M2 Bradley Vs. The BMP Series - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M2 Bradley Vs. The BMP Series (Page 2 of 8)

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:12:44 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
It was 1991-1993 during my conscript service in BG army. I can compare it only to BTR-60 and MTLB,only other IFVs which i have seen first hand.It's superrior to both ,of course.
Generally,BMP-23 like most of other comblock stuff ,was well designed and poor executed. Combine this with insufficient maintenance and the picture is not very funny.Parts missing,short of batteries ..
I'm convinced a well produced and maintained BMP in a hand of professional solders will be a scariest machine.
BUT anyway, I can confirm-riding an BMP offroad ,somewhere in a country ,is a LOT OF FUN .

I'll bet it was - thanks for responding.

Posted: 8/30/2011 3:37:26 AM EDT

[#2]

I always thought German Marders were pretty well done IFVs.

Posted: 8/30/2011 8:47:21 AM EDT

[#3]

I get to play in Bradleys. Pretty fun to shoot the 25mm.

Posted: 8/30/2011 8:58:43 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
But consider the BMP came out well before the M2, it was a great concept well executed.

I agree. Considering the BMP-1 was the Soviets version of our M-113, I'd rather have the BMP as well. The 113 might be roomier, but the BMP had far more firepower.

Posted: 8/30/2011 9:36:41 AM EDT

[#5]

thread needs more BMP-3 pics...

Posted: 8/30/2011 9:40:47 AM EDT

[#6]

Which BMP?

BMP1 vs M2? M2 all the way
BMP2 vs M2? M2 the vast majority of times, unless it's a ambush
BMP3 vs M2? 50/50 shot, the bmp3 is a amazing piece of machinery, and with the current active defense system , the m2 may have a hard time getting a kill.

Also , remember the only kill from the Iraqis in the battle of 73 easting was on a M2 fired from a BMP-1 resulting in one KIA and several WIA. So, the M2 isn't some sort of magical vehicle that will avoid all casualties.

Posted: 8/30/2011 9:47:36 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
thread needs more BMP-3 pics...

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/3746/423411f.jpg

http://www.armyrecognition.com/magazine/sample_photos/BMP-3F_russia_armyrecognition_Copyright_079.JPG

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bmp3/arena_big.jpg

Great photos - thanks!

BTW what is that small tube like protrustion over the fender of the right track (left hand side looking at the photo)? It looks like one of those front hull mounted machineguns they had on Shermans and other WW2 tanks.

ETA: According to Wiki the BMP-3 has 2 forward hull mounted machineguns so that may indeed be one of them. I thought those had gone the way of the Dodo bird.

Posted: 8/30/2011 9:53:19 AM EDT

[#8]

the russians found out very quickly the bmp sucks.... especially when the fuel tanks are in the rear troop doors. pretty much anything armor piercing will take them out from the ass end.

Posted: 8/30/2011 9:54:30 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Bradley for the win. A BMP was the shit in its day but now all it is , is a cooker for troops unlucky enough to ride in it.

I was under the understanding neither could take a moden rpg?

Dont the latest generation of Bradleys have reactive armor? At least according to this they do. I am not sure I was reading up on it and that is the way I take it.

M2A3 Bradley

i saw a bradley in iraq take a efp ied. the reactive armor saved the vehicle and the crew...

Posted: 8/30/2011 9:55:36 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

thread needs more BMP-3 pics...

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/3746/423411f.jpg

http://www.armyrecognition.com/magazine/sample_photos/BMP-3F_russia_armyrecognition_Copyright_079.JPG

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bmp3/arena_big.jpg

Great photos - thanks!

BTW what is that small tube like protrustion over the fender of the right track (left hand side looking at the photo)? It looks like one of those front hull mounted machineguns they had on Shermans and other WW2 tanks.

ETA: According to Wiki the BMP-3 has 2 forward hull mounted machineguns so that may indeed be one of them. I thought those had gone the way of the Dodo bird.

they can also be swapped out for 30mm grenade launchers

Posted: 8/30/2011 9:57:49 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
I bet BMPs are the shit if you' re 5'7".

4'7"

Posted: 8/30/2011 9:58:21 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

I always thought German Marders were pretty well done IFVs.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Allemagne/vehicules_legers/Marder/Marder_ISAF_Germany_08022007_news_001.jpg

And the Puma which is replacing it:

If I were a third-world dictator, and just needed IFVs to crush domestic uprisings, Com-Bloc would be fine. But if I cared about fighting external opponents, its gonna be a new or refurbed Western products.

Posted: 8/30/2011 10:16:40 AM EDT

[#13]

When I went through the Bradley portion of ADA OBC (1996) we were still using M2A1s. No swim vane, but it still had the manual range dial for the gun. Oh how I loved sitting in a UCOFT for hours on end with one hand on the gun controls and one arm resting on top of my head to reach the range knob. The schoolhouse also had one brand new M2 ODS with the laser range finder, etc... It was like a whole different world.

The current generation of Brads is even better. Better optics, thermals, a jammer for radion guided SACLOS ATGMs, FBCB2/BFT, better armor...

The BMP-3 is not in the same league. We tried the gun launched ATGM thing before, and we ditched it for good reason. Bushamster plus TOW launcher is far superior to the extra weight and maintenance required by the BMP3s coax on steroids setup.

Posted: 8/30/2011 10:16:54 AM EDT

[#14]

Dismounts with Javelin.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:03:23 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Also , remember the only kill from the Iraqis in the battle of 73 easting was on a M2 fired from a BMP-1 resulting in one KIA and several WIA. So, the M2 isn't some sort of magical vehicle that will avoid all casualties.

What I do remember from the battle of 73 Easting was that 160 Iraqi Tanks and 180 Iraqi APC's were destroyed with one US IFV casualty. I'm not sure how this battle can be used to effectively demonstrate the vulnerabilities of the Bradley.

If you wanted to illustrate the flaws of the vehicle you might want to look at their performance in Iraq vs IED and EFP strikes. They had a nasty habit of burning to the ground rather quickly.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:14:19 PM EDT

[#16]

BMP-3 > Bradley

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:17:00 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
BMP-3 > Bradley

Based on what?

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:17:23 PM EDT

[#18]

I don't understand why we continue to compare the Iraqi turd armor to Russian armor? Iraqi's had Bmp1's, piss poor training, and equipment that did not work. Some examples; ammunition not being fully loaded (not enough powder in the shells), guns not calibrated, few to no modern AT rockets, and the list goes on. It is no wounder our hero's in the armed service beat them like an ugly step child. It be like a fight between mike Tyson and a 3 year old.
Modern BMP's with well trained troops Vs. modern Bradley's with well trained troops? What are the adantages and disadvantages of each system?

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:18:58 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
BMP-3 > Bradley

Based on what?

Badassatry

Actually, CV90 > BMP-3 > Bradley

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:20:19 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Also , remember the only kill from the Iraqis in the battle of 73 easting was on a M2 fired from a BMP-1 resulting in one KIA and several WIA. So, the M2 isn't some sort of magical vehicle that will avoid all casualties.

What I do remember from the battle of 73 Easting was that 160 Iraqi Tanks and 180 Iraqi APC's were destroyed with one US IFV casualty. I'm not sure how this battle can be used to effectively demonstrate the vulnerabilities of the Bradley.

If you wanted to illustrate the flaws of the vehicle you might want to look at their performance in Iraq vs IED and EFP strikes. They had a nasty habit of burning to the ground rather quickly.

My point was that even a BMP1 can get a lucky shot and disable a M2 , not saying that BMPs are superior in any way shape or form, however with enough armored units something is bound to get hit.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:21:42 PM EDT

[#21]

This Thread needs more LAV!

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:21:44 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
BMP-3 > Bradley

Based on what?

Badassatry

Actually, CV90 > BMP-3 > Bradley

CV90 is a very amazing vehicle.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:25:18 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Also , remember the only kill from the Iraqis in the battle of 73 easting was on a M2 fired from a BMP-1 resulting in one KIA and several WIA. So, the M2 isn't some sort of magical vehicle that will avoid all casualties.

What I do remember from the battle of 73 Easting was that 160 Iraqi Tanks and 180 Iraqi APC's were destroyed with one US IFV casualty. I'm not sure how this battle can be used to effectively demonstrate the vulnerabilities of the Bradley.

If you wanted to illustrate the flaws of the vehicle you might want to look at their performance in Iraq vs IED and EFP strikes. They had a nasty habit of burning to the ground rather quickly.

My point was that even a BMP1 can get a lucky shot and disable a M2 , not saying that BMPs are superior in any way shape or form, however with enough armored units something is bound to get hit.

Not to take anything away from our brave troops. The Iraqi armor had piss poor training, guns that couldn't hit there targets, no thermal gear, no modern AT rockets, no command and control, and the list goes on. Try that Vs. a military with good training, modern euipment, and good command and control.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:26:12 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

My point was that even a BMP1 can get a lucky shot and disable a M2 , not saying that BMPs are superior in any way shape or form, however with enough armored units something is bound to get hit.

That's still an insane amount of kills vs loss, and the bradley system has improved exponentially over the past 20 years while the BMP has virtually remained stagnant.

Anyone that thinks the BMP-3 is something to be feared need only look at numbers produced. The ability for a nation to produce significant numbers of a weapon system is just as valuable a variable in overall effectiveness as anything else. At this point the BMP-3 and it's ammo is a novelty item to the Russian military.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:28:46 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
thread needs more BMP-3 pics...

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/3746/423411f.jpg

http://www.armyrecognition.com/magazine/sample_photos/BMP-3F_russia_armyrecognition_Copyright_079.JPG

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bmp3/arena_big.jpg

Are the bow machine guns remote controlled or manually controlled? Doesn't look like a lot of space for a gunner to get behind it. Also, the field of fire must be incredibly limited on a setup like that

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:29:11 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
This Thread needs more LAV!

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:30:48 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

My point was that even a BMP1 can get a lucky shot and disable a M2 , not saying that BMPs are superior in any way shape or form, however with enough armored units something is bound to get hit.

That's still an insane amount of kills vs loss, and the bradley system has improved exponentially over the past 20 years while the BMP has virtually remained stagnant.

Anyone that thinks the BMP-3 is something to be feared need only look at numbers produced. The ability for a nation to produce significant numbers of a weapon system is just as valuable a variable in overall effectiveness as anything else. At this point the BMP-3 and it's ammo is a novelty item to the Russian military.

You're right, however the question is if a limited scale conflict would arise, could they bring things like the bmp3 to bear? I think in a limited scale, they could do it, however on a large scale conflict (Russia vs China perhaps) it would make no difference in the wide scale of things.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:32:32 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

My point was that even a BMP1 can get a lucky shot and disable a M2 , not saying that BMPs are superior in any way shape or form, however with enough armored units something is bound to get hit.

That's still an insane amount of kills vs loss, and the bradley system has improved exponentially over the past 20 years while the BMP has virtually remained stagnant.

Anyone that thinks the BMP-3 is something to be feared need only look at numbers produced. The ability for a nation to produce significant numbers of a weapon system is just as valuable a variable in overall effectiveness as anything else. At this point the BMP-3 and it's ammo is a novelty item to the Russian military.

You're right, however the question is if a limited scale conflict would arise, could they bring things like the bmp3 to bear? I think in a limited scale, they could do it, however on a large scale conflict (Russia vs China perhaps) it would make no difference in the wide scale of things.

I never heard of any going into Georgia.

I'm fairly certain the Russians can't afford to manufacture or maintain them, and only see them as a way to make money on the export market.

It also only holds 5 infantrymen as opposed to 6 in the Bradley, with much less space allocated for things like body armor, and being that it was introduced some time ago (1987), the tech upgrades on it are already slipping past modern western IFV's. It's an amazing machine for the soviets, and a mediocre one for us.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:33:26 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
BMP-3 > Bradley

Based on what?

Badassatry

Actually, CV90 > BMP-3 > Bradley

I'm not a Mech Infantry type so you're going to have to help me. I think all 3 of those are 'bad-assed' IFVs, what criteria do you use to rank them?

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:35:10 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This Thread needs more LAV!

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Larry-Vickers-The-LAV.jpg

Now it needs some Sponge Bob.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:38:02 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

My point was that even a BMP1 can get a lucky shot and disable a M2 , not saying that BMPs are superior in any way shape or form, however with enough armored units something is bound to get hit.

That's still an insane amount of kills vs loss, and the bradley system has improved exponentially over the past 20 years while the BMP has virtually remained stagnant.

Anyone that thinks the BMP-3 is something to be feared need only look at numbers produced. The ability for a nation to produce significant numbers of a weapon system is just as valuable a variable in overall effectiveness as anything else. At this point the BMP-3 and it's ammo is a novelty item to the Russian military.

Wait what? Do you remember the no export EG T-72's we captured when the wall came down? They could Penetrate the M1's armor at almost the same exact range we could there's. The Russian's produced lots of T-72's...stop comparing the export crap to the non export eqiupment.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:43:23 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

My point was that even a BMP1 can get a lucky shot and disable a M2 , not saying that BMPs are superior in any way shape or form, however with enough armored units something is bound to get hit.

That's still an insane amount of kills vs loss, and the bradley system has improved exponentially over the past 20 years while the BMP has virtually remained stagnant.

Anyone that thinks the BMP-3 is something to be feared need only look at numbers produced. The ability for a nation to produce significant numbers of a weapon system is just as valuable a variable in overall effectiveness as anything else. At this point the BMP-3 and it's ammo is a novelty item to the Russian military.

Wait what? Do you remember the no export EG T-72's we captured when the wall came down? They could Penetrate the M1's armor at almost the same exact range we could there's. The Russian's produced lots of T-72's...stop comparing the export crap to the non export eqiupment.

Where in that post did I compare export equipment to non? I also stated that the BMP has stagnated, I did not comment on anything else....i'm not sure who was talking about T-72's, but you may need to slow it down a bit.

The fact remains that there are less than 700 BMP-3's in service in Russia (I would guess less than half being operational right now), with only around 2000 being used worldwide. For a vehicle introduced in 1987 and with a military as large as the Russian army that is very telling. The US has produced over 4600 Bradleys since they were introduced just 6 years prior to the BMP-3. Nobody has seen the BMP-3 in action either, while the Bradley has over 10 years on wartime service.

The vast majority of IFV's in service in Russia are BMP 1's and 2's, which are almost the same models that have been using for 30 years.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:47:07 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Wait what? Do you remember the no export EG T-72's we captured when the wall came down? They could Penetrate the M1's armor at almost the same exact range we could there's. The Russian's produced lots of T-72's...stop comparing the export crap to the non export eqiupment.

Wait, what?

M1A1's can't penemtrate the frontal armor fo another M1 at point blank range.

I think you mean M60's.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:49:13 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:

My point was that even a BMP1 can get a lucky shot and disable a M2 , not saying that BMPs are superior in any way shape or form, however with enough armored units something is bound to get hit.

That's still an insane amount of kills vs loss, and the bradley system has improved exponentially over the past 20 years while the BMP has virtually remained stagnant.

Anyone that thinks the BMP-3 is something to be feared need only look at numbers produced. The ability for a nation to produce significant numbers of a weapon system is just as valuable a variable in overall effectiveness as anything else. At this point the BMP-3 and it's ammo is a novelty item to the Russian military.

You're right, however the question is if a limited scale conflict would arise, could they bring things like the bmp3 to bear? I think in a limited scale, they could do it, however on a large scale conflict (Russia vs China perhaps) it would make no difference in the wide scale of things.

I never heard of any going into Georgia.

I'm fairly certain the Russians can't afford to manufacture or maintain them, and only see them as a way to make money on the export market.

It also only holds 5 infantrymen as opposed to 6 in the Bradley, with much less space allocated for things like body armor, and being that it was introduced some time ago (1987), the tech upgrades on it are already slipping past modern western IFV's. It's an amazing machine for the soviets, and a mediocre one for us.

Now , considering everything, how do you think South Korea's BMP3s will work in combat?

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:50:03 PM EDT

[#35]

Any BMP variant or the Bradley will be effective against zombies.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:50:41 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Wait what? Do you remember the no export EG T-72's we captured when the wall came down? They could Penetrate the M1's armor at almost the same exact range we could there's. The Russian's produced lots of T-72's...stop comparing the export crap to the non export eqiupment.

Wait, what?

M1A1's can't penemtrate the frontal armor fo another M1 at point blank range.

I think you mean M60's.

When the wall came down the actual general consensus of the status of Russian military equipment was that we overestimated their abilities by a longshot. A T-72 or even T-90 (a new T-72) can't even see an Abrams before the Abrams is able to effectively engage.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:52:15 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Wait what? Do you remember the no export EG T-72's we captured when the wall came down? They could Penetrate the M1's armor at almost the same exact range we could there's. The Russian's produced lots of T-72's...stop comparing the export crap to the non export eqiupment.

Wait, what?

M1A1's can't penemtrate the frontal armor fo another M1 at point blank range.

I think you mean M60's.

nope I mean M1a's and yes an M1a can penetrate and m1a can penetrate another

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:52:49 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Wait what? Do you remember the no export EG T-72's we captured when the wall came down? They could Penetrate the M1's armor at almost the same exact range we could there's. The Russian's produced lots of T-72's...stop comparing the export crap to the non export eqiupment.

Wait, what?

M1A1's can't penemtrate the frontal armor fo another M1 at point blank range.

I think you mean M60's.

M1s with the old 105mm gun would not have been able to penetrate the frontal armor of the T72 from most ranges, the 125mm cannon never has been able to penetrate the m1's front armor on any model. However on the m60 it could penetrate the armor out to quite a distance.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:53:04 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

My point was that even a BMP1 can get a lucky shot and disable a M2 , not saying that BMPs are superior in any way shape or form, however with enough armored units something is bound to get hit.

That's still an insane amount of kills vs loss, and the bradley system has improved exponentially over the past 20 years while the BMP has virtually remained stagnant.

Anyone that thinks the BMP-3 is something to be feared need only look at numbers produced. The ability for a nation to produce significant numbers of a weapon system is just as valuable a variable in overall effectiveness as anything else. At this point the BMP-3 and it's ammo is a novelty item to the Russian military.

Wait what? Do you remember the no export EG T-72's we captured when the wall came down? They could Penetrate the M1's armor at almost the same exact range we could there's. The Russian's produced lots of T-72's...stop comparing the export crap to the non export eqiupment.

Where in that post did I compare export equipment to non? I also stated that the BMP has stagnated, I did not comment on anything else....i'm not sure who was talking about T-72's, but you may need to slow it down a bit.

The fact remains that there are less than 700 BMP-3's in service in Russia (I would guess less than half being operational right now), with only around 2000 being used worldwide. For a vehicle introduced in 1987 and with a military as large as the Russian army that is very telling. The US has produced over 4600 Bradleys since they were introduced just 6 years prior to the BMP-3. Nobody has seen the BMP-3 in action either, while the Bradley has over 10 years on wartime service.

The vast majority of IFV's in service in Russia are BMP 1's and 2's, which are almost the same models that have been using for 30 years.

Quoted the wrong person

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:53:20 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Any BMP variant or the Bradley will be effective against zombies.

True, but I'd prefer a Stryker as I'd hate to throw a track in the middle of a horde of zombies. Losing a tire and you can keep going.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:53:54 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Now , considering everything, how do you think South Korea's BMP3s will work in combat?

I think they will work well for the Koreans, but the vehicle is still designed to be a lot less survivable than the Bradley, which is similar overall with all combloc equipment. Dismounts can't wear body armor and it still isn't easy to rapidly dismount a vehicle when you are stacked in and folded in half.

Posted: 8/30/2011 2:56:54 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

nope I mean M1a's and yes an M1a can penetrate and m1a can penetrate another

I do not know exactly if a US APFSDS can, but the T-72 definitely cannot penetrate the frontal armor of an Abrams.

Posted: 8/30/2011 3:12:08 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

M1s with the old 105mm gun would not have been able to penetrate the frontal armor of the T72 from most ranges, the 125mm cannon never has been able to penetrate the m1's front armor on any model. However on the m60 it could penetrate the armor out to quite a distance.

I know that is incorrect, there was atleast one 105mm equipped M1 battalion from 1st ID that fought in ODS. A friend of mine was a XO in one of the companies. His tanks were able to do numerous through and through from front to back on a T72.

Posted: 8/30/2011 3:16:15 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

M1s with the old 105mm gun would not have been able to penetrate the frontal armor of the T72 from most ranges, the 125mm cannon never has been able to penetrate the m1's front armor on any model. However on the m60 it could penetrate the armor out to quite a distance.

I know that is incorrect, there was atleast one 105mm equipped M1 battalion from 1st ID that fought in ODS. A friend of mine was a XO in one of the companies. His tanks were able to do numerous through and through from front to back on a T72.

I think Shockergd means the Soviet T-72s (same type used by the East Germans) not the 'monkey models' they sold to clients. The 105 will unquestionablly kill monkey models.

Posted: 8/30/2011 3:18:33 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

My point was that even a BMP1 can get a lucky shot and disable a M2 , not saying that BMPs are superior in any way shape or form, however with enough armored units something is bound to get hit.

That's still an insane amount of kills vs loss, and the bradley system has improved exponentially over the past 20 years while the BMP has virtually remained stagnant.

Anyone that thinks the BMP-3 is something to be feared need only look at numbers produced. The ability for a nation to produce significant numbers of a weapon system is just as valuable a variable in overall effectiveness as anything else. At this point the BMP-3 and it's ammo is a novelty item to the Russian military.

Wait what? Do you remember the no export EG T-72's we captured when the wall came down? They could Penetrate the M1's armor at almost the same exact range we could there's. The Russian's produced lots of T-72's...stop comparing the export crap to the non export eqiupment.

Fuck Russia... k

Posted: 8/30/2011 3:20:33 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

M1s with the old 105mm gun would not have been able to penetrate the frontal armor of the T72 from most ranges, the 125mm cannon never has been able to penetrate the m1's front armor on any model. However on the m60 it could penetrate the armor out to quite a distance.

I know that is incorrect, there was atleast one 105mm equipped M1 battalion from 1st ID that fought in ODS. A friend of mine was a XO in one of the companies. His tanks were able to do numerous through and through from front to back on a T72.

I think Shockergd means the Soviet T-72s (same type used by the East Germans) not the 'monkey models' they sold to clients. The 105 will unquestionablly kill monkey models.

The M900 was specifically designed to kill T64 and 72s at operational ranges and a through and through indicated more penetration capability than the ability to just killl a "monkey model"

Posted: 8/30/2011 3:21:04 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Now , considering everything, how do you think South Korea's BMP3s will work in combat?

I think they will work well for the Koreans, but the vehicle is still designed to be a lot less survivable than the Bradley, which is similar overall with all combloc equipment. Dismounts can't wear body armor and it still isn't easy to rapidly dismount a vehicle when you are stacked in and folded in half.

i'm curious why when the UAE did IFV trials, they went with the BMP-3 over the M2. iirc, the M2 hasnt come out ahead in any of the IFV trials it has participated in...

Posted: 8/30/2011 3:23:43 PM EDT

[#48]

BMP-3 is pretty badass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymJhvU0Iz1M

Posted: 8/30/2011 3:28:31 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Both seem to be very capable infantry fighting vehicles. Both seem to have pretty decent weapon systems. A main gun capable of taking out thin armor, reducing cover to concealment, and even taking out larger armor assets at close range. Both have a AT missile, although I think the TOW system has proven to be a better AT missile/system. I do think the BMP series tends to have a real nice advantage of being completely amphibious. Any thoughts on the pluses and minuses of each fighting vehicle?

M2 will own a BMP 1 and 2....3 might have a chance, but not with a 2 or 3rd world crew....

This.

Posted: 8/30/2011 4:18:54 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

M1s with the old 105mm gun would not have been able to penetrate the frontal armor of the T72 from most ranges, the 125mm cannon never has been able to penetrate the m1's front armor on any model. However on the m60 it could penetrate the armor out to quite a distance.

I know that is incorrect, there was atleast one 105mm equipped M1 battalion from 1st ID that fought in ODS. A friend of mine was a XO in one of the companies. His tanks were able to do numerous through and through from front to back on a T72.

I think Shockergd means the Soviet T-72s (same type used by the East Germans) not the 'monkey models' they sold to clients. The 105 will unquestionablly kill monkey models.

The M900 was specifically designed to kill T64 and 72s at operational ranges and a through and through indicated more penetration capability than the ability to just killl a "monkey model"

The m900 was deployed in 1989 , a full 18 years after the first T72 saw deployment. From my understanding the first generation rounds for the M1 utilizing the 105mm cannon could only penetrate roughly 300mm RHA equivalent of armor, the T72 has around 600mm-700mm depending on who you talk to for frontal RHA equivalent.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M2 Bradley Vs. The BMP Series (Page 2 of 8)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us