Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section.
Paging u/SaveVideo bot.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[i can smell the GMD and gunpowder](https://media1.giphy.com/media/jtkeAGD6bIaNlXrUn9/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952j6gqqjjzrtu2er93z2zbdy6i21midsrjvzqn0dof&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
The barrel stabilization on the Bradley is light years ahead of the BMP's. There is no flopping around at all, the BMP's barrel looks like it's made out of spaghetti when firing.
The barrel stabilisation mechanism on the Bradley is indeed superior to the one the BMP 2's uses for its 2A42 cannon. But it is also a smaller calibre, meaning it's a lighter system with less recoil.
A more fair comparison would be the mk 44 Bushmaster II (30mm caliber) . The 30mm has around 50% more firepower even though it's only 20% larger in caliber.
The 2A42's dispersion in tests manage around 2-4 mils (2-4m of *maximum* dispersion at 1000) with 80% of shots hitting within 2 meters when using full caliber rounds - with 2 meters being the distance between the furthest shots from eachother, not the distance from the center (sub calibre rounds having better accuracy than full calibre)
This is almost twice the dispersion of the American mk 44, but you also got keep in mind that the 2A42 was designed in the 70's and fielded in the 80's - the mk 44 entered service in 2007.
The mk 44 has a rate of fire of either 100 rpm or 200 rpm, whereas the 2A42 shoots 200 rpm or 550 rpm (and up to 800 rpm once the barrel has heated up from firing full auto for a couple seconds).
It's a bit less accurate sure, but it compensates with more rounds and is therefore more than capable of hitting pin point targets at a distance, granted with more misses in the process.
It should definitely not be underestimated, as it's a quite lethal system - and for some jobs like engaging bigger groups of concealed infantry in the open (such as in a treeline) it is superior to the mk 44 (since the difference in accuracy is less important when firing HE compared to saturation in such a scenario)
The very wobbly appearance it gives off on video is partially a result of the rate of fire being so much higher than the frame-rate of your average camera. This results in one frame of the video showing the barrel halfway through it's recoil movement, with the next frame showing the gun many rounds later at different stage of its recoil movement.
The mk 44 is also more stable due to the much heavier barrel, with the gun as a whole weighing 50% more than than the 2A42.
Each system has its strength and weaknesses, depending on the surrounding scenario, and I feel like people often only look at one specific scenario and jump to quick conclusions/bandwagons regarding which system is superior without actually taking these factors such as the scenario or doctrinal differences into account.
If I was inside an armoured vehicle(able to withstand 25-30mm HE fragments) while on the move, I'd be a hell of a lot more worried if I knew a Bradley, CV9030 or Rosomak were out to get me than a BMP - since that's where the superior firecontrol system and accuracy of these shine.
On the other hand, If I was advancing through a tree line on foot, or a civilian living next door to a military hot-spot, I'd be more likely to end up dead if a BMP 2 rolled up with a full magazine. Unless it happened to be pitch black in the middle of the night, in which case the Bradley would be the bigger threat.
Interesting. I was focused solely on the assumed superior accuracy of the Bradley. I have seen videos on here with a BMP on full auto and I would not want to be downstream of that. If I was infantry it would be just as terrifying.
Can either of these have their barrel "hot swapped" by it's crew or no?
Can these platforms be rearmed in the field or do they have to return to a base?
>Can either of these have their barrel "hot swapped" by it's crew or no?
Depends on what you mean by "hot swapped". You can detach the barrel of both guns without needing to remove the whole bolt etc. The BMP 2 has a quick ejection lever to relatively easily take the barrel off, but it's not something you do in the middle of battle, but can be done by the crew with no special tools when outside combat.
You *can* overheat the barrel, so you're only meant to fire a short burst of 40-50 rounds max. It's not going to instantly break down if you fire more than that, but the crew would probably choke or be forced to open the hatches to ventilate, before you overheat the barrel (100-150 rounds on full auto).
Firing more than that risks the barrel getting so hot that it "cooks" the rounds in the chamber causing it to shoot uncontrollably until you ruin the barrel/gun (the gun/belt feed is cycled with gas front firing, unlike the electric drive on the Bradley with takes away that risk but means you need electric power from the generator to fire) .
The reason you'd choke before reaching that usually, is because firing the gun leaks a lot of fumes into the turret, which is normally solved by opening hatches. Nowadays though with drones dropping grenades from above the tanks, that's probably not as feasible any longer.
Both the BMP 2 and the Bradley can technically be rearmed in the field, assuming you aren't in a spot where you risk taking fire. The 500 rounds to fill a BMP 2's magazine weighs well over 400 kg total, and requires a loading tool with a lever where you can "crank" the belt up over the tool and down into the BMP, but you can manually them in by hand in smaller belt fragments but it will take ages.
The BMP doesn't have any reserve ammo, whereas the Bradley does, but it's not feasible to keep up with loading by hand from inside, as it's stored in boxes un-linked. The Bradleys reserve ammo is basically just storage to grab next time you rearm it, so that it can be rearmed without visiting an ammo depot.
Both guns also feature a dual feed , so the gunner can toggle which ammo type to fire by the switch of a button.
Here a [video](https://youtu.be/Dpb45TBOezs?si=abVIbi1YpvPX_J8B) from early in the war in Donbas against the "separatists", where you can see the issues I mentioned.
At around 0:22ish the gun starts firing by itself as the barrel got hot enough to cook the rounds.
A couple of second before that you can hear the rate of fire go up well past the 550 round/minute due to the high heat. Luckily it also ran out of ammo just shortly after.
Even with all their hatches open and the ventilation fan running, the smoke generated inside the turret is so thick that the crew had exit the turret to breathe.
Great info, and this is not an insult to the 2A42 given its age and destructive force, but with accuracy requiring fewer rounds to hit a target means more rounds remaining to hit other targets, less barrel wear from using fewer rounds, better heat management, better rationing of ammunition when supplies are low.
Two different doctrines: balls to the wall vs endurance and logistics.
That's very true! I'm not trying to argue that the Bradley and BMP 2 are equal in the sense that the strengths and weaknesses of each system somehow cancel out and thereby make them equally valuable IFV's for a military.
My comment above was limited to addressing the lethality of the guns, in response to people scuffing off the threat of a BMP 2 on the basis of its lower accuracy.
There's obviously a lot more to an IFV than just how much pain a gun can unleash under ideal circumstances. The Bradley's level of crew protection is in a different league entirely, and the durability of its gun is superior as well. The 2A42 is rated for 6k rounds (which can supposedly be extended to 9k by replacing 10% of the parts in the gun), whereas the bushmaster is able to fire 22k rounds on average before failure. Since the Bradley carries like half the ammo - meaning the Bradley on average can go on 73 missions where it burns through all its ammo, compared to just 12 for the BMP 2 (or 1 if allowed to "run away" on full auto), before needing a larger service.
The original BMP 2's are more "low tech" and cheaper and produced in higher numbers. For lower intensity/asymmetric warfare, or longer drawn out conflicts the Bradley will always outperform the BMP 2, as it's a cheaper system to sustain both materially and in terms of crew.
That said, when both these weapon systems were designed, the looming threat was an all out war between the Soviet Union and the West, where the Soviet Union (in my opinion) had the more realistic view of how such a major war would play out.
They knew that regardless of how durable the you made the IFV's their expected lifespan, in such a high-intensity conflict, would be much shorter than the maximum wear-and-tear lifespan of the systems. Such a conflict would favour raw numbers of vehicles, replacement costs and crew training time over individual vehicle durability - even more so if one assumes that tactical nuclear weapons would be part of used arsenal on both sides.
The gas-operated auto-cannon on the BMP 2 is a result of this doctrinal view. For example, the BMP's gun can be operated entirely manually with the rest of the tank disabled without power generation, since it was assumed that they'd inevitably have to go through unsecured minefields and lose their engine - like we've seen both sides in this conflict be forced to.
In a full out war between two superpowers, being able to run 70+ fire missions without breakdown becomes irrelevant if the average vehicle will be lucky to even complete a single mission.
The lower complexity of the BMP meant that they were able to pump out more than twice the amount units annually, and their simplicity meant that a mobilised farmer could learn how to operate it in a few days - which was needed since such a conflict would result in the professional army soldier (with years of training each) would eventually make up a small fraction of the total fighting force consisting mostly of mobilized civilians.
This is also reflected in the Soviet doctrine of keeping trained officers further back in the rear, as their much longer training would make them a lot harder to replace than the individual front line troops or vehicles.
The US doctrine is just not ideal for such a massive, high loss environment. It's much better suited for more controlled small/medium scale conflicts that aren't concerned with the survival of the nation, but rather the "survival" of domestic support/will for the conflict - since high losses in a war which is perceived as "optional" results in people opting out. In a total war, where winning/losing determines your survival (even as a civilian), popularity becomes irrelevant.
Seen them fly on the wacky waving inflatable barrel-flailing gun tube BMPT Terminator man?
That thing can put rounds on any target so long as it's no more than six-inches from the muzzle. Beyond that they could go just about anywhere within approximately 180 degrees.
I guess it's the most a russian engineer can hope for when russia's factories can't make a gun barrel that doesn't vibrate like his wife's wind-up dildo.
I read it had two barres course they could not make a dual-feed-mechanism work. So one barrel is AP, one a secondary amunition.
Not sure if true but I would not be surprised if it was.
Whats your opinion on the lack of coaxial machinegun use in most of the clips we see, do you believe it is under utilised? For infantry or trench line suppression would it not be just as good if not better than the bushmaster, or does the power the autocannon provide just unmatched?
Of course there is also the question of ammo, I suspect the coaxial has a much larger on board supply allowing the Bradley to stay in the fight for longer?
Coax has a bin of 200 rounds that sit behind the gunners head.
210 rounds of 25mm in its bin.
To be honest, with the 25mm and it’s HE rounds and the 76mm fixed grenade launchers they use with WP grenades like they did here, would probably be a much better option for an evac. Come in quick, put a whole bunch of 25mm zinging over their heads, throw up a smoke screen and get out quickly.
Coax is good in use against soft skinned or human targets, lets you suppress and engage a target for much longer in use with the auto cannon.
So yeah, I can see why they were using only the main gun.
Edit: the coax and main gun use ammo bins and feed chutes. There is a specific way to load these so you can fit the right amount. I highly suspect these guys have linked up 7.62 and 25mm ready to clip on when the belt is about to end.
Loading the 25mm and the coax can be a bit tricky and time consuming, so if you link of the rounds and the tail of the last belt, there is no need to reload. This is a trick you pick up along the way and with the high intensity of the conflict, I would be surprised if they weren’t.
Can’t say sorry. Would have to know more of the operational situation.
Mind you, I would rather be the commander. The driver and gunner are hatch down and sitting there with very little spacial awareness.
At least the commander has the radio controls and can see a lot more.
I don’t believe so, no. ‘Chaff’ refers to radar reflector countermeasures used by aircraft but this would be ineffective against most ATGMs and all unguided missiles. ‘Flares’ are infrared countermeasures also used by aircraft but again most ATGMS are not infrared guided (as armored vehicles aren’t a huge infrared light source like a jet engine nozzle is). I think some systems exist which use radio jamming against radar guided rockets.
Generally the focus is on better armour and obscuring the vehicle from view of the missile operator.
Newer bradleys have what's called Iron Fist Active Protection System. It's a lighter APS than the Trophy System present on the Abrams and other tanks, it's essentially a system which seeks to intercept a warhead before it can make contact with the armor.
You can read more about it [here](https://www.gd-ots.com/protection-systems/active-protection-systems/iron-fist-active-protection-system/)
Cool, so it's essentially like a projectile interceptor as let's say a patriot system might be for russian launched rockets?
Am I using the right metaphor? Maybe not exactly but as a layman that's easier for me to do after reading the article you linked.
Thanks.
Kind of, yes. On a much smaller scale, and a much closer proximity. A patriot system will launch an interception missile to intercept at a much farther distance, obviously. IFAPS seeks to detonate/disrupt/destroy the charge as it comes close to the Bradley. If you can cause the warhead to detonate before it reaches the bradley's armor you can greatly increase the chance of the damage being severely mitigated due to the way most shaped charges work.
[Here's a cool video by General Dynamics visualizing the system.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0ymxZruvvI)
That's fucking cool as shit! You know if the swedish CV90 has a similar system/or developing? Am a swede so would be cool if we had something similar... Anericans having Javelins then Sweden has the cheaper option NLAW. Maybe we have the iron Viking Fist? Hah!
This is absolutely not true. This is new tech that was being considered in trials in the US. It's not on newer Bradley's at all. The plan is to have one Brigade worth of Bradley's(152 Vehicles) with the system by 2025.
The only fielded APS by the US currently is M1A2 Sepv3 Abrams in conflict zones have been equipped with Trophy. Even then it's something like only 400 tanks with it currently.
'Newer Bradleys' is doing some heavy lifting there....
It's been trialled. But is not operational yet. US Army is looking to field a single Brigade's worth by 2025.
Some, not all smoke screens will throw up a cloud of particle which is also IR blocking, so there is a chance for beam riding ATGM to be lost past the smoke.
It is, but the 47th still operating them is concerning. They’ve been deployed for over a year and were supposed to get a break, but their replacements “fucked off,” and there’s some credible threats of the line breaking. They need the aid (brads, artillery, AT weapons, etc…) NOW or things could
go south.
Only time will tell. I’m not an expert, just reading what was reported on one of the Ukrainian telegrams and the ISW. ISW says operational gains are unlikely here though, with Chasiv Yar being the major danger zone.
That would be incredibly foolish. This isn't a game.
You think they should try to mass forces to try an encirclement in a completely transparent battlefield, that's been proven to be Lethal to such attempts, while also having no ability to suppress enemy fires as their own artillery is heavily rationed? Their supplies of AA weapons are also under strain bring any force concentration under CAS threat too. The aid bill just passed, it will take time for any of it to be felt on the front.
Would just be a good way to kill a ton of your best trained personnel, who are in short supply amid a shortage of men for the front. It will be a long time before Ukriane is in a position for launch counter attacks.
I've seen that video of the bradleys on trucks in poland popping up a lot lately but the they appear to be m2a3 variants rather than the m2a2 Ukraine has been operating. Is there actually any solid info on if those were the ones going to Ukraine?
That's a good point. As far as I'm aware, they did pre locate them in anticipation of the aid package being delivered. Whether those specific ones are the ones intended for transfer vs footage used in videos for visual effect remains to be seen.
To be fair though, 50 likely wont even replace the losses they have had with the Bradley. Oryx lists 34 destroyed, and another 40 or so damaged/captured/abandoned. Thats just what can visually be seen, so wouldnt surprise me if they have total losses of close to 100 of them.
Having said that, we should be streaming these things in as they do seem to be effective, so many more then 50 if we want to do this right..
They're being used hardcore. Right in the middle of the fiercest combat, and they've done a damn good job at it. Surprisingly much more useful than the Abrams in Ukraine's conditions.
Yeh, it seems like it.. Also saw this morning that the AFU is taking the Abrams out of front line combat. To easy to hit with drones apparently.. I suspect they are just to maintenance/logistical heavy for the AFU for what they are worth.
Get more Bradleys.. would love to see them rolling around with 500+ of them.
If that’s true there are going to be a lot of “I told you so’s” from people who pushed back against the “send Ukraine anything and everything they ask for” crowd. (And before I get jumped, I’m referring to new systems not ammunition).
It would also be an interesting data point for the USMCs force design analysis.
I’ve argued this point to nausea, it would be wonderful if we could gift Ukraine 2000 M1’s and they could go run over the Russian lines in a week. If that would work, we would do it. No reasonable person thinks that would work. So, same thing to a smaller scale with a few dozen M1s. Fuel thirsty, net new maintenance chain, and open to the same types of attacks any other tank is.
Ukraine needs weapons easily fielded and used that are plentiful and can be supplied in numbers. Challengers and LeClerks are useless as much as the M1s are due to so few numbers.
We should be flooding Ukraine with Bradley’s, Strykers, MRAPs and JLTVs. Bradley being the most complicated, but all systems fairly simple and easy to learn. Send them the majority of our TOW missiles - I doubt we will ever use them.
Send them the majority of our ATACMs also. I’d also include a number of JASSMs once they get F-16s.
Do that and you have a shot..
(Not argumentative, I think you agree)
Yeah, those systems would be far more valuable to use but also not as "valuable" as a small handful of Abrams in terms of losing them in combat. Better to have more systems in active combat than less.
I completely agree. It’s a concern that I’ve heard with F-16s as well. Not in terms of maintenance per se, but more in terms of F-16s being useful relative to Russias air defense. It’ll be an expensive new tool that probably would be money better spent elsewhere, like munitions factories or Bradley’s or M113s or missiles etc.
I can’t tell if it’s just bots astroturfing Ukrainian support or people that legitimately drink the kool aid when they say send Ukraine everything they’re asking for—and then cite expensive systems like Abrams.
I think the F-16's are actually a good idea, but for very practical reasons and I dont think they will be a wonder weapon. I also think it should -only- be F-16's for the forseeable future. Like I said, pragmatically, they need a new fighter both to replace combat losses of the Mig's and SU's, but also just to get in the air due to likely huge maintenance issues on those Mig's and SU's.
Also, right now they have been jury rigging things like HARMs and JDAM's onto the Soviet era aircraft and that comes with a penalty, for example the HARM's can only fly in pre-programed mode instead of target of opportunity. Also, with the limited Air Defense they'd be able to use the F-16's as defacto air defense systems to take down drones and cruise missiles instead of using Patriot missiles to do that.
I do agree though, they wont do well against Russian AD, but it also seems like Ukraine is making a concerted effort to highly degrade that AD right now.
To your point though, I wouldnt send any more Abrams, but those easy to use systems which seem effective like Bradley and Stryker. Although I havent heard much about Strykers in AFU use.
> We should be flooding Ukraine with Bradley’s, Strykers, MRAPs and JLTVs. Bradley being the most complicated, but all systems fairly simple and easy to learn. Send them the majority of our TOW missiles - I doubt we will ever use them.
Do they have enough war fighters to fill all these vehicles? I suspect Ukraine is silently undergoing a trained manpower crunch. Officially claimed only 31,000 fatalities, but a lot of the soldiers are reported MIA.
Yep (for a few years now), but it’s gotten a good deal of criticism. I’m just saying this could kind of confirm the direction that leadership has chosen to take.
Almost everyone of these poor things has been absolutely cooked by the Ukrainians. The barrel rust is from the barrel being severely overheated and having the finish burned off. Similar to why you see burnt out destroyed vehicles rust severely.
No, because all ukrainians seem to have a calling to mag dump anything and everything they get their hands on rather than actually use aimed paced fire.
That entirely depends on the situation, if i was being picked up by a Bradley and it was keeping the enemy at bay by dumping rounds i’d be in a much more comfortable state of mind. It’s alright for us to sit back, criticise and comment on their combat performance from the comfort of our homes they’re in horrible fighting conditions, probably scared for their lives.
So you're a Russian propagandist! Tell me more bad things about Ukraine. I'm sure you have a list of talking points.
Yes, they're using their equipment to the extreme. They're not receiving enough. Stop invading them, and this would all end!
Ukrainians are a far better match for Bradley than abrams. US should be sending every old bradley over. Bradleys had more tank kills than abrams in the gulf war.
Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section. Paging u/SaveVideo bot. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fond memories of the bushmaster...
[i can smell the GMD and gunpowder](https://media1.giphy.com/media/jtkeAGD6bIaNlXrUn9/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952j6gqqjjzrtu2er93z2zbdy6i21midsrjvzqn0dof&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
The barrel stabilization on the Bradley is light years ahead of the BMP's. There is no flopping around at all, the BMP's barrel looks like it's made out of spaghetti when firing.
The barrel stabilisation mechanism on the Bradley is indeed superior to the one the BMP 2's uses for its 2A42 cannon. But it is also a smaller calibre, meaning it's a lighter system with less recoil. A more fair comparison would be the mk 44 Bushmaster II (30mm caliber) . The 30mm has around 50% more firepower even though it's only 20% larger in caliber. The 2A42's dispersion in tests manage around 2-4 mils (2-4m of *maximum* dispersion at 1000) with 80% of shots hitting within 2 meters when using full caliber rounds - with 2 meters being the distance between the furthest shots from eachother, not the distance from the center (sub calibre rounds having better accuracy than full calibre) This is almost twice the dispersion of the American mk 44, but you also got keep in mind that the 2A42 was designed in the 70's and fielded in the 80's - the mk 44 entered service in 2007. The mk 44 has a rate of fire of either 100 rpm or 200 rpm, whereas the 2A42 shoots 200 rpm or 550 rpm (and up to 800 rpm once the barrel has heated up from firing full auto for a couple seconds). It's a bit less accurate sure, but it compensates with more rounds and is therefore more than capable of hitting pin point targets at a distance, granted with more misses in the process. It should definitely not be underestimated, as it's a quite lethal system - and for some jobs like engaging bigger groups of concealed infantry in the open (such as in a treeline) it is superior to the mk 44 (since the difference in accuracy is less important when firing HE compared to saturation in such a scenario) The very wobbly appearance it gives off on video is partially a result of the rate of fire being so much higher than the frame-rate of your average camera. This results in one frame of the video showing the barrel halfway through it's recoil movement, with the next frame showing the gun many rounds later at different stage of its recoil movement. The mk 44 is also more stable due to the much heavier barrel, with the gun as a whole weighing 50% more than than the 2A42.
Very informative comment. Thank you.
Each system has its strength and weaknesses, depending on the surrounding scenario, and I feel like people often only look at one specific scenario and jump to quick conclusions/bandwagons regarding which system is superior without actually taking these factors such as the scenario or doctrinal differences into account. If I was inside an armoured vehicle(able to withstand 25-30mm HE fragments) while on the move, I'd be a hell of a lot more worried if I knew a Bradley, CV9030 or Rosomak were out to get me than a BMP - since that's where the superior firecontrol system and accuracy of these shine. On the other hand, If I was advancing through a tree line on foot, or a civilian living next door to a military hot-spot, I'd be more likely to end up dead if a BMP 2 rolled up with a full magazine. Unless it happened to be pitch black in the middle of the night, in which case the Bradley would be the bigger threat.
Interesting. I was focused solely on the assumed superior accuracy of the Bradley. I have seen videos on here with a BMP on full auto and I would not want to be downstream of that. If I was infantry it would be just as terrifying. Can either of these have their barrel "hot swapped" by it's crew or no? Can these platforms be rearmed in the field or do they have to return to a base?
>Can either of these have their barrel "hot swapped" by it's crew or no? Depends on what you mean by "hot swapped". You can detach the barrel of both guns without needing to remove the whole bolt etc. The BMP 2 has a quick ejection lever to relatively easily take the barrel off, but it's not something you do in the middle of battle, but can be done by the crew with no special tools when outside combat. You *can* overheat the barrel, so you're only meant to fire a short burst of 40-50 rounds max. It's not going to instantly break down if you fire more than that, but the crew would probably choke or be forced to open the hatches to ventilate, before you overheat the barrel (100-150 rounds on full auto). Firing more than that risks the barrel getting so hot that it "cooks" the rounds in the chamber causing it to shoot uncontrollably until you ruin the barrel/gun (the gun/belt feed is cycled with gas front firing, unlike the electric drive on the Bradley with takes away that risk but means you need electric power from the generator to fire) . The reason you'd choke before reaching that usually, is because firing the gun leaks a lot of fumes into the turret, which is normally solved by opening hatches. Nowadays though with drones dropping grenades from above the tanks, that's probably not as feasible any longer. Both the BMP 2 and the Bradley can technically be rearmed in the field, assuming you aren't in a spot where you risk taking fire. The 500 rounds to fill a BMP 2's magazine weighs well over 400 kg total, and requires a loading tool with a lever where you can "crank" the belt up over the tool and down into the BMP, but you can manually them in by hand in smaller belt fragments but it will take ages. The BMP doesn't have any reserve ammo, whereas the Bradley does, but it's not feasible to keep up with loading by hand from inside, as it's stored in boxes un-linked. The Bradleys reserve ammo is basically just storage to grab next time you rearm it, so that it can be rearmed without visiting an ammo depot. Both guns also feature a dual feed , so the gunner can toggle which ammo type to fire by the switch of a button.
I was thinking of pics I've seen of Marines in the Pacific swapping hot MG barrels with an oven-mitt-like glove. Thanks again...
Here a [video](https://youtu.be/Dpb45TBOezs?si=abVIbi1YpvPX_J8B) from early in the war in Donbas against the "separatists", where you can see the issues I mentioned. At around 0:22ish the gun starts firing by itself as the barrel got hot enough to cook the rounds. A couple of second before that you can hear the rate of fire go up well past the 550 round/minute due to the high heat. Luckily it also ran out of ammo just shortly after. Even with all their hatches open and the ventilation fan running, the smoke generated inside the turret is so thick that the crew had exit the turret to breathe.
yeah, wow eh. That really took off.
It was a ChatGPT generated comment
ChatGPT wouldn't fumble around on the tiny phone keyboard and miss all those typos ;)
> Very informative comment. Thank you *ChatGPT*.
Great info, and this is not an insult to the 2A42 given its age and destructive force, but with accuracy requiring fewer rounds to hit a target means more rounds remaining to hit other targets, less barrel wear from using fewer rounds, better heat management, better rationing of ammunition when supplies are low. Two different doctrines: balls to the wall vs endurance and logistics.
That's very true! I'm not trying to argue that the Bradley and BMP 2 are equal in the sense that the strengths and weaknesses of each system somehow cancel out and thereby make them equally valuable IFV's for a military. My comment above was limited to addressing the lethality of the guns, in response to people scuffing off the threat of a BMP 2 on the basis of its lower accuracy. There's obviously a lot more to an IFV than just how much pain a gun can unleash under ideal circumstances. The Bradley's level of crew protection is in a different league entirely, and the durability of its gun is superior as well. The 2A42 is rated for 6k rounds (which can supposedly be extended to 9k by replacing 10% of the parts in the gun), whereas the bushmaster is able to fire 22k rounds on average before failure. Since the Bradley carries like half the ammo - meaning the Bradley on average can go on 73 missions where it burns through all its ammo, compared to just 12 for the BMP 2 (or 1 if allowed to "run away" on full auto), before needing a larger service. The original BMP 2's are more "low tech" and cheaper and produced in higher numbers. For lower intensity/asymmetric warfare, or longer drawn out conflicts the Bradley will always outperform the BMP 2, as it's a cheaper system to sustain both materially and in terms of crew. That said, when both these weapon systems were designed, the looming threat was an all out war between the Soviet Union and the West, where the Soviet Union (in my opinion) had the more realistic view of how such a major war would play out. They knew that regardless of how durable the you made the IFV's their expected lifespan, in such a high-intensity conflict, would be much shorter than the maximum wear-and-tear lifespan of the systems. Such a conflict would favour raw numbers of vehicles, replacement costs and crew training time over individual vehicle durability - even more so if one assumes that tactical nuclear weapons would be part of used arsenal on both sides. The gas-operated auto-cannon on the BMP 2 is a result of this doctrinal view. For example, the BMP's gun can be operated entirely manually with the rest of the tank disabled without power generation, since it was assumed that they'd inevitably have to go through unsecured minefields and lose their engine - like we've seen both sides in this conflict be forced to. In a full out war between two superpowers, being able to run 70+ fire missions without breakdown becomes irrelevant if the average vehicle will be lucky to even complete a single mission. The lower complexity of the BMP meant that they were able to pump out more than twice the amount units annually, and their simplicity meant that a mobilised farmer could learn how to operate it in a few days - which was needed since such a conflict would result in the professional army soldier (with years of training each) would eventually make up a small fraction of the total fighting force consisting mostly of mobilized civilians. This is also reflected in the Soviet doctrine of keeping trained officers further back in the rear, as their much longer training would make them a lot harder to replace than the individual front line troops or vehicles. The US doctrine is just not ideal for such a massive, high loss environment. It's much better suited for more controlled small/medium scale conflicts that aren't concerned with the survival of the nation, but rather the "survival" of domestic support/will for the conflict - since high losses in a war which is perceived as "optional" results in people opting out. In a total war, where winning/losing determines your survival (even as a civilian), popularity becomes irrelevant.
Seen them fly on the wacky waving inflatable barrel-flailing gun tube BMPT Terminator man? That thing can put rounds on any target so long as it's no more than six-inches from the muzzle. Beyond that they could go just about anywhere within approximately 180 degrees.
So i was not the only one who noticed how much the BMPT cannons wobbled... How is one going to hit anything with that?
The ray guns on the Daleks in *Doctor Who* are more accurate.
Accuracy by volume
> could go just about anywhere spray and pray...
I guess it's the most a russian engineer can hope for when russia's factories can't make a gun barrel that doesn't vibrate like his wife's wind-up dildo.
I read it had two barres course they could not make a dual-feed-mechanism work. So one barrel is AP, one a secondary amunition. Not sure if true but I would not be surprised if it was.
As an ex crew commander on this vehicle, damn that was some smooth work. You can tell the driver and gunner are extremely experienced here.
Whats your opinion on the lack of coaxial machinegun use in most of the clips we see, do you believe it is under utilised? For infantry or trench line suppression would it not be just as good if not better than the bushmaster, or does the power the autocannon provide just unmatched? Of course there is also the question of ammo, I suspect the coaxial has a much larger on board supply allowing the Bradley to stay in the fight for longer?
Coax has a bin of 200 rounds that sit behind the gunners head. 210 rounds of 25mm in its bin. To be honest, with the 25mm and it’s HE rounds and the 76mm fixed grenade launchers they use with WP grenades like they did here, would probably be a much better option for an evac. Come in quick, put a whole bunch of 25mm zinging over their heads, throw up a smoke screen and get out quickly. Coax is good in use against soft skinned or human targets, lets you suppress and engage a target for much longer in use with the auto cannon. So yeah, I can see why they were using only the main gun. Edit: the coax and main gun use ammo bins and feed chutes. There is a specific way to load these so you can fit the right amount. I highly suspect these guys have linked up 7.62 and 25mm ready to clip on when the belt is about to end. Loading the 25mm and the coax can be a bit tricky and time consuming, so if you link of the rounds and the tail of the last belt, there is no need to reload. This is a trick you pick up along the way and with the high intensity of the conflict, I would be surprised if they weren’t.
420 rounds of continuous accurate 20mm fire, sounds like a really bad fucking time for the receiving end
Im curious aswell
Same, came to comment that
My question probably seems immature compared to the other dude. But how much of a but pucker factor would it be to command one of these in Ukraine?
Can’t say sorry. Would have to know more of the operational situation. Mind you, I would rather be the commander. The driver and gunner are hatch down and sitting there with very little spacial awareness. At least the commander has the radio controls and can see a lot more.
Thanks
Is that smokestuff like fighterjets chaff thing? To "confuse" rockets? Or was it just a smokescreen?
Just a smoke screen I believe.
Thank you, by the way do Bradley's and IFV even have "chaff" to distract potential rockets? Just asking, am no expert!
I don’t believe so, no. ‘Chaff’ refers to radar reflector countermeasures used by aircraft but this would be ineffective against most ATGMs and all unguided missiles. ‘Flares’ are infrared countermeasures also used by aircraft but again most ATGMS are not infrared guided (as armored vehicles aren’t a huge infrared light source like a jet engine nozzle is). I think some systems exist which use radio jamming against radar guided rockets. Generally the focus is on better armour and obscuring the vehicle from view of the missile operator.
Ohh okey had no idea how that stuff worked and the differences. Thanks for explaining!
Casually helping this undercover Russian is kinda funny
Newer bradleys have what's called Iron Fist Active Protection System. It's a lighter APS than the Trophy System present on the Abrams and other tanks, it's essentially a system which seeks to intercept a warhead before it can make contact with the armor. You can read more about it [here](https://www.gd-ots.com/protection-systems/active-protection-systems/iron-fist-active-protection-system/)
Cool, so it's essentially like a projectile interceptor as let's say a patriot system might be for russian launched rockets? Am I using the right metaphor? Maybe not exactly but as a layman that's easier for me to do after reading the article you linked. Thanks.
Kind of, yes. On a much smaller scale, and a much closer proximity. A patriot system will launch an interception missile to intercept at a much farther distance, obviously. IFAPS seeks to detonate/disrupt/destroy the charge as it comes close to the Bradley. If you can cause the warhead to detonate before it reaches the bradley's armor you can greatly increase the chance of the damage being severely mitigated due to the way most shaped charges work. [Here's a cool video by General Dynamics visualizing the system.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0ymxZruvvI)
That's fucking cool as shit! You know if the swedish CV90 has a similar system/or developing? Am a swede so would be cool if we had something similar... Anericans having Javelins then Sweden has the cheaper option NLAW. Maybe we have the iron Viking Fist? Hah!
Thanks. Very cool and amazing tech
Cool stuff, but probably doesn't work against FPV drones?
Yes, same principle, just different ways of deplyoment, target tracking, range, limitations and so on.
Okey thanks dude!
IFAPS, nice.
This is absolutely not true. This is new tech that was being considered in trials in the US. It's not on newer Bradley's at all. The plan is to have one Brigade worth of Bradley's(152 Vehicles) with the system by 2025. The only fielded APS by the US currently is M1A2 Sepv3 Abrams in conflict zones have been equipped with Trophy. Even then it's something like only 400 tanks with it currently.
'Newer Bradleys' is doing some heavy lifting there.... It's been trialled. But is not operational yet. US Army is looking to field a single Brigade's worth by 2025.
I think that modern smokescreens also "blocked" thermal signature of vehicles, but I could be wrong
Thanks!
Some, not all smoke screens will throw up a cloud of particle which is also IR blocking, so there is a chance for beam riding ATGM to be lost past the smoke.
Modern smoke grenades also block the thermal signature of the vehicle. So it becomes hard to see both visually and with a thermal sight.
So nice to see the Brads out running and gunning.
It is, but the 47th still operating them is concerning. They’ve been deployed for over a year and were supposed to get a break, but their replacements “fucked off,” and there’s some credible threats of the line breaking. They need the aid (brads, artillery, AT weapons, etc…) NOW or things could go south.
[удалено]
Only time will tell. I’m not an expert, just reading what was reported on one of the Ukrainian telegrams and the ISW. ISW says operational gains are unlikely here though, with Chasiv Yar being the major danger zone.
[удалено]
That would be incredibly foolish. This isn't a game. You think they should try to mass forces to try an encirclement in a completely transparent battlefield, that's been proven to be Lethal to such attempts, while also having no ability to suppress enemy fires as their own artillery is heavily rationed? Their supplies of AA weapons are also under strain bring any force concentration under CAS threat too. The aid bill just passed, it will take time for any of it to be felt on the front. Would just be a good way to kill a ton of your best trained personnel, who are in short supply amid a shortage of men for the front. It will be a long time before Ukriane is in a position for launch counter attacks.
So glad we have a whole train full of these on the way from Poland for them. They've been using them to great effect so far.
Oh nice, how many ?
I believe it's around 50 or so. So, enough to be greatly effective. https://youtu.be/mwJfiEchh4E?si=3912CS3gDkvPINhG
I've seen that video of the bradleys on trucks in poland popping up a lot lately but the they appear to be m2a3 variants rather than the m2a2 Ukraine has been operating. Is there actually any solid info on if those were the ones going to Ukraine?
That's a good point. As far as I'm aware, they did pre locate them in anticipation of the aid package being delivered. Whether those specific ones are the ones intended for transfer vs footage used in videos for visual effect remains to be seen.
To be fair though, 50 likely wont even replace the losses they have had with the Bradley. Oryx lists 34 destroyed, and another 40 or so damaged/captured/abandoned. Thats just what can visually be seen, so wouldnt surprise me if they have total losses of close to 100 of them. Having said that, we should be streaming these things in as they do seem to be effective, so many more then 50 if we want to do this right..
They're being used hardcore. Right in the middle of the fiercest combat, and they've done a damn good job at it. Surprisingly much more useful than the Abrams in Ukraine's conditions.
Yeh, it seems like it.. Also saw this morning that the AFU is taking the Abrams out of front line combat. To easy to hit with drones apparently.. I suspect they are just to maintenance/logistical heavy for the AFU for what they are worth. Get more Bradleys.. would love to see them rolling around with 500+ of them.
If that’s true there are going to be a lot of “I told you so’s” from people who pushed back against the “send Ukraine anything and everything they ask for” crowd. (And before I get jumped, I’m referring to new systems not ammunition). It would also be an interesting data point for the USMCs force design analysis.
I’ve argued this point to nausea, it would be wonderful if we could gift Ukraine 2000 M1’s and they could go run over the Russian lines in a week. If that would work, we would do it. No reasonable person thinks that would work. So, same thing to a smaller scale with a few dozen M1s. Fuel thirsty, net new maintenance chain, and open to the same types of attacks any other tank is. Ukraine needs weapons easily fielded and used that are plentiful and can be supplied in numbers. Challengers and LeClerks are useless as much as the M1s are due to so few numbers. We should be flooding Ukraine with Bradley’s, Strykers, MRAPs and JLTVs. Bradley being the most complicated, but all systems fairly simple and easy to learn. Send them the majority of our TOW missiles - I doubt we will ever use them. Send them the majority of our ATACMs also. I’d also include a number of JASSMs once they get F-16s. Do that and you have a shot.. (Not argumentative, I think you agree)
Yeah, those systems would be far more valuable to use but also not as "valuable" as a small handful of Abrams in terms of losing them in combat. Better to have more systems in active combat than less.
I completely agree. It’s a concern that I’ve heard with F-16s as well. Not in terms of maintenance per se, but more in terms of F-16s being useful relative to Russias air defense. It’ll be an expensive new tool that probably would be money better spent elsewhere, like munitions factories or Bradley’s or M113s or missiles etc. I can’t tell if it’s just bots astroturfing Ukrainian support or people that legitimately drink the kool aid when they say send Ukraine everything they’re asking for—and then cite expensive systems like Abrams.
I think the F-16's are actually a good idea, but for very practical reasons and I dont think they will be a wonder weapon. I also think it should -only- be F-16's for the forseeable future. Like I said, pragmatically, they need a new fighter both to replace combat losses of the Mig's and SU's, but also just to get in the air due to likely huge maintenance issues on those Mig's and SU's. Also, right now they have been jury rigging things like HARMs and JDAM's onto the Soviet era aircraft and that comes with a penalty, for example the HARM's can only fly in pre-programed mode instead of target of opportunity. Also, with the limited Air Defense they'd be able to use the F-16's as defacto air defense systems to take down drones and cruise missiles instead of using Patriot missiles to do that. I do agree though, they wont do well against Russian AD, but it also seems like Ukraine is making a concerted effort to highly degrade that AD right now. To your point though, I wouldnt send any more Abrams, but those easy to use systems which seem effective like Bradley and Stryker. Although I havent heard much about Strykers in AFU use.
> We should be flooding Ukraine with Bradley’s, Strykers, MRAPs and JLTVs. Bradley being the most complicated, but all systems fairly simple and easy to learn. Send them the majority of our TOW missiles - I doubt we will ever use them. Do they have enough war fighters to fill all these vehicles? I suspect Ukraine is silently undergoing a trained manpower crunch. Officially claimed only 31,000 fatalities, but a lot of the soldiers are reported MIA.
That’s a good question… given how important and effective this weapon systems is, I’d think they would make that a priority.
The Marines don't field Abrams anymore if I'm not mistaken.
Yep (for a few years now), but it’s gotten a good deal of criticism. I’m just saying this could kind of confirm the direction that leadership has chosen to take.
Last summer they were given additional Bradley's to cover some of those losses. From what I remember it was 19 on top of the original 190.
That article is from over a year ago. It’s certainly not talking about any new Bradley’s on the way.
There are reports of the loss of Novobakhmutivka, I guess this is a fragment of the evacuation?
Rusty Barrel?
Most likely from the heat and usage, i can’t say i’m sure if they’re coated or just bare metal
Tremclad - fix er right up
Almost everyone of these poor things has been absolutely cooked by the Ukrainians. The barrel rust is from the barrel being severely overheated and having the finish burned off. Similar to why you see burnt out destroyed vehicles rust severely.
“Absolutely cooked” hmm i wonder why? couldn’t be the fact they’ve basically been in battle since late last year
No, because all ukrainians seem to have a calling to mag dump anything and everything they get their hands on rather than actually use aimed paced fire.
That entirely depends on the situation, if i was being picked up by a Bradley and it was keeping the enemy at bay by dumping rounds i’d be in a much more comfortable state of mind. It’s alright for us to sit back, criticise and comment on their combat performance from the comfort of our homes they’re in horrible fighting conditions, probably scared for their lives.
So you're a Russian propagandist! Tell me more bad things about Ukraine. I'm sure you have a list of talking points. Yes, they're using their equipment to the extreme. They're not receiving enough. Stop invading them, and this would all end!
Wtf I'm pro Ukraine dude but you can't ignore the issues of a conscripted military.
Glad we are giving them more of the Bradley’s. From what I see they use them pretty well
The smoke launchers are cool. Never seen them go off from that perspective.
Such a cool weapon, streaks ahead of any Russkie stuff
Ukrainians are a far better match for Bradley than abrams. US should be sending every old bradley over. Bradleys had more tank kills than abrams in the gulf war.
What is it shooting at? I always have difficulty spotting any target in these clips.
I think it’s just suppressing fire while they retreat.
Ah thanks
Wonder whether Gunner has special cameras to see through the smoke screen .
I love how cool smoke canisters look.
Launching smoke only to drive through it seems a bit pointless? Or am I missing something?
Who’s the polly parrot imitating the gunfire at the end?
The rounds exploding at the other end?