also wouldnt survive
The bradly fougth under equiped and under trained export bmp1's and bmp2's, no shit that the bradly would win
M2 is better for sure. It has steel amour, instead of aluminium armour of BMP. The most important thing is TOW missiles.
BMP were destroyed so many units in ukraine.
People seem to be comparing the success of the Bradley during the Iraq war with the conflict in Ukraine. People seem to forget the US and it’s allies fought against a very weak Iraqi army that was totally crippled by the a very long conflict with Iran and sanctions. Many of Iraqs best air, armor and infantry units were gone by the time of the 1st gulf war.
Crippled?? Lol....Crippled armies dont successfully invade and occupy its neighbors.. Iraq had the 5th largest tank army in the world, was battle hardened from years of conflict, and well defended-Baghdad had the most heavily defended layered air defences on earth..
Soviet officials claimed Iraq "could not be defeated" by anyone including themselves....This during a time the Soviet equipment was still considered the equivalent of anything produced in the west..Luckily, it was positioned in a convenient easy to access place to invade....ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GLOBE..
The fact the coalition made it look so easy to comprehensively dismantle Saddam's military-in such a short time....shows how powerful the coalition was-NOT how inept and ineffective the Iraqis were...
Don't confuse the strength of Iraq of the early 90's with its position in 2003 when it was a shadow of what it once was...
I’m from Ukraine, and reading the comments I just laugh, how people who don’t understand what’s happening here write about the fact that Bradley will help us. Your Bradley, these are burning boxes for Russian infantry fighting vehicles, Bradley in the first place gets stuck in the mud, any infantry fighting vehicle of Russia that, first of all, passes through passable, powerful, larger caliber, and a well-trained crew.The US just gives us a fly swatter against an elephant. All these Bradleys will be destroyed or simply broken. That's a fact.Russia has already destroyed almost all Himars, all British self-propelled guns and the rest. This shit does not work in Ukraine because all that they give us is shit compared to weapons to Russia.
This is how the destruction of your Bradleys will take place. A drone flies up, detects Bradleys, rockets fly there and the end is the most elementary, the second is tanks, the third is RPGs,kamikaze combat drones, air bombs, all this is clearly coordinated and tactically thought out.
In such a car, everything depends on the coherence of the crew, and we won’t have it, which is why all this shit that you bring to us is lost when we need tanks, planes, air defense.
And yes, Bradley fucking destroyed tanks in Iraq just because they were standing behind the Abrams, that's all.Fighting Russia is not for you to fight the Papuans in Iraq. Remember this right away before writing garIraq. So they would be the end of the T72.So you better lay on the sofas and just watch these fucking boxes burn